London and UK riots (started in Tottenham 10:30PM, 6th Aug)

KeithAFC

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

So did anyone else see David Starkey on Newsnight tonight. Went on a bit of a racist rant and blamed black culture and went on about the english feeling like foreigners in their own country. He even said that the whites involved had become black. Bizarre inflammatory telly it was!

That is out of order when you consider there is many British black patriots.

ascanbe

Deleted User wrote: »

Saw a few minutes of a piece on Sky News, think it was called Looters. In it they spoke to a group of youths who admitted to looting. They went on and on trying to justify the looting, I got no reply when I drop on a CV and if I was a penny short the shop wouldnt let me buy what I wanted so it's okay for me to destroy the livliehood of hundreds of people. The word to describe these people is scum, really shocking when you consider just how skewered our society is toward defending these people.

Once upon a time people like those involved in the looting were classified as being bad people or scum but now we have to go out of our way to explain their actions. We can't hold them accountable for their actions, it's society's fault.

You have to love the way every time that footage of the looting is shop the presenters seem to go out of their way to point out any White person in the crowd. It would be comical if it wasn't so tragic that PCness has gotten to the stage that you can't point out the truth, that the majority of those involved in the looting are not White.

Jesus..at least your post is comical..
The 'media' wouldn't have to 'point out any white person in the crowd', because, if you were actually watching the live footage, you would have seen that a large number of the looters were white.
Really, despite your fantasy that they weren't and , bizarrely, that the predominantely white mainstream media is hell-bent on propagating a fallacy, they were.
What do you mean 'PCness has gotten to the stage that you can't point out the truth'?
You just did point out the 'truth', as you see it; plenty of people have been pointing out their version of the 'truth', which chimes with yours, on this very thread.
Do you mean that you can't point out the 'truth', as you see it, without the inconvenience of others disagreeing with your interpretation of the 'truth' and offering a different take on things?
Until you manage to prove that your take on the 'truth' is indisputable, you'll just have to accept that people may choose to disagree with you and/or engage in what's known as 'debate'.
Christ..the 'PC has gone mad' brigade on here are an awfully whingy bunch.

Monty Burnz

I wonder what some people will make of these repugnant comments from the likes of Lee in Copley Court - it sounds like he's been reading too much Kevin Myers:

Judge Roscoe’s comments came as community workers admitted that broken families often led to children taking to crime. One youth worker, who has helped children in Lambeth, South London, for 20 years, told The Times that single mothers were often scared of their sons. “They would not challenge them if they came home with stolen goods,” the worker, who did not wish to be named, said. “In some cases these young men steal more than their mother earns or gets in benefit. They become the father figure, the main earner.”

Young men echo the lack of authority. “My mum can’t tell me what to do,” said Lee, 18, from Copley Court, an estate in West Ealing. “It’s the same with young kids. Most of their dads left early on and they don’t listen to anyone.”

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"Riot boy's family is kicked out of home: Suspected looter and his mother are the first to be punished with eviction"

Where will all these people that are kicked out of their council houses end up? We could probably see them moving into some kind of a halting sites.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024605/UK-riots-Daniel-Sartain-Clarkes-family-evicted-Wandsworth-Council.html

I have to say, the names in that report are hilarious:

The young guy has a double-barrelled name, Daniel Sartain-Clarke (he's white)
His girlfriend is J-Neil Starkei (she looks mixed race)
His mother is Maite de la Calva (she, unsurprisingly, is also white)
His sister is Revecca (she's mixed race too)

Neither of the guy's surnames are the same as his mother's. I can see why he got so confused that he and his girlfriend ended up 'in the wrong place at the wrong time" - i.e. looting in a shop where the police actually turned up.

Morlar

Morlar wrote: »

You are applying your own values to this scenario. 'They have to be decent people just misunderstood', 'there has to be a good reason'.

You are just making excuses and moving the blame from the guilty individuals onto the victim - in this case society at large.

What I saw were feral scumbags with 'callous indifference' to other human beings, either physical suffering or mental fear and anguish.

The fact is, however poor people are, not all of them do this. Saying that the ones who did this, did so because they are poor is an insult to law abiding people everywhere (rich or poor). It's just another way of abdicating responsibility from these people.

If you treat a subculture or community of people as if you expect nothing more from them than this (riot & scumbag behaviour) and if you trip up over yourself forming contorted excuses for their direct behaviour, which involves every imaginary factor other than personal responsibility, then if you do that, this behaviour is all you will ever get.

I am starting to think all this wishy washy blame everyone else bs is a weird form of inverse racism.

+1

Re the benefits/houses being taken away, I don't reckon they'll go through with this. I think they're making an example of a few families such as Daniel Sartain-Clarke and his mother. Obviously it's a bad idea in many ways, but I'm sick to death of people who receive free housing from the government acting like it's their God given right and moaning about it. Most people have to go out and work to pay for their (very expensive) London rent. I know people who are spending up to 70% of their wages on rent and bills, because they simply don't have much of a choice. It's a slap in the face to see people who get given this stuff for free not appreciating any of it.

