Riots in London

Clarence LeRoy Van Cleef wrote:I can't believe I haven't seen anyone blame Clegg yet.

Well, if you insist...

Wiki:

Clegg was asked about his own expenses by Andrew Neil of the BBC. Clegg allegedly claimed the full amount permissible under the Additional Cost Allowance, including claims for food, gardening and redecorating his second home. The Telegraph also said Clegg claimed £80 for international call charges, a claim he said he would repay.

Oink! Oink!

Need new trainers? Ask Nick.

I don't really understand some people's thinking that this is Cameron's 'biggest challenge' or his 'make or break' moment. It could well be, in the British public's minds, but I would hope not. All the politicians can do, essentially, is provide rhetoric, and pretty empty rhetoric at that. Of course that means showing leadership and speaking for the people etc, but personally, I find all that a bit bullshitty. Sorting out the on-going chaos is the police's job and it is them who should (and are) really be running the show.

I find all this holiday bullshit a load of crap as well. I'll admit that it's mildly amusing that the countries top politicians were all on holiday when this all kicked off (Cameron, Clegg, May, Johnson, Miliband etc), but I think it's only Boris who potentially could be criticised for not returning sooner.

Clarence LeRoy Van Cleef wrote:I don't really understand some people's thinking that this is Cameron's 'biggest challenge' or his 'make or break' moment. It could well be, in the British public's minds, but I would hope not.

Remind me.

On which night was it that a howling mob of Old Etonians looted and torched Fortnum and Masons?

Events have moved so rapidly over the past few days that I must have missed this.

Thankfully Nah everyone you know is not a ultraliberal !

Example A: From my hometown paper...Some blame opportunistic criminality; others say conflicting economic policies and punishing government spending cuts have deepened inequalities in the country's most deprived areas.

Example B:(Daily Mail) — Left-wing politicians have cynically sought to make political capital out of the riots, blaming government cuts for the orgy of violence. Labour MPs and activists lined up to make excuses for the thugs, spouting claims that disadvantaged youth had no option but to smash up high streets. Chris Williamson, Labour MP for Derby North, suggested the Government’s austerity drive was to blame.

On Twitter, he said: ‘The Tories are back alright. Why is it the Tories never take responsibility for the consequences of their party’s disastrous policies. Minutes earlier he had endorsed the comment of another Twitter user who said: ‘Riots. Protests. Cuts. Unemployment. Disaffected Youth. Strikes. Recession. Police Brutality.’

Swift to jump on the bandwagon was Lee Jasper, a former adviser on policing to Ken Livingstone when he was Mayor of London. He blamed the ‘economic violence’ of the government for the riots and expressed no sympathy for businesses that were smashed up. He claimed some were attacked because they do not help create projects for under-privileged youths and was quoted as asking: ‘When did Curry’s build a school?’

Example C: The NY Times editorializes (as is typical) within their front page reporting of the story, "As Rioting Widens, Cameron Deploys 10,000 More Police": For a society already under severe economic strain, the rioting raised new questions about the political sustainability of the Cameron government’s spending cuts, particularly the deep cutbacks in social programs. These have hit the country’s poor especially hard, including large numbers of the minority youths who have been at the forefront of the unrest.

Example D: From the London Guardian, columnist Nina Power: Each of these events was sparked by a different cause, yet all take place against a backdrop of brutal cuts and enforced austerity measures. The government knows very well that it is taking a gamble, and that its policies run the risk of sparking mass unrest on a scale we haven't seen since the early 1980s.

BTW: The BBC said Armstrong had not intended to show (Darcus) Howe any disrespect and the questions were intended to gauge his reaction to the events. News Channel editors acknowledged it had been a ''poorly-phrased question'' but said this sometimes happened during live interviews and the incident was compounded by technical issues which meant the pair talked over each other. The BBC said: ''We'd like to apologise for any offence that this interview has caused.''

eddie wrote:

Clarence LeRoy Van Cleef wrote:I can't believe I haven't seen anyone blame Clegg yet.

Well, if you insist...

Wiki:

Clegg was asked about his own expenses by Andrew Neil of the BBC. Clegg allegedly claimed the full amount permissible under the Additional Cost Allowance, including claims for food, gardening and redecorating his second home. The Telegraph also said Clegg claimed £80 for international call charges, a claim he said he would repay.

Oink! Oink!

Need new trainers? Ask Nick.

Good attempt, and brave using wikipedia as a source for the truth on expenses.

But in all seriousness, saying that the MPs expenses played a huge role in the reasoning for the current riots is tenuous, IMO. Not that the above wiki quote reads all that badly anyway. I would presume that the money made from redecorating his second home goes into the public purse?.... cheers Nick for no doubt making us a tidy profit.

Clarence LeRoy Van Cleef wrote:saying that the MPs expenses played a huge role in the reasoning for the current riots is tenuous, IMO.

