independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Fri 19th Jul 2019 11:26am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Riot hits north London after police shooting death
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 13 of 13 « First<45678910111213
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #360 posted 08/18/11 8:10am

TheFreakerFant
astic

avatar

Tremolina said:

TheFreakerFantastic said:

I hear you...but to correct you, the last major riots were in the 80s, the other incidents were demonstrations, such as student protests, anti war march etc.

this just london... wink

They get angry for being punished for their crimes?

And then our Chancellor talks about repealing the 50% tax on rich people....duh....that's only gonna make people at the lower echelons of society more pissed off.

[Edited 8/17/11 13:19pm]

so they trash their own neighboorhood again instead of the center or some rich folks place. makes sense.

[Edited 8/18/11 5:59am]

Most of those post 1990 (Poll tax) were not well known or really serious 'riots' they were more localised. So I wouldn't say it was common.

[Edited 8/18/11 8:11am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #361 posted 08/18/11 8:11am

SquirrelMeat

avatar

ISF said:

SquirrelMeat said:

And your are proving a point by pointing through mistaken identity. But it was the white guy that was shot!

I didn't say they don't abuse or kill white people, just less frequently wink

You have tried to differenciate between police and police equipment, but they are the same thing. You can't burn down a police station when there might be a police man in it. You can't firebomb a police van, without full knowledge that you don't burn the police woman inside.

In Tottenham, where the police cars were burned down, the police officers was dragged out and forced to flee.

Did you know that 25 of the 30 fatal UK police shootings betweeen 1997 ans 2008 where white? Yep, 83% white. In the last 10 till 2011, 9 were white.

Here are the independent stats.

http://inquest.gn.apc.org...pening.pdf

And Tottenham may have pulled police out of cars, but no one tried to empty the police station burned down in Manchester.

Where did you pull your facts out of? Acutally, don't say, I think its obvious. lol

.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #362 posted 08/18/11 8:58am

Tremolina

TheFreakerFantastic said:

Tremolina said:

so they trash their own neighboorhood again instead of the center or some rich folks place. makes sense.

[Edited 8/18/11 5:59am]

Most of those post 1990 (Poll tax) were not well known or really serious 'riots' they were more localised. So I wouldn't say it was common.

[Edited 8/18/11 8:11am]

come on freaker, big or small, extremely violent or less, a riot is a riot.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #363 posted 08/18/11 9:57am

TheFreakerFant
astic

avatar

Tremolina said:

TheFreakerFantastic said:

Most of those post 1990 (Poll tax) were not well known or really serious 'riots' they were more localised. So I wouldn't say it was common.

[Edited 8/18/11 8:11am]

come on freaker, big or small, extremely violent or less, a riot is a riot.

Not really....i wouldn't call the student protests last year a riot, it was a largely peaceful demonstration with a few flashpoints but not the same as a full blown lawless riot which is what happened last week.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #364 posted 08/18/11 10:01am

Tremolina

TheFreakerFantastic said:

Tremolina said:

come on freaker, big or small, extremely violent or less, a riot is a riot.

Not really....i wouldn't call the student protests last year a riot, it was a largely peaceful demonstration with a few flashpoints but not the same as a full blown lawless riot which is what happened last week.

yeah but did it get out of control at some point(s)? was there any violence? were there fights with the police or did the police arrest people for disrputing the peace or violating property? it may not have been much compared to the latest ones, but as soon as that happened it fits the definiton of a riot.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #365 posted 08/18/11 10:06am

TheFreakerFant
astic

avatar

Tremolina said:

TheFreakerFantastic said:

Not really....i wouldn't call the student protests last year a riot, it was a largely peaceful demonstration with a few flashpoints but not the same as a full blown lawless riot which is what happened last week.

yeah but did it get out of control at some point(s)? was there any violence? were there fights with the police or did the police arrest people for disrputing the peace or violating property? it may not have been much compared to the latest ones, but as soon as that happened it fits the definiton of a riot.

Depends what the definition is!! smile

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #366 posted 08/18/11 10:37am

Tremolina

TheFreakerFantastic said:

Tremolina said:

yeah but did it get out of control at some point(s)? was there any violence? were there fights with the police or did the police arrest people for disrputing the peace or violating property? it may not have been much compared to the latest ones, but as soon as that happened it fits the definiton of a riot.