I lived in a council block last year (with a few private apartments, mine being one of them) and the behaviour of many of the residence was disgraceful. They had a nice, well kept, clean, modern building in a very desirable area of central London and they still threw their rubbish on the floor, p*ssed in the lifts and b*tched and moaned about how 'the council' weren't doing enough for them. You can give some people the world and they'll still complain that it isn't enough. I ended up feeling so angry all the time that I was working most evenings a week (while studying full time) to pay my £550 a month rent while most of my neighbours spent their days playing X-box, smoking weed and complaining about students and rich people.

JMSE

Latest reports are that the cops will play 'Everyday I'm shuffling' during the next riot and then nab all the dancers.

Herb Powell

KeithAFC wrote: »

That is out of order when you consider there is many British black patriots.

It's out of order when you consider that it's a fuccking moronic and wrong thing to say

goat2

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

"Riot boy's family is kicked out of home: Suspected looter and his mother are the first to be punished with eviction"

Where will all these people that are kicked out of their council houses end up? We could probably see them moving into some kind of a halting sites.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024605/UK-riots-Daniel-Sartain-Clarkes-family-evicted-Wandsworth-Council.html

i am glad they are turfing them out, and what are our own councils doing to people who break the law, ( nothing)

indioblack

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I have to say, the names in that report are hilarious:



Neither of the guy's surnames are the same as his mother's. I can see why he got so confused that he and his girlfriend ended up 'in the wrong place at the wrong time" - i.e. looting in a shop where the police actually turned up.

Good post - you'd almost feel sorry for him!

steddyeddy

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

So did anyone else see David Starkey on Newsnight tonight. Went on a bit of a racist rant and blamed black culture and went on about the english feeling like foreigners in their own country. He even said that the whites involved had become black. Bizarre inflammatory telly it was!

David Starkey is has several horrible views along with this racist crap he spouts things like "we dont want england to be a feeble nation like ireland, scotland or wales".

R P McMurphy

steddyeddy wrote: »

David Starkey is has several horrible views along with this racist crap he spouts things like "we dont want england to be a feeble nation like ireland, scotland or wales".

He is horribly ill-informed on most things he comments upon. He is only invited onto panels for the controversy rather than to give an intelligent comment on any subject. Says a lot about the production of the shows he appears on

ascanbe

ascanbe wrote: »

Jesus..at least your post is comical..
The 'media' wouldn't have to 'point out any white person in the crowd', because, if you were actually watching the live footage, you would have seen that a large number of the looters were white.
Really, despite your fantasy that they weren't and , bizarrely, that the predominantely white mainstream media is hell-bent on propagating a fallacy, they were.
What do you mean 'PCness has gotten to the stage that you can't point out the truth'?
You just did point out the 'truth', as you see it; plenty of people have been pointing out their version of the 'truth', which chimes with yours, on this very thread.
Do you mean that you can't point out the 'truth', as you see it, without the inconvenience of others disagreeing with your interpretation of the 'truth' and offering a different take on things?
Until you manage to prove that your take on the 'truth' is indisputable, you'll just have to accept that people may choose to disagree with you and/or engage in what's known as 'debate'.
Christ..the 'PC has gone mad' brigade on here are an awfully whingy bunch.

I'm aware that there were many White people involved in the looting but most of the footage of looters shows a predominantly nonwhite crowds.

I was referring to the manner in which presenters were going out if their way to point to any White person they saw onscreen. Notice that they were never pointing at the screen and saying look there's a nonwhite involved right there.

Richard Hillman

goat2 wrote: »

i am glad they are turfing them out, and what are our own councils doing to people who break the law, ( nothing)

I have sent a letter to my local politician about this yesterday. I have stated that its seems we are waiting for something like what happened in London to finally tackle Skanger Culture. A lot of people are turning down council houses because these places can be hell. Its time we got rid of the people who are ruining these areas.

LighterGuy

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I have sent a letter to my local politician about this yesterday. I have stated that its seems we are waiting for something like what happened in London to finally tackle Skanger Culture. A lot of people are turning down council houses because these places can be hell. Its time we got rid of the people who are ruining these areas.

well theres your first mistake. thinking your voice will be heard. by a politician of all people.

Richard Hillman

LighterGuy wrote: »

well theres your first mistake. thinking your voice will be heard. by a politician of all people.

You're right, i should of gave Joe Duffy a call instead.

K-9

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm aware that there were many White people involved in the looting but most of the footage of looters shows a predominantly nonwhite crowds.

I was referring to the manner in which presenters were going out if their way to point to any White person they saw onscreen. Notice that they were never pointing at the screen and saying look there's a nonwhite involved right there.

I think what seemed to happen and a few journalists noticed it, it started as majority black, no doubt, but the white participants seemed to increase to the stage that in Manchester anyway it seemed to me a white majority.

LighterGuy

Richard Hillman wrote: »

You're right, i should of gave Joe Duffy a call instead.

ha,
well joe dont care, local policitian dont care, average person dont care. Not unless something personal effects them. if it doesnt, they dont care.


Sadly the world we live in.

