ForumGarden

Lon;1364660 wrote: "Later, the Prime Minister also described the apparent hit-and-run killing of three men in Birmingham who were trying to protect shops from looters as a 'truly dreadful incident' and offered his condolences to their families."

Read more: UK RIOTS 2011: Manchester and Midlands burn but London is 'under control' | Mail Online


The Prime Minister Is a pillock.

Maybe government cutbacks and restrictions within the police force would have saved a lot of this In the first place.?

I hope to god this brings about a snap election and we can get rid of the whole corrupt bunch of them.

Let me be perfectly clear on when I believe LOOTERS should be shot. I don't think individuals should be shot for simply being in the streets, however, if they are in the process of torching a building or breaking plate glass windows, leaving a building with stolen goods---------SHOOT THEM.

Property in my opinion is an extension of the individual or individuals that built or own the property. To invade and damage one is like invading the other.

Bryn Mawr;1364499 wrote:

The killing might have been the trigger but now it is pent up anger followed by opportunistic grabbing for anything of value they can get..


HA! copycats. We invented that during the L.A. Riots.:p

Maybe one of the reasons is that many people feel that they no longer have to take responsibility for their actions. It seems to be commonplace to blame someone/something else.

So, if someone chooses to riot and loot, it's not really their fault.

So, if someone chooses to riot and loot, it's not really their fault.


You mean that's their point of view, right?

YZGI;1364634 wrote: Wow, talk about deflecting.

We're having riots in England but aren't we glad we're not in America having riots? Because we know American riots are much worse tsk.tsk. Those gun toting Americans are just so un-evolved compared to us.



You guys are rioting not us. Figure out you own societal problems and we will deal with ours when they happen.


Now take a look at what those posts were in response to - not "wow look at England having riots" but "shoot the rioters".

It's not deflecting it's shock and horror at the very suggestion.

Lon;1364667 wrote: Let me be perfectly clear on when I believe LOOTERS should be shot. I don't think individuals should be shot for simply being in the streets, however, if they are in the process of torching a building or breaking plate glass windows, leaving a building with stolen goods---------SHOOT THEM.


Lon, I know EXACTLY how you feel. Every time I see rioters turning over some random car and burning it I think, "HEY! That's some poor working person's car! Maybe even an older, sick person who needs it to get to the hospital! You @$$(#^%(#s!!"

But seriously, if we REALLY said it was ok to shoot looters can you imagine the carnage? Sure it might begin as just a couple of real looters caught in the act, but then it would be a he said, she said thing, and eventually it would degenerate to "I thought he was thinking about looting !(but I really shot him 'cause I don't like that race!)"

I would however like to see everyone who is on the streets and can be identified by camera do jail time for a few days to let them think about it. And I don't care if that's 200 to a cell!

Property in my opinion is an extension of the individual or individuals that built or own the property. To invade and damage one is like invading the other.


I also think store owners should be able to shoot anyone who breaks into their store because how do you know they weren't going to kill you for your stuff?

Yes, that's what I meant

Bryn Mawr;1364678 wrote: Now take a look at what those posts were in response to - not "wow look at England having riots" but "shoot the rioters".

It's not deflecting it's shock and horror at the very suggestion.


I see the shock at the suggestion to shoot looters, it does sound very extreme and is. I can't sit here and say "shoot the looters". But at some time if the rioting and looting continues, something other than hoping they get bored with it will have to happen.

gmc;1364661 wrote: It's not a cop out, no one is suggesting they just get away with it but giving the police the right to gun people down is not something any free society with any sense would allow. It's got bugger all to do with human life is more valuable than property. The police should not be given the authority to just shoot people on sight because only an idiot would want to live in the kind of police state where that is allowed.

posted by YZGI



You should really read things through properly before you comment and not make assumptions that commenst are simply somehow anti-american. Lon was making the point that if looters knew they would be shot on sight they are less likely to do so. In the states most americans are armed so presumably any looter can expect the likelihood of being shot by someone defending their property is quite high, since it doesn't seem to make any difference the suggestion that the expectation would curtail the looting doesn't seem to hold does it. Also when americans suggest that the police start shooting people pointing out that that didn't actually work in the states and makes things worse what makes you think it will work here is a valid response.

We don't live in a police state, our police are not armed and haven't been from the creation of the modern police force so that they would not be perceived as an instrument of oppression controlled by the state. We actually have a long tradition of violent protest sometimes that is what it takes to get through to governments. If you look carefully at what the riot police are wearing and carrying you will notice they are tooled up to deal with rioters, even ones chucking fire bombs.

I was actually asking a serious question about why americans don't demonstrate and riot over political issues, you have me thinking it's because they live in fear of the police opening fire on them.

As to ahas caused all this that should keep the pundits going for months to come.


Exactly what political issue is this riot over?

We fear the rioters shooting us more than we fear the police shooting us.

This might slow them down some.

A sense of swelling outrage was pervading not only London but other cities hit by the mayhem and lawlessness. An online petition calling for rioters and looters to lose any government welfare benefits they may have been receiving proved so popular the government web site hosting it crashed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/world ... itain.html

gmc;1364661 wrote:

I was actually asking a serious question about why americans don't demonstrate and riot over political issues, you have me thinking it's because they live in fear of the police opening fire on them.


