Anarchy In The UK: Rioting In London

[Andara Bledin]

The people taking advantage of the situation to orchestrate things are likely your typical anarchist fuckwads. The people joining in will be a mix of the poor (the girl they keep mentioning with the trainers was, until recently, in council housing), the young (and stupid), and the opportunistic.

Saying things such as "the rioters are not poor" is false. Certainly, a number of the rioters are not, but there were hundreds involved who very much were.

^-.-^

[fireheart17]

And predictably, here comes the Facebook "copy and paste" bullcrap.

RIP Broken ENGLAND ! You went soft on discipline!.. You went soft on immigration!You went soft on crime.. Parents were told.. 'No you can't smack the kids'....Teachers were prevented from chastising kids in schools.. The police couldn't clip a troublemaker round the ear.. Kids had rights blah blah blah.. Well done ENGLANDS POWER THAT be ..You shall reap what you sow.. We have lost a whole generation!!

[Lace Neil Singer]

So if I belted you one, stole your belongings and burned down your house, it would be automatically alright cuz I'm living in rented accomadation and working part time? I don't really get that logic.

Crime is crime. I don't give two shits whether these people were rich, poor or middling; it still does not give them the right to burn down the houses and businesses of innocent citizens and loot and smash up shops. Some of these people were mugging commuters; one guy was pulled off his motorbike and beaten up so that his bike could be stolen. I'm sick and tired of seeing excuses being made for these animals; no-one, no matter what the circumstances they are in, has the right to hurt and destroy other people's belongings, or damage businesses.

[Andara Bledin]

Crime is crime. I don't give two shits whether these people were rich, poor or middling; it still does not give them the right to burn down the houses and businesses of innocent citizens and loot and smash up shops.

And I never said otherwise. You made a false statement and I corrected that statement End of line.

If you wish to claim I think it's ok for people to riot because they're downtrodden, I would like some citations to back up such a claim.

^-.-^

[Lace Neil Singer]

You were replying with "the rioters are not poor = a false statement". to me pointing out that poor people, as a general rule, do not own Blackberries, iPhones or computers. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your post, but it seemed to me as tho you were saying that the opportunists who rushed in and stole goods were somehow justified in doing so, cuz of being poor. I don't think that they are as bad as the rioters who are mugging, burning and killing, but them being poor does not excuse theft.

If we all went out and stole stuff cuz we didn't have it and others did, then the whole system would collapse. I want a Porsche and a Ferrari. However, I don't go out and steal one of each, and then justify my actions by saying, "I stole those cars cuz I want them and I can't afford them, and that's somehow society's fault."

If that's not what you were saying, then like I said, I apologise for misunderstanding.

[PepperElf]

I just feel bad for the innocent people who are getting caught in the "crossfire" so to speak.


If I'm not mistaken the current means for citizens to defend themselves lies in calling the police and having the police do it... but if the police are tied up trying to prevent riots, what other means of legal defense does the general public have?

[PepperElf]

Um, the rioters certainly are not poor. A lot of them spread the word using Blackberries, iPhones and Facebook, so they're obviously not on the breadline. Neither am I, to be honest, but I certainly can't afford a Blackberry or an iPhone.

That doesn't necessarily mean they're not on public assistance. at least in the US it wouldn't mean it.

[jackfaire]

That doesn't necessarily mean they're not on public assistance. at least in the US it wouldn't mean it.

That's true there are homeless people who have much nicer phones than I do because they don't have rent and other bills to pay.

[BlaqueKatt]

That doesn't necessarily mean they're not on public assistance. at least in the US it wouldn't mean it.

yup it depends on where their priorities lie-OT example:
members of congress are allowed to "expense" an apartment/housing in DC for their job(at taxpayer expense)-most go for fancy posh places, one WI Senator had a one room efficiency with a bed and a tv, his kids also went to public school and had to work their way through college, and get loans-even though he most definitely had money.

[Lace Neil Singer]

http://kdrv.com/page/220766

Actually, as it turns out, many of the rioters lived respectable lives. There was a lifeguard, a chef, a teacher and a millionaire's daughter among the accused.

"Most were teenagers or in their early twenties, but a surprising number were older. "Most interestingly of all, they were predominantly white, and many had jobs."

[fireheart17]

There were some interesting letters in the state newspaper today....as there have been over the past few days. Why the hell the paper chose to put a bunch of "Letters To The Editor" devoted to THAT particular issue is beyond me.

One of the letters earlier on in the week was simply: "take note folks-the London riots are proof that multiculturalism doesn't work." He was promptly owned by a letter today that pointed out that the majority of the looters and rioters were actually WHITE.

Someone else stated that those who are against the government are using the power of Facebook and twitter to encourage young people to riot FOR THEM. (this was written a ltitle less crazy style)

There are still a few idiots who are on the belief that those rioting were simply dole-bludgers ignoring the part about them leading respectable lives.

[protege]

I could see it if they went after what they perceive as "The Man", (not excuse them or sympathize, mind, but at least see it) but they don't. They turn their violence on themselves and destroy their own communities, and the people who suffer are mostly people just like themselves.

You're not the only one. We've had riots here in Pittsburgh before--the most serious, after MLK was killed in '68. Most of the damage, was (according to what sources I've been able to find) confined to the Hill District. That's the area around the Civic Arena (the Penguins' former home).

Before the riots, the Hill District was a thriving, mixed-race neighborhood. There were jazz clubs, grocery stores, bars, and other businesses. All of that changed after the riots. What had once been a thriving area...was now reduced to rubble--entire city blocks had been torched. The racial makeup of the neighborhood changed overnight--instead of being mixed-race, most of the white people (who were attacked simply because of their skin color) fled to the 'burbs or other city neighborhoods. When they left, they took their dollars with them. 40-plus years on, that area has a well-deserved reputation for having high crime, lots of drug activity, and lots of violence.

I never understood why someone would *want* to burn down their neighborhood. It's not "sticking it to the Man," but "sticking it to oneself." The rioters managed to accomplish quite a bit over a few days of stupidity. They drove most of the businesses out of the area, stirred up feelings of hatred and resentment (which unfortunately, persist to this day), helped kill off any investment potential for the neighborhood, and in some cases... "justified" the feelings that many whites had about black people.

[Greenday]

I just feel bad for the innocent people who are getting caught in the "crossfire" so to speak.


If I'm not mistaken the current means for citizens to defend themselves lies in calling the police and having the police do it... but if the police are tied up trying to prevent riots, what other means of legal defense does the general public have?

Well, they could just pull out a handgun to defend...oh, wait, people in England have no use for them. Forgot about that.

[Rapscallion]

Generally speaking, we don't. This whole rioting thing is a hell of a surprise in the way it started, so handguns aren't needed.

Of course, if it were determined that they were needed, the rioters would be armed with more than rocks and so forth. I think you'd have found many fatalities, rather than the few-score injuries we have so far.

Rapscallion

[Zod]

Well, they could just pull out a handgun to defend...oh, wait, people in England have no use for them. Forgot about that.

The LA riots in 1992 - everyone who wanted a gun had one. Result? 50+ deaths, and the army had to be called in to restore peace.

In England there were 5 deaths, and the civilian police force were able to restore order without firing a shot.

I'd call that a sucess for guncontrol.

, what other means of legal defense does the general public have?

Hit them with something large and heavy?