Thread: Riot in London

Again.

The British and French love their riots. But I have to give them credit on one thing, when they throw a riot they throw a proper riot.

World news: Riot hits north London after police shooting death - Yahoo! News

LONDON (AP) — The gritty north London neighborhood of Tottenham exploded in anger Saturday night after a young man was shot to death by police.

Two patrol cars, a building and a double-decker bus were torched as rioters clashed with officers in front of the Tottenham Police Station, where people had gathered to demand "justice" for the death of a 29-year-old killed in an apparent gunfight.

"It's really bad," said local resident David Akinsanya, 46. "There are two police cars on fire. I'm feeling unsafe."

How do you mean they throw a proper riot??
I thought it was disgraceful. The British Do NOT love rioting. The Media does. It feeds of it.
The British ONLY Riot when it affects them directly, meaning when it means their lives are affected.
Yesterday lousy squirmishes was not a riot. It was organised by a deficent group to justify their silly existence.
So they go out and try and destroy something to get attention and make London look bad. That is all.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

The British and French love their riots.

The Canadians recently showed they can riot with the best of them. In Vancouver anyway. And it was over losing the Stanley Cup. At least here, our sports-related riots are about the over-exuberance that comes from winning championships.

I have dual citizenship, and half of me was ashamed. The other half was delighted, seeing as how my old man thinks Canadians can do no wrong. I had fun giving him a really hard time about it.

I agree 100% with Nacian. I was born in London and have worked there most my life. I can assure you this type of charade is far from the norm.

I will refrain from giving an emotive opinion, although I think the goings on in the middle east are worthy of more media attention.

Incidentally, my beloved son lives in Vancouver and was at the Stanley cup. He was horrified by the events that unfolded. And, I might add fearful for his girlfriends safety. Again, far from the norm.

I would suggest this thread is removed before it turns into a battle of opinions.
Steve

Yikes. I didn't even know the Canadians were the rioting type. I goggled that riot after Joseph mentioned it. It was worse than I thought. This all over a sports game?

BBC caught some of it on video: BBC News - Vancouver: Riots after Canucks' Stanley Cup defeat

Steve, London has had more than one riot. The students were rioting over there just a year ago and setting things on fire.

Nacian, riots are rare in the United States and when they do occur its even more rare for buildings and cars to be set on fire. What the French, British, and Canadian have with setting cars on fire I have no idea?

Most men have an affection for their cars or trucks in the United States. Some invest a lot of money in them. I think it's an unwritten law in the United States that you don't mess with another man's car.






Also, I read that London could not protect Prince Charles and Camilla when they were driving through London and their limo got attacked. Doors being kicked, window cracked, and Camilla jabbed with a stick.

Apparently, some are questioning if London can properly provide security when it hosts the 2012 Olympics.

For arguments sake... if I was coming to London for the 2012 Olympics as tourist, can my safety be guaranteed?

Steve, London has had more than one riot. The students were rioting over there just a year ago and setting things on fire.

Also, I read that London could not protect Prince Charles and Camilla when they were driving through London and their limo got attacked. Doors being kicked, window cracked, and Camilla jabbed with a stick.

These events happened on the same day if I recall correctly, as the royal driver failed to take heed of warnings about the rampaging mob.

Regarding the riot in Tottenham last night, I wasn't surprised to find the trouble started on the Broadwater Farm estate, twenty-five years after the riots there ended up with the murder of a policeman, something I distinctly remember seeing on the news when I was a young 'un. The people there clearly have an issue with the police, but this trouble started after a policeman was shot, and they kick-off because the police retaliated.

A lady was interviewed in the aftermath, and said there are people living in the area who left school ten, fifteen years ago, and they haven't had a job in all that time; and it's not because they don't want to work. Yes, love, I think it's deluded that they call people like you. It's easy to arm yourself, sell crack to single-mums and school kids, and steal money from the government too. You get more respect for that on the street than you would for flipping burgers in McDonald's. And I'm bringing a child up in a country that creates ghettos and mini-societies like that. I think Powell may have been on to something way back then, though I'm probably not allowed to say that.

Rant over, I'm off before I get into trouble.

What happened on Saturday night in Tottenham was not rioting.
It was vandalism and vindictive behaviour towards Londoners and Britain as a whole.

I think the whole idea of the police shooting an individual let alone a suspect is dangerous terrritories.
It is never right for the police to ever think they can shoot someone even if that someone is guilty or dangerous.
It is not their jobs to kill people. It is their job to bring the culprit to justice.
Hence the crown court.
The last time they shot someone they got the person wrong. What is more shocking, they shot an innocent person AND did it in PUBLIC.
They could have harmed people and yet they carried the shooting , killed an innocent and got away with it.
It is disgusting. There has got to be an end to the police thinking they can carry guns and shoot.
It should be made illegal for the police to carry arms with intent to shoot.

The reported events are as follows (not confirmed, only reported)

1. Armed police surrounded a car containing people suspected of being involved with gang related activities. We know what they are: drugs, guns, etc.

2. One of the suspects shot a policeman.

3. One of the officers shot and killed the gunman.

So, after step two, what would you have happen. This is happening at close range. Should they have asked him to put down the gun? Would he have obliged?

If you play with fire, you're going to get burned. A policeman has never taken a shot at me, or any of my family, or any of my friends. It's because I, and my family, and my friends, don't point guns or shoot them at the police. It can be put no more simply than that. Can it?