I quite agree, and I made much the same observation above.^

A quick reminder, though, of the late Tory MP Mr Shand's remarks about the problem of recruiting new members to the Tory party. The problem was/is, opined Mr Shand, that his party was perceived by the general public as being:

"Graceless, voracious, on the make etc"

In what significant repect does this description differ from an equally accurate description of a young black man nicking stuff from Curry's in Tottenham High Street?

Infamously violent 1960's gangster Mad Frankie Fraser- he used to pull his victims teeth out with a pair of pliers- prides himself in his autobiography on never having drawn the dole. Like most career criminals, Frank is a staunch Tory.

The strain all became too much for poor Mr Shand, you will recall, and he was found dead in an earth closet at the Glastonbury music festival, whence presumably he had betaken himself to enjoy the company of nice people for a change.

Again, I can't really agree with you. You are making it about party politics, which I think on the whole is pretty irrelevent. Tory or Labour, these riots would still be happening.

eddie wrote:
A quick reminder, though, of the late Tory MP Mr Shand's remarks about the problem of recruiting new members to the Tory party.

It doesn't particulary matter, but as I have pointed out before (I think), Mr Shale was not an MP.

Clarence LeRoy Van Cleef wrote:Again, I can't really agree with you. You are making it about party politics, which I think on the whole is pretty irrelevent. Tory or Labour, these riots would still be happening.

At last year's General Election, Labour acknowledged the deficit problem and offered a gradualist Keynesian approach to the electorate that would foster economic growth.

The problem with having a government of Old Etonians is that their minds were all warped by cold showers and compulsory sodomy in their impressionable youth.

They just can't wrap their heads around the fact that most normal people don't think that way and that the old world of automatic deference to privilege is long gone.

All austerity economics has delivered is next-to-zero economic growth.

That's why we're fucked.

eddie wrote:

Clarence LeRoy Van Cleef wrote:Again, I can't really agree with you. You are making it about party politics, which I think on the whole is pretty irrelevent. Tory or Labour, these riots would still be happening.

At last year's General Election, Labour acknowledged the deficit problem and offered a gradualist Keynsian approach to the electorate that would foster economic growth.

The problem with having a government of Old Etonians is that their minds were all warped by cold showers and compulsory sodomy in their impressionable youth.

They just can't warp their heads around the fact that most normal people don't think that way and that the old world of automatic deference to privilege is long gone.

But I don't agree that Labour's "gradualist" approach would have made a blinds bit of difference to the situation we are currently in. I remember in another thread (maybe on the old forum), where I explained the actual difference in spending terms and cuts between Labour's economic plans and the Tories' plans, rather than the very different rhetoric they generally engaged in. Their plans were basically exactly the same, over pretty much the same period of time. That's why I find it particulary galling to see these opportunistic Labour MPs claiming it is because of the cuts to EMA, University funding (increase in fees for some), etc, when it is as clear as day that they would being doing exactly the same. Agree or disagree with it, but there is a general consensus between the 3 main political parties regarding the economy, no matter how they all pretend that there isn't.

eddie wrote:All austerity economics has delivered is next-to-zero economic growth.

That's why we're fucked.

That's not entirely true. Whilst you are right about the next-to-zero economic growth, you are wrong about the fucked bit (in economic terms! ha). Those that agree with the austerity plan would say it is that plan which is the reason why our economy is not fucked. Despite the fact that Ed Balls shouted about "double dip recession" every other day, it was avoided. Although the world markets collapsing (kind of thing) will mean it doesn't matter what the plan was either way.

^

Thanks for the response, Twoody.

More research needed here, I think.

But I start a run of 7 dead earlies tomorrow and I need to eat and sleep.

More in due course.

I just took a fast look at this thread. Didn't realise many of you live up there. Happy to know you're all ok!

eddie wrote:

But I start a run of 7 dead earlies tomorrow and I need to eat and sleep.

Ouch. Well good luck with that.

Don't forget you can listen to England step a little closer to being the world number 1 Test team on 198 LW (unless you have sky). You'll get to listen to one of my favourite commenters, Old Etonian Henry Blofeld ( )



PS: Question Time dedicated to the riots is on tv tonight, featuring John Prescott, Brian Paddick and others.

The funeral of Mark Duggan, the man whose fatal shooting by police sparked of the initial Tottenham riot, takes place today.

We've received an email from our beloved Managing Director to watch out for trouble- as though he'd know anything about the day-to-day reality of this job.

Thank goodness I'm working the dead early shift this week.

Prime Minister thanks London's transport staff

12 August 2011

www.tfl.gov.uk

The Prime Minister has written to London's Transport Commissioner, Peter Hendy, to express his gratitude to transport staff across the Capital for their efforts to keep London moving during the past, very challenging, week.

Peter Hendy said: 'I welcome and echo the Prime Minister's recognition of the simply outstanding job undertaken by staff right across London's transport networks, as well those in the Police and emergency services.

'There are many stories of dedication to customers and fellow staff members that are truly extraordinary.

