Thread: Riot in London

You can't excuse what they're doing at all.

Well, to be fair; you can because things like this don't happen for no reason at all. All these people live in the same cities and would not attack their own city unless there were issues there already.

This has been on the cards for over a year. In fact, my politics tutor at University predicted wide-spread rioting last September. Do you honestly think that on Saturday, a few hoodlums got together and thought they'd use Mark Duggan's murder as an excuse to go out robbing? Riots don't gain this kind of momentum over one small issue like that.

People are lashing out for a reason. For some it is injustice, for some it is the way govermental cuts have affected them, for some it is lack of trust in the system, for some it is resentment towards business' that they feel get better treatment than they do and for some it is to get free stuff.

You can sit at home passing judgement about how they should have gone about making their points in less violent ways but it doesn't change the fact that wide-spread riots are currently taking place in major cities all over this country. What is important at the moment is making sure more don't happen; either this week or in the future.

What good it will do them if the store gets burnt down never to be rebuilt is uncertain, (it shan't get rebuilt if it burns as the business was already suffering and making cutbacks, when these places burn they're likely to remain burnt until/if the economy recovers).

Well, look at the kind of shops that have burnt down. Sportswear shops for example employ people on minimum wages but make massive profits from over-priced goods made for cheap in other countries (which were previously made here). Nobody on low-income/unemployed status gives a toss what happens to shops like this - why should they? It's the same with smaller independent business which don't contribute back into the local society.

Yes, you and I can see the long term repercussions but do you honestly think this is what is going to cross the mind of someone who feels that society has massively given up on them?

A University Graduate, Graphic Designer and a number of intellectuals have been charged with their doings in the Rioting last night, so it is not just uneducated Chavs who are 'fighting the Government'.

Exactly, it's a group of people dis-satisfied with the current system who feel their voice are not being heard. This is the nature of rioting.

With these other cities now involved can you tell me if these are mainly blacks and Turks rioting or lots of young whites and others too in Britain?

Wolverhampton is multi-cultural in the extreme. Asian, West Indian, eastern European, Balkan and middle-eastern refugees (Bosnian, Kosovan, Iraqi, Kurdish). Some parts are pretty much ghetto-ised. I've looked at photographs posted on the web and there seemed to be a majority of black kids involved. But, that was only a handful of photos.

You can't excuse what they're doing at all.

Well, to be fair; you can

I'm surprised you're not out there with them. I'm just off to vomit.

Looters in Hackney raided J&D Sports Wear, (shell suits and baseball caps).

Looters in Ealing raided Bang & Olufsun.

Looters in Liverpool raided Estate Agents (eh!)

Waterstones Book stores reports no looting in any areas.

Originally Posted by Bilston Blue

Wolverhampton is multi-cultural in the extreme. Asian, West Indian, eastern European, Balkan and middle-eastern refugees (Bosnian, Kosovan, Iraqi, Kurdish). Some parts are pretty much ghetto-ised. I've looked at photographs posted on the web and there seemed to be a majority of black kids involved. But, that was only a handful of photos.

Muchos gracias, Bilston.

Never heard of Wolverhampton; what a cool name. That's like Wolves and Hampton put together. Or like that comic book character Wolverine.

Never heard of Wolverhampton; what a cool name. That's like Wolves and Hampton put together. Or like that comic book character Wolverine.

D'you want two thousand words on its history.

It's in the heart of the black country, which is so-called because Queen Victoria, when riding through the region on a train, famously closed the curtains due to the very blackness outside her window, caused by all the pollution from industry. 'Twas at the heart of the industrial revolution, Abraham Darby and all that. He developed a method of producing pig iron in a blast furnace fuelled by coke rather than charcoal. This was a major step forward in the production of iron as a raw material for the Industrial Revolution (wikipedia).

I'll quit there.

If riots are symptomatic of deep seeded frustration and resentment -- in other words, someone else's fault, not the poor fellow smashing windows and stealing -- I wonder why they invariably only happen in good weather? I guess people aren't as frustrated and angry in the winter, or during storms.

Bilston, what does pig iron, coke, and pollution have to do with "Wolver"?