Depends what the definition is!! smile

ri·ot

(rt)

n.
1. A wild or turbulent disturbance created by a large number of people.
2. Law A violent disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled for a common purpos
there ya go. wink
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #367 posted 08/18/11 10:45am

TheFreakerFant
astic

avatar

Tremolina said:

TheFreakerFantastic said:

Depends what the definition is!! smile

ri·ot

(rt)

n.
1. A wild or turbulent disturbance created by a large number of people.
2. Law A violent disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled for a common purpos
there ya go. wink

By that definition there are riots every Friday and Saturday nights all over the UK every week wink

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #368 posted 08/19/11 8:16am

Tremolina

TheFreakerFantastic said:

Tremolina said:

ri·ot

(rt)

n.
1. A wild or turbulent disturbance created by a large number of people.
2. Law A violent disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled for a common purpos
there ya go. wink

By that definition there are riots every Friday and Saturday nights all over the UK every week wink

see, it's even more prevalent than I thought already. razz

Altho' it's doubtfull whether those are all disturbances of the "public peace" and "for a common purpose" that

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #369 posted 08/21/11 11:06am

SUPRMAN

avatar

Cloudbuster said:

SquirrelMeat said:

So after appeal, the majority (60%) were still proved to be fit for work? If thats not proving the case that billions of taxpayers money was being wasted, I don't know what is.

And the conservatives are not getting it right.

But what would you do? Everyone is moaning, but no one is suggesting anything different.

Actually no, many of those 60% are not in fact well enough to work but are deemed so because the targets the medical company want to hit are more important than people's well being.

Some don't have either the will or the help available to endure the appeals process. They're stuck on JSA with no-one wanting to employ them.

And to aid the disabled even further the government are now talking about removing people's right to appeal, so that option may not be there much longer for those who do have the strength to go through it.

Brilliant.

Benefit fraud is minuscule compared to the fraud that goes on at the top level of government.

Of course, no-one wants to talk about that. They'd rather sneer at those less fortunate than themselves instead.

What would I do? Well, if I could I'd wave a magic wand and make wealth more evenly distributed so that the conditions that created this monster weren't in place to begin with.

.

[Edited 8/17/11 2:03am]

WTF?!!!!
Why not use the wand to create jobs for everyone at wages that make everyone happy and fully employed in a booming global economy with full benefits paid for by their employers with no income taxes?

Full employment? Heaven's no. Just take it from someone who has it.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #370 posted 08/21/11 11:08am

SUPRMAN

avatar

Cloudbuster said:

SquirrelMeat said:

The problem is, what is "evenly".

Mathmatical even = the purest communist theory.

Anything else is personal interpretation of even depending on where you sit in the wealth chain.

It very easy to name call the government for looking after the rich, but the majority of the country voted for it.

No, the majority voted for policies that the government turned their back on as soon as they got into power.

They can't be voted out of office?

What happened to 'no confidence' votes?

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #371 posted 08/21/11 11:13am

SUPRMAN

avatar

TheFreakerFantastic said:

2elijah said:

Yes, that used to happen in the U.S. People used to react by rioting/looting, burning their own communities/businesses down, without thinking before acting, to conduct this in an organized fashion, but this was because they acted out in anger, frustration from community concerns that has been ignored by elected officials for so long, and there was no planned, organized protest/march or community leaders who had time to gather people together to protest for the incidents they were reacting. to. Like I stated, to my knowledge, not so sure, the last riots I heard about was the LA riots in the states, but in NYC, they don't riot/loot when shooting incidents involving the police vs unamed individuall anymore, they handle it by organized protests to have their concerns heard.

People protest/march in NYC and around the U.S. all the time, for many political/socio-eoncomic concerns, on a daily basis, whether political/socio-economic or if it's picketing/striking against their employers.

What these youths should have done to voice their concerns, whether it involved police brutality/harassment in one community or concerns involving lack of youth programs/jobs, they should have gathered and protested together, in an organized fashion or boycotted businesses, which would have brought some attention to their issues.

Where were their community leaders? There's many ways their concerns could have been heard, without rioting/looting, no matter how long it took for someone to pay attention, because now the rioting/looting may take away from having their concerns at the top of the table, so-to-speak, and now many may be facing prison time.

[Edited 8/12/11 9:55am]

Ah, but 2elijah I think this could still happen in the US now...i don't think its a case that it only happened in the past...history repeats itself...

Oakland had two Oscar Grant riots, one the first official protest and then when the verdict was announced.

People still do riot in the U.S. We aren't exempt. Nor have we gotten 'over' it.

We also now have sport celebration rioting.

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #372 posted 08/21/11 3:24pm

SUPRMAN

avatar

[EDITED]

IF THE riots that flared up in England earlier this month were dizzyingly unexpected, the political debate about them has been deflatingly predictable. After dutiful condemnations of the violence, an old, sterile division has come to dominate it: between those who want to be nasty to the culprits and others who want to be nice. Both are wrong—and right. Cudgels and compassion both have a place: the key is knowing where.