The majority of our police force don't carry guns. Those who do are trained to do so, trained to know when to use them, and you will usually find them near the "baddies" who are also armed. They have my backing. I trust them.

I am afraid this whole idea of police carrying guns and shooting because that is the only hting they can do is totally unsafe and out of order.
The case of the Portuguese De Menezes was a major faux pas. A no go area.
If the police who were in big numbers at the time, and he was on his own, in a public busy place and their only resort was to shoot because they thought he was a suspect is big time wrong.
They hot him whne they could have got him. They were ten of them. He was one. How does that compare.
They were people around in a busy tube station and the only thing they could do was shoot??
Well then they should not be employed if they could not stop someone who was on their own.
What were they thinking of? What is their training all about?
Would you have been pleased if it was you at the station and someone close to you with you at the time of the shooting??
It is scandalous and must not be repeated is what I think.

The shooting of Jean Claude de Menezes was wrong, but the fault lay not with the officer(s) who shot him, but rather the intelligence gathering before hand. This still does not excuse the mistake, I quite agree. Regarding the point about the numbers of the police involved, and why they shot him instead of arresting him; they were led to believe he was wearing a bomb vest, and no doubt believed had they attempted an arrest he could have detonated the bomb (in a highly crowded and enclosed public place). Don't forget, also, the level of fear and paranoia in the capital in those days after the July 7th bombings (de Menezes was shot either the day after or two days after if I remember correctly).

In such circumstances it could be said those times were the closest our country has come to having war brought to her shores since the second world war. In war innocent people die. It's horrible, I know. I trust our police, armed services, and intelligence services. I believe they are some of the best in the world. They have my vote.

Riots are wrong, period.
Shooting people is wrong, period.

An eye for an eye would leave us all blind, period.

Have your say, but do it peacefully, period.

As far as the UK being safe, well you tell which country can guarantee safety. We do not have a gun culture amongst British people. The UK is safe, however you can look for trouble and like any country, you will find it.

As for the student protests a year ago, a handful of 'hooligans' looking for agro started mini riots that multiplied out of control. Don't believe everything you read in the press...

As with any issues like this, it starts with a minority and the sheep follow/get sucked in.

Most people on this planet are peaceful, period.

Originally Posted by Nacian

What happened on Saturday night in Tottenham was not rioting.
It was vandalism and vindictive behaviour towards Londoners and Britain as a whole.

You're probably right.

Maybe the police officer should have just let the thug kill him, so they could have danced around his lifeless body. Western society, though far from perfect, does offer individuals hope to improve their lives through education or hard work. This type of stuff is primitive behavior.

Update on the British riot.


Full article: Britain burns: Riots spread through UK cities - Yahoo! News

LONDON (AP) — A wave of violence and looting raged across London and spread to three other major British cities on Tuesday, as authorities struggled to contain the country's worst unrest since race riots set the capital ablaze in the 1980s.

In London, groups of young people rampaged for a third straight night, setting buildings, vehicles and garbage dumps alight, looting stores and pelting police officers with bottles and fireworks. The spreading disorder was an unwelcome warning of the possibility of violence for leaders organizing the 2012 Summer Olympics in less than a year.

"The violence we have seen is simply inexcusable. Ordinary people have had their lives turned upside down by this mindless thuggery," police commander Christine Jones said.

Rioters were left virtually unchallenged in several neighborhoods and able to plunder from stores at will or attempt to invade homes. Restaurants and stores fearful of looting closed early across London.

Disorder flared throughout the night, from gritty suburbs along the capital's fringes to central London's famously posh Notting Hill neighborhood. London's Ambulance Service said it had treated 16 patients, of whom 15 were hospitalized. Police said 334 people had been arrested and 69 people charged with offenses.

East London's diversity was on display amid the charred hulks of cars and the smell of burning plastic. Some looters were young women with manicured nails and customized BlackBerry smart phones. Others wore dreadlocks and stained shirts or appeared to be homeless.

"This is the uprising of the working class. We're redistributing the wealth," said Bryn Phillips, a 28-year-old self-described anarchist, as young people emerged from the store with chocolate bars and ice cream cones.

Phillips claimed rioters were motivated by distrust of the police, and drew a link between the rage on London's street and insurgent right-wing politics in the United States. "In America you have the tea party, in England you've got this," he said.

Police said Duggan was shot dead last week when police from Operation Trident — the unit that investigates gun crime in the black community — stopped a cab he was riding in.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is investigating the shooting, said a "non-police firearm" was recovered at the scene, and media reports said a bullet had been found in an officer's radio. However, the Guardian newspaper reported that the bullet in the radio was police-issue, indicating Duggan may not have fired at the officer.

1. Britain doesn't seem to safe right now. The police seem to lack the ability to handle the situation alone. When will British airborne troops from the Army be called in?

2. If the cops really did unjustly shoot this bloke and give a false narrative, what is it with governments and police officers inability to tell a good lie? I mean crackheads can put together better lies and stories then some of these governments and police. Reminds me of the first U.S. Government story of the house raid and killing of Osama Bin Laden [shakes head].

Partly to do with the shooting of the guy by the police but these sudden bursts of violences were already planned ahead of the incident.
It is an organisation that targets yound delluded people wind them up and then sendout to the streets to destory and loot.
It is a vindictive organisation that lives off destruction and violence because that is the only way it knows to justify its very desperate silly existence.
I call them the Lord of the desperate.
It will soon pipe down because it can't go on forever.