Predalien

goat2 wrote: »

i am glad they are turfing them out, and what are our own councils doing to people who break the law, ( nothing)

I fully expect any eviction orders applied to parents to be rejected by judges, completely disproportionate response.

Monty Burnz

Predalien wrote: »

I fully expect any eviction orders applied to parents to be rejected by judges, completely disproportionate response.

The tenants sign an agreement that if people living under their roof are involved with crime, they can be evicted. Sounds totally fair and bulletproof to me, and certainly not disproportionate. Perhaps you'd like your community or apartment building to be full of criminals, but I don't see why others should have to tolerate it.

RobitTV

Well atleast the riots are over!

Cherry_Cola

You must be bored

Predalien

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The tenants sign an agreement that if people living under their roof are involved with crime, they can be evicted. Sounds totally fair and bulletproof to me, and certainly not disproportionate. Perhaps you'd like your community or apartment building to be full of criminals, but I don't see why others should have to tolerate it.

That's not an explicit agreement in the tenancies, plus you're punishing people who weren't actually involved in the riots. Also the law must apply equally, why should parents of those that live in social housing be affected more than affluent parents whose children were involved in the riots? I'm not going to get into an argument, we'll just have to see when one of these orders goes before a judge. (It also solves nothing since they'll just end up on the private rental market getting government support for their rent as you can't make them homeless.)

minidazzler

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-14515632

For the first time in around 6 years I am quite close to tears, I watched the video, and I am really feeling sad for those 3 lads that died. Normally I am pretty ambivalent to this sort of thing, but they were trying to protect their community. I hope the cnuts that killed them die painful deaths.

pickarooney

LighterGuy wrote: »

ha,
well joe dont care, local policitian dont care, average person dont care. Not unless something personal effects them. if it doesnt, they dont care.


Sadly the world we live in.

Even honey badger don't care.

Predalien

Predalien wrote: »

That's not an explicit agreement in the tenancies, plus you're punishing people who weren't actually involved in the riots. Also the law must apply equally, why should parents of those that live in social housing be affected more than affluent parents whose children were involved in the riots? I'm not going to get into an argument, we'll just have to see when one of these orders goes before a judge. (It also solves nothing since they'll just end up on the private rental market getting government support for their rent as you can't make them homeless.)

Yes, it is and it always has been. The police just rarely enforce it. A woman was (eventually) evicted from my building last year for being a drug dealer. As for punishing people who weren't involved, well, that's also part of the contract they sign when they get a council house. Perhaps it would be an incentive for the little scumbags not to get involved in riots if they thought their parents/siblings would become homeless. Because up to now, they've been taught that there are absolutely no consequences. As for why the affluent parents won't be affected, well because they're not taking a house for free. I'm sick to death of people who contribute NOTHING to society expecting to be given everything on a plate and not even manage the BASIC task of not breaking the law and putting lives in danger.

Monty Burnz

Predalien wrote: »

That's not an explicit agreement in the tenancies, plus you're punishing people who weren't actually involved in the riots. Also the law must apply equally, why should parents of those that live in social housing be affected more than affluent parents whose children were involved in the riots?

If they sign a contract, it's an explicit agreement. And the law does apply equally to everyone - if you are not living in council accommodation then of course it doesn't apply at all. I think you are confusing the legal sanctions against the rioters with the housing policy of the councils here. One has nothing to do with the other.

Predalien wrote: »

I'm not going to get into an argument, we'll just have to see when one of these orders goes before a judge. (It also solves nothing since they'll just end up on the private rental market getting government support for their rent as you can't make them homeless.)

The orders won't go in front of a judge at all unless someone tries to get an injunction to stop one. And it does solve something - it means that parents will know that if they raise their children as rioting scum, then it will have an impact on them. And I'm sure the decent people living in council flats will be glad to see the back of criminals who live there. Why should they have to put up with them?

The government is paying for their accommodation whether it's council or private rented, so that's an irrelevance.

indough

Thomas828 wrote: »

I just overheard this gem between a few men talking about the riots in Tottenham.

"The only place that wasn't burnt out was White Hart Lane."

"No wonder. Sh!te doesn't burn!"

in that case they should probably be using his jokes as flame retardant in the near future

Predalien

Monty Burnz wrote: »

If they sign a contract, it's an explicit agreement. And the law does apply equally to everyone - if you are not living in council accommodation then of course it doesn't apply at all. I think you are confusing the legal sanctions against the rioters with the housing policy of the councils here. One has nothing to do with the other.

The orders won't go in front of a judge at all unless someone tries to get an injunction to stop one. And it does solve something - it means that parents will know that if they raise their children as rioting scum, then it will have an impact on them. And I'm sure the decent people living in council flats will be glad to see the back of criminals who live there. Why should they have to put up with them?

The government is paying for their accommodation whether it's council or private rented, so that's an irrelevance.

You clearly don't understand the term explicit, nor have any understanding of an eviction process.

Monty Burnz

Predalien wrote: »

You clearly don't understand the term explicit, nor have any understanding of an eviction process.

You've clearly lost the argument.

k.p.h

You reap what you sow , You reap what you sow