The nasty camp, which includes most of the right-wing press and much of the country, wants to punish rioters severely. Urged on by David Cameron, some councils have begun proceedings to evict them and their families from social housing. Iain Duncan Smith, the welfare secretary, wants to withdraw benefits from convicted rioters. Courts have imposed long sentences for minor offences: four years, for instance, for two people who tried (and failed) to use Facebook to incite rioting; six months for stealing a £3.50 case of water.

While retribution is justified, this is going too far. Evicting families is an unfair collective punishment; they will have to live somewhere, probably at taxpayers’ expense. Removing benefits is not obviously the best way to prevent acquisitive crime. Until recently the government was sceptical of the value of imprisoning people for petty crime; and the arguments against doing so remain as strong as they were two weeks ago.

This knee-jerk irrationality is matched by fuzzy thinking in the nice camp, which often sees the rioters as victims to be saved as much as criminals to be punished. For example, Harriet Harman, Labour’s deputy leader, talks of young people not being listened to, roping in rising university fees and the withdrawal of subsidies for pupils (though Ed Miliband, her party’s leader, takes a more nuanced line). This lot’s basic prescription is to spend more—though the long boom in state largesse under the previous, Labour government, during which today’s yobs grew up, suggests cash alone is not the answer.

A sterile argument

Behind these responses, of course, lies another, ancient political tussle: between those for whom social problems are always a product of poverty and inequality and those, such as the prime minister, who blame individual moral failings. Mr Cameron speaks of a “moral collapse”, which, he adds, has been abetted by a “bossy bureaucratic state”. Poverty or morality; market or state: here we go again.

What exactly motivated the looters is unclear, and may always be: there were thousands of them, and the excuses some have offered—resentment of the police or “the rich”, and so on—often sound like retroactive justifications for what was probably just opportunistic criminality and copycat bravado. Nevertheless, there are patterns among the perpetrators. Most are young, male and come from poor neighbourhoods. Many are black. Given that profile, denying that poverty was a background factor in the unrest, as Mr Cameron seems to, is frankly bizarre. On the other hand, to exclude other explanations is to insult the poor people who didn’t riot (ie, most of them).

One place the moral and socioeconomic rationales intersect is in the issue of broken families and absent parents, problems that seem to be both causes and effects of deprivation, and that disproportionately affect African-Caribbean people. Mr Cameron is right to mention them. Whether he can fix them is another question: the Conservatives’ old, tokenistic plan for a tax break for married couples, discussed again this week, is unlikely to help.

The things that might work include both nice and nasty measures, as Mr Cameron should have the common sense to see. Broadly speaking, the cuddly ones should be focused on vulnerable children and the tough ones on miscreant adults. Schools should provide more pre- and after-school care to make up for parental absences. The coalition should press on with its plans to revive vocational education for unacademic pupils: that might help more of them feel they have the prospect of a decent and legal income. More resources should be found for youth work in rough neighbourhoods: teenagers spend a small fraction of their time at school, yet teachers are expected to socialise and discipline as well as educate them.

Meanwhile police chiefs must be readier to mobilise the extra officers whose deployment finally quelled the trouble last week. They must take a more active and disruptive approach to gangs, perhaps by learning from America. Mr Cameron is right to give the police broader powers to make people remove face coverings. If London erupts again, there should be no more Mr Nice Guy.

http://www.economist.com/node/21526361

I don't want you to think like me. I just want you to think.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #373 posted 08/23/11 5:15pm

IshmaelB

Tremolina said:

...the scale, intensity and sheer brutality of these latest riots is kinda new.

Consider what the average rioter is subject to. Their government is blatantly looting them and leaving them dry as they hand more and more over to the corporate super rich. It's feudalism. We were supposed to have fought this off generations ago.

There is never really any excuse for looting and destruction of property.

There's a time and place for everything. If you threaten my life or my family's and I have no recourse but to smashy-smash, then guess what? It's more than justified. I know they don't teach Natural Law in Law school, but consider reading up.

Seemed like [the cops] were so scared and impressed they didn't do shit for two days!

The riot provided an immense source of job security for them. England is one of the most heavily monitored police states on the planet. Now they have more excuses to keep upping that ante.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #374 posted 08/24/11 2:45am

Whitnail

avatar

Just a short transcript my Gf wrote on the Monday night of the rioting which took place in her home town and ironically also where we live in London, namely Ealing. My place of work got damaged during the riots in Ealing but thankfully and very luckily the damage was very limited compared to what happened some of the local businesses 50 yards down the road, one of which was burnt down.

Anyway, I hope this maybe of some useful insight, as it is more an eye witness opinion rather than a media/political one...

Behind Enemy Lines...