Great question. Here's the answer: We're not afraid of the police shooting us...we're afraid of us shooting us. Total Civil War. We did that once and we're still licking the wounds. As it is we kill 35,000 of ourselves a year by gunfire.

and that's for stupid reasons! Can you imagine what would happen if we opened fire on ourselves for political reasons?

YZGI;1364697 wrote: Exactly what political issue is this riot over?

We fear the rioters shooting us more than we fear the police shooting us.


Goodness knows, you're assuming any of them actually have cogent reasons for rioting. We have a deep malaise in our society at the moment. I blame thatcher, when she was in power something went out of british society leaving only greed and self interest. We now have politicians who see nothing wrong in fiddling their expenses and arse-licking media barons to get power lecturing us about the moral decline of society in a country where you get a heavier sentence for through a foam pie at rupert murdoch than you do for assaulting someone.

Generally speaking our rioters aren't carrying guns. We don't need the police armed going about their normal duties.

On the other hand the riots in france, spain and greece are very much political and aimed at the banks, why aren't Americans getting annoyed at all the illegal mortgage foreclosures and the stripping away of rights to collective bargaining and the fact that people are dying because they can't afford medical treatment. That's what i meant by political issues.

Still no riots in Scotland, it's not that we are more civilised, it's raining.

posted by yzgi

This might slow them down some.

A sense of swelling outrage was pervading not only London but other cities hit by the mayhem and lawlessness. An online petition calling for rioters and looters to lose any government welfare benefits they may have been receiving proved so popular the government web site hosting it crashed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/11/wo...11britain.html


Now that's a bit more effective as a deterrent than shooting, so would confiscating all their property if they get caught with stolen goods. Come to that anyone making their living dishonestly should be sequestrated to pay his debt to society.

gmc;1364701 wrote: Goodness knows, you're assuming any of them actually have cogent reasons for rioting. We have a deep malaise in our society at the moment. I blame thatcher, when she was in power something went out of british society leaving only greed and self interest. We now have politicians who see nothing wrong in fiddling their expenses and arse-licking media barons to get power lecturing us about the moral decline of society in a country where you get a heavier sentence for through a foam pie at rupert murdoch than you do for assaulting someone.

Generally speaking our rioters aren't carrying guns. We don't need the police armed going about their normal duties.

On the other hand the riots in france, spain and greece are very much political and aimed at the banks, why aren't Americans getting annoyed at all the illegal mortgage foreclosures and the stripping away of rights to collective bargaining and the fact that people are dying because they can't afford medical treatment. That's what i meant by political issues.

Still no riots in Scotland, it's not that we are more civilised, it's raining.

posted by yzgi



Now that's a bit more effective as a deterrent than shooting, so would confiscating all their property if they get caught with stolen goods. Come to that anyone making their living dishonestly should be sequestrated to pay his debt to society.


We have the same crap politicians here. Lining their pockets and not giving a damn who it hurts. Maybe it all started around the same time as yours, just a general loss of morality by politicians.

We don't riot much about politics because no one thinks it will change anything. The rioters would just be seen as nutters and the fringe. I don't know what the answer is for either of us but I hope someone comes up with some ideas quickly.

gmc;1364701 wrote: why aren't Americans getting annoyed at all the illegal mortgage foreclosures and the stripping away of rights to collective bargaining and the fact that people are dying because they can't afford medical treatment.


Because we all have cable TV and there's a really good show on tonight.....seriously, we're that apathetic. (Or is that PA-thetic?)

YZGI;1364695 wrote: I see the shock at the suggestion to shoot looters, it does sound very extreme and is. I can't sit here and say "shoot the looters". But at some time if the rioting and looting continues, something other than hoping they get bored with it will have to happen.


It will and it is - and it's not shooting our own citizens in the streets, regardless of the crimes they're committing

YZGI;1364697 wrote: Exactly what political issue is this riot over?

We fear the rioters shooting us more than we fear the police shooting us.


Poverty and disenfranchisement - basically a sense of hopelessness from those living in inner city estates without realistic hope of ever getting out.

One has to wonder what generates that fear.

We were sent home early yesterday (it was originally announced as 18:00 but ended up being 17:00) and our new American boss was shocked and aghast that I (and several others) were proposing to walk / cycle home through the East End.

There really is no danger of being shot by the rioters as an innocent bystander - as recent events have shown there is more danger of being rounded up and gasses or hit over the head by the police than of being hurt by rioters when minding your own business.

Lon;1364508 wrote: Thanks----good piece

Looters should be shot and killed on sight and I know that is not the accepted solution to ending rioting, but it works as well as sending a message.


YZGI;1364634 wrote: Wow, talk about deflecting.

We're having riots in England but aren't we glad we're not in America having riots? Because we know American riots are much worse tsk.tsk. Those gun toting Americans are just so un-evolved compared to us.



You guys are rioting not us. Figure out you own societal problems and we will deal with ours when they happen.


