According to Nick Herbert there was an incorrect balance between allowing protest and tackling the violence seen during the student tuition fees demonstration that took place at Millbank tower in central London.
He also takes an optimistic view by saying that there are lessons to be learnt from this attack that saw protesters injure 40 officers and they are well equipped to deal with future demonstrations of this nature in a bid to reassure politicians (cough) ooppps I mean the public who in no way have any sympathy for the demonstrations.
Lets face it these demonstrations are supported secretly by a large chunk of the population even if they support austerity.
Yes abolish the non-degrees we are finding popping up everywhere, but we need our talented youngsters to flourish in order to look after us in our old age and pay off our debt (Cough! Cough!) ooppps I mean to rebuild Britain.
Okay satire aside there is more to this 'misjudgement' than meets the eye.
I have spoken to several police officers in confidedence and there is rumour aplenty that the proposed 20% cuts to the police force may have been a contributing factor to the incorrect balance of freedom of speech and returning the scene to order.
For once the police and protesters both have the same problem.
The reason given for the lack of provision to deal with the violence is that there was a small core of protesters who hijacked the protest and why this was not anticipated.
Yes that is a very good question.
Why is it that a core of angry demonstrators would turn up to fan the flames of dissatisfaction into a frenzy?
After all who would have thought that demonstrators in their late teens and early 20s with hormones raging through them about to be lumbered with extra debt before they can even think about their studies could possibly be motivated into violence?
Could it be that the police didn't get it wrong and instead just turned their heads the wrong way to the violence whilst at the same time havingÂ to 'be seen' to react?