Londons Burning. My home town (Croydon) is crumbling before my eyes. Tomorrow, I start a job working with the MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, which is a stone’s throw from where this uprising started. I can’t begin to describe the mixed emotions there…

The violence is despicable; a blatant and shocking disregard for human life and livelihood. But it is oh so easy just to blame the people throwing the flames. In my opinion, you have to sit back and ask yourself: who are the real ‘firestarters’?

Since coming to power, the Government have pursued an unsurprising yet relentless policy of elevating the rich and crushing the poor… it’s a renowned Tory policy which anyone who lived through the 80’s will recognise. This time, it has manifested itself in a policy of £9000 a year tuition fees, and the cutting of local community services in poorer areas. Did the Government really think they could wipe the vision of stars away from those in the gutter and not face a backlash?

Whilst I feel disgusted and cringe at the action of the people causing the destruction, (alongside fear for my family who are in central Croydon) I can’t help but concede that I understand the anger and rationale behind the attacks. This is a compelling example that people can’t be pushed without reaction. I confess: I'm far angrier with the establishment that created the disaffection than the mindless, abused and disaffected people they have spawned.

I would humbly advise the Government, and those calling for an ‘Iron Fist’ against protestors, to take a look behind the ‘enemy’ lines and try to figure out what has caused this, for a real insight into how to stop this happening in the future. Whilst I’m not a die-hard Labour supporter, I do recognise that, under their rule, riots like this didn’t happen: surely this is an indication that the society shapes the people, rather than the other way round? (That notion is, of course, the essential philosophical division in belief that will define a viewpoint on why this has happened and how to deal with it.)

For now, the wave has started and the power as to when it will end is with the protestors. Let this be a lesson to those who think they can rule with arrogance and pre-supposed, unaccountable authority: stop oppressing those who have the power to fight back and bite you where it hurts. Give everyone equality of opportunity, and watch society prosper as a whole; rather than polarisation and inequality, with dire results.

If it were not for insanity, I would be sane.

"True to his status as the last enigma in music, Prince crashed into London this week in a ball of confusion" The Times 2014
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #375 posted 08/25/11 1:32pm

pald1

Whitnail said:

Just a short transcript my Gf wrote on the Monday night of the rioting which took place in her home town and ironically also where we live in London, namely Ealing. My place of work got damaged during the riots in Ealing but thankfully and very luckily the damage was very limited compared to what happened some of the local businesses 50 yards down the road, one of which was burnt down.

Anyway, I hope this maybe of some useful insight, as it is more an eye witness opinion rather than a media/political one...

Behind Enemy Lines...

Londons Burning. My home town (Croydon) is crumbling before my eyes. Tomorrow, I start a job working with the MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, which is a stone’s throw from where this uprising started. I can’t begin to describe the mixed emotions there…

The violence is despicable; a blatant and shocking disregard for human life and livelihood. But it is oh so easy just to blame the people throwing the flames. In my opinion, you have to sit back and ask yourself: who are the real ‘firestarters’?

Since coming to power, the Government have pursued an unsurprising yet relentless policy of elevating the rich and crushing the poor… it’s a renowned Tory policy which anyone who lived through the 80’s will recognise. This time, it has manifested itself in a policy of £9000 a year tuition fees, and the cutting of local community services in poorer areas. Did the Government really think they could wipe the vision of stars away from those in the gutter and not face a backlash?

Whilst I feel disgusted and cringe at the action of the people causing the destruction, (alongside fear for my family who are in central Croydon) I can’t help but concede that I understand the anger and rationale behind the attacks. This is a compelling example that people can’t be pushed without reaction. I confess: I'm far angrier with the establishment that created the disaffection than the mindless, abused and disaffected people they have spawned.

I would humbly advise the Government, and those calling for an ‘Iron Fist’ against protestors, to take a look behind the ‘enemy’ lines and try to figure out what has caused this, for a real insight into how to stop this happening in the future. Whilst I’m not a die-hard Labour supporter, I do recognise that, under their rule, riots like this didn’t happen: surely this is an indication that the society shapes the people, rather than the other way round? (That notion is, of course, the essential philosophical division in belief that will define a viewpoint on why this has happened and how to deal with it.)

For now, the wave has started and the power as to when it will end is with the protestors. Let this be a lesson to those who think they can rule with arrogance and pre-supposed, unaccountable authority: stop oppressing those who have the power to fight back and bite you where it hurts. Give everyone equality of opportunity, and watch society prosper as a whole; rather than polarisation and inequality, with dire results.

"Did the Government really think they could wipe the vision of stars away from those in the gutter and not face a backlash?"

Ha-ha, sorry, but this abysmal piece of z-rated sentiment practically gives me the right to dismiss everything you've just uttered.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 13 of 13 « First<45678910111213
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Riot hits north London after police shooting death