Originally Posted by Terry D

If riots are symptomatic of deep seeded frustration and resentment -- in other words, someone else's fault, not the poor fellow smashing windows and stealing -- I wonder why they invariably only happen in good weather? I guess people aren't as frustrated and angry in the winter, or during storms.

Terry, I read a person that appeared to Yank commenting on a yahoo news article about the British riots.

The person used a quote of Thomas Jefferson about something along the lines of... if the people are afraid of the government then tyranny, if the government is afraid of the people then liberty.

Do you think people in the U.S. would riot or get into gun battles with police and federal agents if the U.S. Government outlawed all firearms in the United States? Do you view that as more sane and morally righteous reason to riot against the status quo then what is going on in Britain.

Also, as one Yank to another, if we can be totally honest, putting aside the rightness or wrongness of the riots in Britain and the British love for all things beer, blood pudding, and rioting... wouldn't you agree the U.S. Government would use greater lethal force to subdue a rioting U.S. population and make them fear the might of the state?

I say that in part from watching a Deadliest Warrior episode of L.A. Swat vs the German GSG9. What struck me was the sheer lethality of the L.A. weaponry. Their assault rifle used a round so large that one round literally split the skull/head in ballistic gel in half. Now, I know their are Americans raised to trust the police institution more than God Almighty Himself. But I'm not so stupid as to believe that such firepower is brought to a policing situation to bring out suspects to interrogate. They are tools of a state financed and sponsored assassin team.




Edit: now that I think of it again, it might have been the L.A. SWAT team's sniper rifle and not their assault rifle. Either way they mean business and to play for keeps.

Bilston, what does pig iron, coke, and pollution have to do with "Wolver"?

Ha! Sorry, that is more relative to the black country, which is a term used to describe an area of approximately 25 sq miles, of which Wolverhampton is at the heart. The Wolv of Wolverhampton originally dates back to the tenth century, and Lady Wulfruna. She was (legend has it) daughter of King Ethelred I. She was awarded some land at a place then called Heantun, which became known as Wulruna's Heantun, and eventually to Wolverhampton.

Hope that clears it up.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

Bilston, what does pig iron, coke, and pollution have to do with "Wolver"?



Terry, I read a person that appeared to Yank commenting on a yahoo news article about the British riots.

The person used a quote of Thomas Jefferson about something along the lines of... if the people are afraid of the government then tyranny, if the government is afraid of the people then liberty.

Do you think people in the U.S. would riot or get into gun battles with police and federal agents if the U.S. Government outlawed all firearms in the United States? Do you view that as more sane and morally righteous reason to riot against the status quo then what is going on in Britain.

Yes, I think that would happen because, to a great extent we are a 'gun culture' and it is written into our constitution.

Also, as one Yank to another, if we can be totally honest, putting aside the rightness or wrongness of the riots in Britain and the British love for all things beer, blood pudding, and rioting... wouldn't you agree the U.S. Government would use greater lethal force to subdue a rioting U.S. population and make them fear the might of the state?

I don't think it would get more lethal here from the police perspective first. I think the rioters here would be more violent than those in the UK. We saw that in the Rodney King riots where people were pulled from their vehicles and beaten, or shot. Unfortunately I believe that the police would soon respond in kind. Of course I could be wrong, I vividly remember the 'police riots' in Chicago in the summer of 1968. And the Kent State shootings a couple of years later.

I say that in part from watching a Deadliest Warrior episode of L.A. Swat vs the German GSG9. What struck me was the sheer lethality of the L.A. weaponry. Their assault rifle used a round so large that one round literally split the skull/head in ballistic gel in half. Now, I know their are Americans raised to trust the police institution more than God Almighty Himself. But I'm not so stupid as to believe that such firepower is brought to a policing situation to bring out suspects to interrogate. They are tools of a state financed and sponsored assassin team.

That sort of fire power is needed when the criminals are fully capable of being just as heavily armed as are the SWAT teams. I want my police to be on top of that situation. I fully support that sort of response.

Never heard of Wolverhampton; what a cool name. That's like Wolves and Hampton put together. Or like that comic book character Wolverine.

Only someone from America could come out with something like that.

Originally Posted by Amber Leaf

Well, to be fair; you can because things like this don't happen for no reason at all. All these people live in the same cities and would not attack their own city unless there were issues there already.