'Transport staff continue to work hard to keep London moving.

'We're determined to ensure Londoners can get to work, get around and that it is business-as-usual across our city.'

Read the letter from the Prime Minister by clicking on the link below.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/metro/20755.aspx

eddie wrote:The funeral of Mark Duggan, the man whose fatal shooting by police sparked of the initial Tottenham riot, takes place today

...or not.

A second autopsy has been ordered.

user wrote:I heard Chief Minister Cameron say the recent trouble "was really down to the pillock borstal element who need to sod the fuck off back to Basingstoke promptly." Then apparently he distributed plastic bullets to North Cheam and Middlewich.

Nah Ville Sky Chick wrote:No-one is excusing them.

Where is your evidence for this statement?

Here's a tool of the ultraliberal profit driven media !

^^

Not really sure what you are trying to say. Is it because the interviewer is questioning his statement that the rioters were all black? It is very unlikely that ALL the rioters were black if this was Tottenham they were speaking from? So, I guess she was just trying to get the true picture to report.

Police chiefs are completely hacked off with Cameron and Johnson for attempting to take credit for the present cessation of rioting. A huge row is brewing.

They point out that even before the posh lads had been dragged home from their hols, the top cops had already ordered a revision of police tactics to meet a degree of public disorder unprecedented in modern times.

Latest public opinion polls also overwhelmingly back the police rather than the politicians.

Cameron's suggested use of water cannon has already been dismissed as ridiculous, given the mobility of the rioting thugs. How are you supposed to drive one of these huge vehicle down a back alley?

They are also infuriated by Cameron's appointment of an American adviser on criminal gangs. It seems that there's a constitutional issue at stake here: the independence of local UK police forces is held to be a bulwark of the constitution.

Nah Ville Sky Chick wrote:So, I guess she was just trying to get the true picture to report.

If thats what you want to believe go ahead...I'm not going to disagree with you.

Old Mack wrote:

Nah Ville Sky Chick wrote:So, I guess she was just trying to get the true picture to report.

If thats what you want to believe go ahead...I'm not going to disagree with you.

The clip was short, incomplete and without context. If you think it supports your view that Fox News's UK counterpart is "ultraliberal", that's your choice, Mack.

The US CNN reports that the rioters and looters in most cases were NOT exclusively and, in many cases, not even predominantly black - as the parade of rioters and looters through the courts shows:

Reporter Andrew Gilligan wrote in the Daily Telegraph: "Here in court, as David Cameron condemned the 'sickness' in parts of British society, we saw clearly, for the first time, the face of the riot: stripped of its hoods and masks, dressed in white prison T-shirts and handcuffed to burly security guards.

"It was rather different from the one we had been expecting."

He added of the defendants at Highbury Magistrates Court in north London: "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."

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/08/11/ukriots.accused/index.html

There's maybe a discussion to be had on the basis of that report - but that snippet of a clip from (where? when? how did it continue? etc) is evidence of nowt. IMO, of course.

felix...first let me say thanks for making feel at home !

Second...I have no view on, I'm going to assume Sky News being the counterpoint of Fox News...since I really don't know anything about Sky News except is is a News Service from England.

Question: So does that reporter work for Sky News or do you not even watch it ?

Next: if you have read my post in the past, I have often remarked on how things are often taken out of context to suit someones agenda. My focus in that post was not if the rioters that hit that guy were predominantly black or not BUT why would a 'reporter' even question him on his statement. I just find it hard to believe that if he said...'they were all white' would she ask him the same questions.

Without even knowing for sure, I assumed the rioters where both white and black BUT the fact remains it all started in a black 'hood' because a black criminal was killed by the police. It was days before I read of the racial element because of the PC that rules today.

Anyhow here is where I saw that clip. It is from a far right website so I take it with a grain of salt. Just the same...that old saying it is what it is comes to mind.

Reporter refuses to believe London store owner wasn’t attacked by white people August 12, 2011 · 78 comments

When the media reports that “youths” are rioting in London they omit the fact that they are primarily “minority” youths. No, they just can’t bring themselves to inject that note of race into the discussion.

Here’s a clip in which a British reporter is appalled when store owner Big Jim says he found “at least 100 black youths” looting shops in his neighborhood:

Reporter: “You’re not being stereotypical there?”
Big Jim: “No, absolutely…”
Reporter: “Are you sure that they were black? I’m sure they weren’t all black, were they?”
Big Jim: ”OK, then. Let me just say they weren’t all black. I was the white guy there.”
Reporter: “Well, there were probably other white guys there as well.”
Big Jim: “I didn’t see any.”

Tea Partiers. Yeah, that’s the answer. These rioters were probably members of the Tea Party. Everyone knows how violence prone they are.

Gosh...just goes to show Britain can't function without me in the country

Don't worry folks, I'm back

LaRue wrote:Gosh...just goes to show Britain can't function without me in the country

Don't worry folks, I'm back

Well, thank goodnes for that
for LaRue