Riots in London
#841
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: South Bucks
Posts: 3,213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel society is "too liberal" these days. There's also no check/balance on unruly or bad behaviour. To stand up for/protect something is to be seen to be confrontational and apparently, that's a bad thing? Plus, there's no heavy hand option short of sending in the police. Who may or may not turn up for several hours depending on "circumstances".
If 100% of people breaking the law were caught, then criminals or wannabes would reduce in numbers quite quickly. Unfortunately, it seems to me that most criminals do NOT get caught. If it takes a burgular 25-50 break-ins to get nicked, then he gets a suspended sentence, why would that be a deterent to him or anyone else when he's squirreled away £'00s or £'000s of pounds of micked stuff/goods.
We've had easier times for 7ish years plus a great deal of worry and stress for 3-4 years. Times are harder for almost everyone plus the politicians won't stop prattling about it.
What I worry will be an absolute joke is how many of the rioters will we end up paying compensation to? Remand everyone, yes, that's a possibility, and currently, probably the only way of kicking these little ****s in the bollocks hard enough to send a message. To potentially jail one student for nicking a bottle of water seems way OTT for me. I only hope that when cases come to court, reasonable sentences are handed down. Otherwise, we'll be in appeal courts for the next ten years and far poorer at the end of it.
J.
If 100% of people breaking the law were caught, then criminals or wannabes would reduce in numbers quite quickly. Unfortunately, it seems to me that most criminals do NOT get caught. If it takes a burgular 25-50 break-ins to get nicked, then he gets a suspended sentence, why would that be a deterent to him or anyone else when he's squirreled away £'00s or £'000s of pounds of micked stuff/goods.
We've had easier times for 7ish years plus a great deal of worry and stress for 3-4 years. Times are harder for almost everyone plus the politicians won't stop prattling about it.
What I worry will be an absolute joke is how many of the rioters will we end up paying compensation to? Remand everyone, yes, that's a possibility, and currently, probably the only way of kicking these little ****s in the bollocks hard enough to send a message. To potentially jail one student for nicking a bottle of water seems way OTT for me. I only hope that when cases come to court, reasonable sentences are handed down. Otherwise, we'll be in appeal courts for the next ten years and far poorer at the end of it.
J.
#843
Very disappointing to see Cameron proposing knee-jerk laws to stop Blackberry and social networks in the event of riots.
When I was working in Libya, Gadaffi shut down the internet when the uprisings started. It created an air of uncertainty and unknowing.
It is what authoritarian/totalitarian regimes do, they can monopolise things like communication. Democracies are not supposed to curb the free speech of citizens who are innocent until proven guilty.
When I was working in Libya, Gadaffi shut down the internet when the uprisings started. It created an air of uncertainty and unknowing.
It is what authoritarian/totalitarian regimes do, they can monopolise things like communication. Democracies are not supposed to curb the free speech of citizens who are innocent until proven guilty.
#844
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edinburgh (ish)
Posts: 8,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#847
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very disappointing to see Cameron proposing knee-jerk laws to stop Blackberry and social networks in the event of riots.
When I was working in Libya, Gadaffi shut down the internet when the uprisings started. It created an air of uncertainty and unknowing.
It is what authoritarian/totalitarian regimes do, they can monopolise things like communication. Democracies are not supposed to curb the free speech of citizens who are innocent until proven guilty.
When I was working in Libya, Gadaffi shut down the internet when the uprisings started. It created an air of uncertainty and unknowing.
It is what authoritarian/totalitarian regimes do, they can monopolise things like communication. Democracies are not supposed to curb the free speech of citizens who are innocent until proven guilty.
#849
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes. Cameron's beginning to waver on his proposals to make CCTV less pervasive, as well. He has the rather difficult job of needing to become more authoritarian without becoming too authoritarian.
#850
I though it was pretty low of Cameron and May to initially try and claim credit by insinuating that the riots was brought under control through political intervention and then go on to criticise Police tactics. Obviously trying to deflect the fact that they chose to continue top up their tan whilst the capital was under siege from rioters and looters and didn't come back until they came under fire by the media for sunning it up on holiday.
#852
Instructing with fear
iTrader: (31)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Www.Extreme-rally.co.uk
Posts: 5,101
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Good to hear that Wandsworth council is seeking to evict a looter from their council house. That will strike fear into the rest of the low-life thiefing fcuktards.
#853
I though it was pretty low of Cameron and May to initially try and claim credit by insinuating that the riots was brought under control through political intervention and then go on to criticise Police tactics. Obviously trying to deflect the fact that they chose to continue top up their tan whilst the capital was under siege from rioters and looters and didn't come back until they came under fire by the media for sunning it up on holiday.
As F1 Man says, the biggest factor in stopping it was the heavy rain anyway.
I somehow doubt it was in fact all due to the increased police presence either.
Les
#855
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edinburgh (ish)
Posts: 8,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#856
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edinburgh (ish)
Posts: 8,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty crap if that's the case. Surely if they have breached their tenancy agreement (as suggested on the beeb news last night), then they can't claim from that or any other council for accomodation? Which organisation would be bound to pay for thsi?
#857
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
The taxpayer. The council will not be obliged to house them but housing associations will or failing that they will end up in a private
rental.
If they walked out of the house they would have made themselves intentionally homeless and be entitled to nowt, however because they are facing eviction they will have to be re homed somewhere.
#858
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Edinburgh (ish)
Posts: 8,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The taxpayer. The council will not be obliged to house them but housing associations will or failing that they will end up in a private
rental.
If they walked out of the house they would have made themselves intentionally homeless and be entitled to nowt, however because they are facing eviction they will have to be re homed somewhere.
rental.
If they walked out of the house they would have made themselves intentionally homeless and be entitled to nowt, however because they are facing eviction they will have to be re homed somewhere.
#859
The legend that is Pat Condelll is bang on it (once again!) imo...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pAC0YSmK0g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pAC0YSmK0g
#861
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The legend that is Pat Condelll is bang on it (once again!) imo...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pAC0YSmK0g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pAC0YSmK0g
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post