I wasn't there, but if that didn't happen it shouldn't be in the article, which also captions one of its photos "Demonstrators were prepared for water cannon. " That COULD be meant to indicate they just happened to have some protection because it was rainy, but that's not mentioned in the article, and in the context of what IS mentioned (water cannon fired at protesters) the implication is that, first time or not, the crowd expected their use was at least very likely. I mean, why buy vehicles with water cannon you'll never use?

Based on the article it's very hard to say if the cannon were justified, though the way I read the article they were expected, justified or not. Which makes what happened to the children even more inexcusable; it should take more than 3:1 odds for pre-teens to overrun armed police in vehicles, so you shouldn't need water cannon to prevent it. However, the minister who cited parental responsibility also has a point; whether the parents brought them or they arrived on their own they had no business being there since it seems something like this wasn't unexpected. They're kids. That they might choose to attend a potentially dangerous protest (which, ultimately, is all of them, because it only takes one agent provocateur to provide an excuse to bust heads) is an excellent example of why they have parents to say they can't. Of course, it's quite possible at least some parents didn't know their kids were there. However, if parents don't know where their 10 year olds are, that's not really the governments fault, though obviously any violent government action against children very much is.

Very sad, and the government, by all appearances, very much overreacted. The parents, however, still share some of the blame. If the kids had been caught in a drive by at a crack house I'd feel the same way: The bulk of the blame lies with those who injured them, but their parents bear some of it for not keeping a close enough eye on their kids that they don't end up in that situation to begin.