So, if I'm a store owner who is frustrated about having my livelihood destroyed for others to vent the rage generated by a third-party, should I also get a free pass on burning the homes of random people so I can vent my rage too? No level of frustration with the system justifies destroying the lives of other innocents trying to work their way through the same system. It's shameful to even try and defend it.

Or shall we also try and justify some guy raping a girl because he's frustrated about striking out at the bar for a year? Maybe two years? How many times would a guy have to strike out before we considered him sufficiently justified in working out his frustrations on some poor, undeserving lady?

Victim mentality can only be accommodated so far.

So, if I'm a store owner who is frustrated about having my livelihood destroyed for others to vent the rage generated by a third-party, should I also get a free pass on burning the homes of random people so I can vent my rage too? No level of frustration with the system justifies destroying the lives of other innocents trying to work their way through the same system. It's shameful to even try and defend it.

I wouldn't know because I'm not here to pass moral judgement on a group of people whose situation I am neither part of and whose frustrations aren't my own. I am saying it how it is - people are upset, they have rioted, they have their reasons. Just because it isn't what you would do (because you are not them) does not mean their reasons are fully invalid. I would never defend a riot because a riot isn't generally a versus situation where there are sides - a riot is anarchy and chaos with everyone for themselves.

Or shall we also try and justify some guy raping a girl because he's frustrated about striking out at the bar for a year? Maybe two years? How many times would a guy have to strike out before we considered him sufficiently justified in working out his frustrations on some poor, undeserving lady?

This is just completely off-topic. This is a riot that has been caused by many, many different reasons. People from all areas of London (and other major cities) have joined together to cause a massive public disturbance for these many, many reasons; which are all to do with social deprivation. Rapists and child molesters are fortunately a rare type and are not wanted by anybody, even the majority of those who cause the violence above.

There is a world between fighting, stealing, burning property etc... and horrifically hurting someone for sexual pleasure. Get a grip.

Greed seems to be the strongest reason for why this is happening. In Manchester, unlinked completely to the events in Tottenham, there has been chaos and havoc all night, and it continues as I write this. Groups of young teenagers and middle aged men and women have been spotted looting and smashing windows, setting fire to shops, and doing so in a somewhat organised manner.

But why? Is it because they are uneducated? Maybe. Is it because they are deprived? Maybe.

But I know many uneducated and deprived people who are inside, and will remain inside, until the riots are over.

This has nothing to do with making a statement. It is about making a profit.

Originally Posted by Amber Leaf

I wouldn't know because I'm not here to pass moral judgement on a group of people whose situation I am neither part of and whose frustrations aren't my own. I am saying it how it is - people are upset, they have rioted, they have their reasons. Just because it isn't what you would do (because you are not them) does not mean their reasons are fully invalid. I would never defend a riot because a riot isn't generally a versus situation where there are sides - a riot is anarchy and chaos with everyone for themselves.

But are passing moral judgement on them. They have broken the law, and if you don't enforce the law you condone their behaviour through inaction. Remember that saying about what it takes for evil to win? Right. This is it.

And yes their reasons are fully invalid, not because it isn't what I would do, but because as a society we have deemed it illegal to smash the windows of a store, loot it, and then walk down the street and burn down someone's home. The law is the law, and just because you feel marginalized by the system you don't have a right to destroy the lives of someone else, which brings us to our second, completely on-topic point.

Originally Posted by Amber Leaf

This is just completely off-topic. This is a riot that has been caused by many, many different reasons. People from all areas of London (and other major cities) have joined together to cause a massive public disturbance for these many, many reasons; which are all to do with social deprivation. Rapists and child molesters are fortunately a rare type and are not wanted by anybody, even the majority of those who cause the violence above.

There is a world between fighting, stealing, burning property etc... and horrifically hurting someone for sexual pleasure. Get a grip.

I don't care how many people are involved, each one of those people made an individual decision to participate in the events, and each one of them are individually responsible for every rock thrown, police officer injured, store robbed, car destroyed or house burned down.

Or let me put it this way, so it's in the context of the situation you're outlining above:

We have four people in the riot: one has burned down an apartment building, displacing several families and likely killed several pets, one injured a fellow rioter fighting in the streets, one has injured a police officer fighting in the streets, and one has raped a woman who was also rioting.

Why should the law apply differently to any of them?