Student demontrations - I don't get it.

As a kid if I wanted more pocket money off my Dad I sucked up to him, behaved myself and did extra chores around the house. That is how capitalism works. You are rewarded for doing good.
So, why, if the students want something from the Government do they think that behaving like hooligans and smashing up public buildings that I, a taxpayer, will have to pay to be repaired, will get them what they want? They don't pay taxes as students, so it doesn't affect them. Well it will now, because the governments pockets are empty, so they will either spend money on repairing the treasury or buy more grit to treat the roads but not both. It is not possible to get a quart out of a litre pot.
Of course I doubt that the students themselves are responsible for the damage to the Treasury or Prince Charles limo, that would be down to "Rent-a-mob" the anarchist faction that arrive at all demos seeking to have a poke at authority and "the system." These are the same people who have ruined the game of kick the ball, and who caused the violence at Poll Tax protests, fuel protests and the G8 summit, and who are ban the bomb, anti-everything just to further their own ends. In fact had the protest march been arranged for the morning it is unlikely anyone would have turned up at all. The Students would still be in bed and the violent protest professionals would have been there on their own, and would not have acted, because there are only a small minority of them who usually start the trouble then melt into the background and let some schmuck take the fall for them. The same thing can be seen on a smaller scale at every pub fight.
But lets get to the bones of this protest - students are protesting because the Government has voted to increase tuition fees. Okay, I agree this is wrong. The universities should set their own fees and let market forces dictate the price. The better the university, the better the quality of tuition and the better your chances of success. Therefore Oxbridge could charge £10,000 per year and Hull would charge £3.50. Why the students think they have a right to "free" education is beyond me. They are academicals who want to study and will go on to very well paid careers, or in some cases will get a non-degree in some obscure subject and will go on to a successful management career in McDonalds. Good luck to them. But the less gifted in society get no such subsidised education to help in their chosen career. A Heavy Goods driver for example; he will spend perhaps £3000 to £6000 of his own money in fees to pass his driving test. Does the government interfere in the costs of this tuition, or provide grants or loans to assist in his vocational aspirations? No, and rightly so.
Why the big emphasis on a University education anyway? Look at how many do inappropriate degrees and then struggle to gain employment thereafter. All their degree shows is that they have a capacity to learn. In the same way a sponge has the capacity to soak up water. I would not employ a damp sponge.
My father, a driving instructor once had a highly educated engineering student who could explain in great detail how a clutch worked, he would discuss at length the torque forces involved in transmitting the rotational power of the reciprocating cylinder engine via the gearbox to the drive axle, and could detail the metallurgy of the various components in the drive train, what heat and sound losses were involved and how inefficient the whole system was - but he could not change gear. In short he could talk the talk but couldn't walk the walk. This is often typical of those with "higher" education. Those of uneducated blokes like what I is, go straight from school to doing a job, learning on the job and have the hands on ability to progress much further, but are thwarted by the system which appoints those with degrees and no clue of reality into management posts above us, making decisions which affect the running of companies and organisations without ever having done the job themselves. I include Government in that observation. It would be better to close all the universities and let the doers do, and the thinkers think, or at least think they are thinking.
Ah, but it's not fair that the rich can afford education, and the poor can't, bleat the bleeding heart socialists. Yes, you're right it's not. Life isn't fair. Get used to it and move on. The idea that we are all born equal is bullshit. Some are born into privileged and monied backgrounds and get a bald head and a weak chin but a fleet of Mercedes to help them pull women, whilst all I got was a sense of humour and a pot belly. Some will inherit a huge estate in the country, in my case that would be my dads ageing Volvo, abandoned in the snow in rural North Yorkshire.
And so to the rights to protest. The students of course have the right to lawful protest. Prince Charles has the right to freedom of movement and to drive through London in his Limo to visit the Theatre. The two should be compatible. Right to protest does not include the rights to infringe on others rights. Trespass and burglary of the treasury, criminal damage and obstruction of the highway are all unlawful acts. The reports that Charles car was driven through the protesters is ridiculous - the protesters shouldn't have been on the road - they were acting illegally in obstructing the highway.
Perhaps the students should study (although many won't understand that word) the footage of the demonstration held by Police Officers in 2008 against the pay cuts they faced. This was a truly democratic protest, a silent march, no slogans, no shouting, no violence and no arrests made, despite some hostile photographers trying to provoke a reaction by ramming cameras literally inches from officers faces.
So returning to my opening analogy, I wanted more pocket money but I have now behaved badly, broken a window and upset close friends of my dad. Will I get what I wanted - more pocket money? I doubt it. And I doubt the students will achieve their aims.