Could make light of the US style of 'deflecting', such as the use of terms such as 'collateral damage' 'friendly fire' but THAT would be sillyness.

My own reaction was because it was suggested that UK police shoot to death children stealing popsicles.

May I make the suggestion that valuing property over human life might be part of the problem ?

Bryn Mawr;1364710 wrote: Poverty and disenfranchisement - basically a sense of hopelessness from those living in inner city estates without realistic hope of ever getting out.

One has to wonder what generates that fear.

We were sent home early yesterday (it was originally announced as 18:00 but ended up being 17:00) and our new American boss was shocked and aghast that I (and several others) were proposing to walk / cycle home through the East End.

There really is no danger of being shot by the rioters as an innocent bystander - as recent events have shown there is more danger of being rounded up and gasses or hit over the head by the police than of being hurt by rioters when minding your own business.


I have to say that I am wondering weather to cancel our political parties meeting tomorrow night In the centre of Gloucester.

oscar;1364726 wrote: I have to say that I am wondering weather to cancel our political parties meeting tomorrow night In the centre of Gloucester.


Put on the party arm bands and take plenty of Blackshirts with you who knows you might pick up a few new recruits.

gmc;1364756 wrote: Put on the party arm bands and take plenty of Blackshirts with you who knows you might pick up a few new recruits.


Oh Yes, I can the Sun Newspaper headline now.

oscar;1364726 wrote: I have to say that I am wondering weather to cancel our political parties meeting tomorrow night In the centre of Gloucester.
Is this THE Party ?

Are they STILL a viable party ?

Here's your cause. When was this 20% reduction put forth? Before or after the streets were left to the hooligans?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/1 ... ce-commons

"This is not about poverty, it's about culture. A culture that glorifies violence, shows disrespect to authority, and says everything about rights but nothing about responsibilities. In too many cases the parents of these children – if they are still around – don't care where their children are or who they are with, let alone what they are doing. The potential consequences of neglect and immorality on this scale have been clear for too long, without enough action being taken."




That's a bit rich coming from the public school representative of a political elite that lies to get us involved in invading other countries and even when those lies become beyond dispute do nothing to correct the situation and get us out of wars we did not need to fight, sees nothing wrong in sending 18 and 19 year old teenagers in to combat without the proper body armour or the armoured vehicles they have been promised, can afford to find the money to drop bombs on libya but has to cut nursery schools because after all there is no reason why the taxpayer should help those too poor to afford private nursery places, and shut libraries because we are hard up. Cheerfully fiddled their expenses, clearly feeling no responsibility to behave honourably or even guilt about taking advantage of lax rules- because after all the poor dears are hard up and need the money -and thanks to education reforms is making sure kids from a deprived background have less chance of going to decent school and absolutely no chance of going on to further education unless they can find £9,000 a year. Even worse coming from a party that preached there is no such thing as society and set out to destroy what there was.

"I want us to use the record of success against gangs in some cities like Boston in the USA and indeed the Strathclyde police in Scotland, who have done this by engaging the police, the voluntary sector and local government. I want this to be a national priority."


That would mean having bobbies on the beat getting to know the locals and the area and actually having more of them out and about. Too bad all your predecessors thought that a waste of time. As an aside don't call a Strathclyde policeman a wooden top if one is within hearing. Not that I would call them that of course

This is not about poverty, it's about culture. A culture that glorifies violence, shows disrespect to authority, and says everything about rights but nothing about responsibilities. In too many cases the parents of these children – if they are still around – don't care where their children are or who they are with, let alone what they are doing. The potential consequences of neglect and immorality on this scale have been clear for too long, without enough action being taken."


Wait....are we talking about the UK or the US?!!!

Saint_;1364834 wrote: Wait....are we talking about the UK or the US?!!!


I'm kind of surprised there hasn't been any copy cat looting going on here.

gmc;1364833 wrote: That's a bit rich coming from the public school representative of a political elite that lies to get us involved in invading other countries and even when those lies become beyond dispute do nothing to correct the situation and get us out of wars we did not need to fight, sees nothing wrong in sending 18 and 19 year old teenagers in to combat without the proper body armour or the armoured vehicles they have been promised, can afford to find the money to drop bombs on libya but has to cut nursery schools because after all there is no reason why the taxpayer should help those too poor to afford private nursery places, and shut libraries because we are hard up. Cheerfully fiddled their expenses, clearly feeling no responsibility to behave honourably or even guilt about taking advantage of lax rules- because after all the poor dears are hard up and need the money -and thanks to education reforms is making sure kids from a deprived background have less chance of going to decent school and absolutely no chance of going on to further education unless they can find £9,000 a year. Even worse coming from a party that preached there is no such thing as society and set out to destroy what there was.



That would mean having bobbies on the beat getting to know the locals and the area and actually having more of them out and about. Too bad all your predecessors thought that a waste of time. As an aside don't call a Strathclyde policeman a wooden top if one is within hearing. Not that I would call them that of course Well said mate !!!

Another thing... those of us who remember the hacking to death of PC Blakelock during rioting In 1985 on the exact same estate where Mark Duggan was killed by police last week, will remember the government talking of lessons having to be learned...