edit: duplicate.
Oh, if only the police could read them some kind of act…
i think they’re trying for the record. there were 15,000 rioters arrested in seoul, south korea just before the 1988 seoul olympics (most arrests per guiness.)
Take a look at the footage, plenty of white kids acting the bollocks too.
Oh, alright. Minorities are responsible for all violence, especially those pesky blacks.
Happy?
Oh, and another
Scotland Yard has begun to release CCTV shots of rioting suspects. Oh, look! Both white and black suspects.
What the rioters have in common is poverty. They’re not singling out businesses by race, they’re taking everything that’s not nailed down.
Not so. There’s a difference between the UK and the US. In the UK many (perhaps most) people are entirely content with the idea that ending up dead is a suitable consequence of having a gun. People are sceptical if the guy did have a gun, but if they are persuaded that he did then they will accept the police’s judgement that he needed to be shot. No further justification is considered necessary. This will be the case even if it turned out that the gun was held legally - it’s one of the accepted risks of gun ownership that accidents can happen like that.
The vast majority of Britons (including the true Scots :D) are strongly anti-gun.
We have that sometimes in the UK too. There was a case a few years back, a Scot with a chair leg he was repairing was murdered by the police because they assumed he was an IRA terrorist with a gun. Had a bit of trouble trying to explain that he’d drawn the chair leg and tried to shoot them with it when challenged, precipitating his death, what with all the bullet holes being in his back and the back of his head. So they got an American ballistics expert to tell the court that, in America, the police shoot people quite legally but the ballistic evidence makes it look like they were shot in the back all the time. Police just kill whoever they feel like and then get let off, if it even gets to court.
It provides a handy excuse for their customers to express their quite legitimate murderous vengeance. Makes me wish I was in one of those riot areas, then I’d show those Orange bastards (not racist).
Already did that, obviously didn’t work. The police have chosen to allow looting and violence, as if it’s some sort of spectator sport for them to amuse themselves watching.
For the rest, they can’t be just thugs and anarchists. Anarchists have a political point to make, or anti-political, thugs don’t.
Account of the original protest, and the police sparking violence by beating up a young girl:
Darcus Howe on the BBC:
Boris in action:
Speech:
Riot girls speak for themselves:
Waterstones was untouched. These guys have no interests in books evidently.
Well plastic bullets have never been used on the UK mainland.
(water cannon obviously has)
Yes, I’m not sure how to label them.
Many of the rioters belong to gangs; certainly in Birmingham there are two main gangs with at least 100 core members each, mostly 14-18 year olds, who have been well represented in these riots.
The rest are just opportunists who have no respect for authority and no aspirations beyond having the latest trainers. But calling them opportunists belittles their crimes.
What worries me about this is that it shows how frighteningly close we are to anarchy. For the first three nights, the rioters were left to do anything they wanted. And what they wanted to do was not minor; they left whole streets decimated. People have lost their homes and businesses, and it’s very lucky that only three people have lost their lives; it could have been so many more.
This shows that many people are prepared to carry out immoral and illegal actions, and that they care not a jot for the rule of law. And that we are not yet prepared to deal with them.
No not really. The UK is not the US, of course they could have contained the Riots in the first night if they didn’t care about deaths (on both sides). Seems the police had orders to contain but not to confront. As far as a strategy to minimise death, it’s been remarkably successful.
You can bet if the rioters had tried to hit 10 Downing St or Parliament houses it would have been rather a different response. I would imagine those Police that were "just standing around"were actually recording evidence and that most of the riot leaders will be rounded up over the next few weeks.
Of course yes they’ll probably mostly get off with light sentences unless the public outrage over these events causes some real changes in the UK laws.
So, you’re saying they approve of extra-judicial summary execution? I find that a little difficult to believe is a majority viewpoint.
First of all, it has been determined that he did, indisputably, have a gun.
Second, the riots would seem to indicate that not all people were accepting of the idea he “needed to be shot”.
So what you’re saying is the UK is a police state where trials are no longer needed? I thought the UK had abolished the death penalty, but you’re saying it’s somehow OK for police to shoot people dead without a trial?
It has already been determined that the gun was illegal.
Being strongly anti-gun does not automatically mean pro-summary execution in the streets.
You know, I’d find your claim somewhat more credible if you were up to date on the facts involved, such as the official inquiry determining he definitely had an illegal gun in his possession.
Actually, riots underscore the fact that MOST of the time people actually do behave themselves. Those same people looting the last few nights have been around every other night of these past years, when they DIDN’T riot. The numbers of police you see are based, even if not consciously, on the fact that most people behave themselves most of the time. If that wasn’t true, you’d need a ratio of police to public more like what you see in prisons with guards to prisoners.
Which is not to diminish the damage done, or the seriousness of crimes committed.
The “contain and not confront” strategy minimizes deaths, though obviously it doesn’t minimize property damage. For many civil disturbances it can work, as the mob eventually gets tired and is then rounded up. The problem is that it doesn’t work so well when the riot gets past a certain size and momentum. However, increasing the force used from “contain” to “confront” WILL increase the injuries and deaths. Is that actually preferable to you? Should looting a pair of trainers carry the death penalty?
The problem is, now the genie is out of the bottle and people have seen how easy it is to loot with (seemingly) no repercussions, what is to stop this becoming the norm? Any time a group of couple of dozen kids fancy some free stuff, they just mobilise using BlackBerry Messenger and rock up to a given target. Small-scale, isolated looting would seem to be the way of the future…
Didn’t riot perhaps but that doesn’t mean they were law-abiding. Many of the rioters are well known to police, and as I said, the gangs have been a big part of this.
Absolutely, but the fact that most people behave themselves is based in part on an awareness and fear of the repercussions (note: not only based on this). Unfortunately there’s a generation of youth that see police and teachers as powerless and have a huge sense of entitlement but little aspiration.
As I’ve said, we’ve had several sets of riots now, and they’re getting worse each time. We can’t dodge this any longer, or make vague calls for “communities to work together”.
In a sense, yes. I’m fine with the reality that taking part in a riot puts one at risk because the police will be using non-lethal weapons (which of course, can be lethal in certain circumstances).
I have no problem with that because such people are behaving criminally and are already putting themselves at risk e.g. a firebomb hitting them.
Two reasons that won’t happen:
-
This sort of unrest doesn’t last forever. Things always go back to the norm. Eventually. So, yes, there may continue to be some problems even after the “official” riot is over, but the norm will return.
-
Thanks to modern technology, there are apparently a LOT of pictures and video of people doing the looting, and apparently quite a number of them didn’t bother to cover their faces. The British police have already stated they’re identifying and tracking these people down, and have published photos on line to prove they’re not making that up. They are also looking into using Twitter and other social media data to track people down. So these people might have new trainers and iPads at the moment, but there is a definite possibility they’ll wind up behind bars in the not too distant future. When it sinks in that while you can get away the night of the riot you won’t get away with it long term the incentive to loot will go down considerably. It’s only “fun” if you get away with it.
I agree that most of the time most people behave themselves. The ‘contain and not confront’ strategy is very risky though. As I’ve said, it’s a miracle that more people weren’t killed in the fires or by the rioters. Had they been, I don’t think the police would have praised for their gently, gently approach.
Also I think they took the strategy they did not out of the goodness of their hearts, but because there wasn’t enough of them to successfully tackle the rioters.
I am curious as to why it crops up when it does. Though it is almost always in the summer; we don’t want the rioters to feel chilly.