london riots

11 Aug 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
There was an interesting interview with an ex police chief the other night on P.M on radio 4

is the license fee still being wasted on radio 4? it must be i suppose. are the same 12 peeple still listening then Mr Staggers/ :notes:

11 Aug 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob
it seems a fair few of those arrested are actually in employment

The press are being quite obvious in reporting those that are working................

11 Aug 2011

Quote by browning
it seems a fair few of those arrested are actually in employment

The press are being quite obvious in reporting those that are working................
The bastards how dare they

11 Aug 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

Yes, I do.
I also know what I said, and that took into account such events as Bloody Sunday and other tragedies.
My point was that the army has hardly spent their time firing at every protest that happened in NI.
Even the statistics show that the army killed less than 10% of the total dead attributed to the violence, and God knows how many of those were in self-defence when being shot at.
It seems that society doesn't understand that freedoms aren't a God given right. They're things that have been earned by generations of suffering and fighting so that we can have the right to protest etc. It doesn't mean that people can go on protests and riots without expecting consequences, be it legal or military.

So to sum up ....1: send the army in they probably wont kill anyone but if they do that's ok
2:Protesting is alright but don't get provoked by anyone one or see 1
To use the military in the current riots would set a dangerous precedent, next time it may be you protesting about the latest tax increase or marching against rioters .... things you see get easier with repetition ,slaughter enough newborn children and it becomes custom. What the current situation requires is rational reasoned action not knee jerk reactions
There was an interesting interview with an ex police chief the other night on P.M on radio 4 where he explained why water cannon,baton rounds,tasers etc. would be next to useless in policing these riots ..... I shall try to find it for you
Actually, to sum up:
1. Sending in the army is only necessary when the situation escalates, a point you seem to continually miss no matter how much I mention it (perhaps I should take to the streets in protest?)
and rioting are two different things entirely, but when people are peacefully protesting as has happened before in this country and NI then everything goes smoothly and very few are arrested or hurt and little damage is done.
You can't really sit there and with any conviction whatsoever tell me that the events of the past few days have been nothing but rioting for the sake of violence, greed and destruction

11 Aug 2011

Quote by poundindigo

Yes, I do.
I also know what I said, and that took into account such events as Bloody Sunday and other tragedies.
My point was that the army has hardly spent their time firing at every protest that happened in NI.
Even the statistics show that the army killed less than 10% of the total dead attributed to the violence, and God knows how many of those were in self-defence when being shot at.
It seems that society doesn't understand that freedoms aren't a God given right. They're things that have been earned by generations of suffering and fighting so that we can have the right to protest etc. It doesn't mean that people can go on protests and riots without expecting consequences, be it legal or military.

So to sum up ....1: send the army in they probably wont kill anyone but if they do that's ok
2:Protesting is alright but don't get provoked by anyone one or see 1
To use the military in the current riots would set a dangerous precedent, next time it may be you protesting about the latest tax increase or marching against rioters .... things you see get easier with repetition ,slaughter enough newborn children and it becomes custom. What the current situation requires is rational reasoned action not knee jerk reactions
There was an interesting interview with an ex police chief the other night on P.M on radio 4 where he explained why water cannon,baton rounds,tasers etc. would be next to useless in policing these riots ..... I shall try to find it for you
Actually, to sum up:
1. Sending in the army is only necessary when the situation escalates, a point you seem to continually miss no matter how much I mention it (perhaps I should take to the streets in protest?)
and rioting are two different things entirely, but when people are peacefully protesting as has happened before in this country and NI then everything goes smoothly and very few are arrested or hurt and little damage is done.
You can't really sit there and with any conviction whatsoever tell me that the events of the past few days have been nothing but rioting for the sake of violence, greed and destruction
Don't think I've tried to ,have I ?? I may have suggested that there are reasons behind the violence greed and destruction but hey ho
Don't think that I've tried to ignore your point about escalation ... just pointed out that I think sending in the troops would be counter-productive... but seeing as we're on the subject, what do you imagine the nature of this escalation may be ?? Or what would you class as an escalation that would require the military ??

11 Aug 2011

Quote by neilinleeds
MY possessions are worth a damned site more than THEIR life.

Mine are not. They're just things I've managed to buy over the years. They're not even insured, cos in the area I currently live in the insurance companies are just taking the piss with the premiums, and too expensive. Luckily for me I can afford to lose them. My material possessions mean nothing to me. They are absolutely worth less than the life of a thinking, feeling human being, whether that's mine or theirs.

Quote by Foxylady
If someone threatens my property (let alone my family!) they will be met with as much force as I can muster.

You see Foxy, if someone threatened my life, or Gem's, I'd go all out to take them down first with the first thing that came to hand, without hesitation, fully prepared to take the consequences of my actions. Probably, not being very well skilled at the whole violence thing I'd be piss poor at it, and would lose. Not gonna risk losing though for the sake of an Xbox and a telly, or even a presumably insured house, no matter how hard I worked to afford them in the first place?
N x x x ;)
That's fine, but lots of people cannot afford to lose their material posessions, and if you believe that your possessions are worth less that one of these rioters' lives - then that's fine too. I am not sure anyone is telling you what to think, merely that there are many people who are willing to fight for their possessions, and believe that whatever they have is worth more than the life of a person trying to deprive them of it. I certainly fit into that category.
As for the latter point, I believe it is fine for you or anyone else to choose not to risk your life in the protection of your house, XBox or Telly. If you choose not to fight for yourself then that's great, but I don't concede that someone else should not do so on the grounds that you are not prepared to run the risk of losing - perhaps you have nothing in your life worth fighting for.

11 Aug 2011

perhaps you have nothing in your life worth fighting for.

Himandher, you disappoint me. I thought you were a more skilled reader than that. Try reading it again. You might understand it on a second read?
*shakes head*
N x x x

11 Aug 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
Don't think I've tried to ,have I ?? I may have suggested that there are reasons behind the violence greed and destruction but hey ho
Don't think that I've tried to ignore your point about escalation ... just pointed out that I think sending in the troops would be counter-productive... but seeing as we're on the subject, what do you imagine the nature of this escalation may be ?? Or what would you class as an escalation that would require the military ??

I agree that there well may be reasons behind the violence, greed and destruction. There may well have been a noble and just reason for people to descend into anarchy and burn down buildings (note: that's satirical). Sadly, when people abandon peaceful means and descend into violence with no provocation (yes, the very first protest might have had one, but I don't think the rest had anything) then there isn't any real reason behind their motivation other than the three reasons stated above.
As for the escalation, thankfully it hasn't happened. If an escalation were to happen that would justify military intervention in my eyes, then that escalation would involve the same level of violence, looting and destruction of property that we've seen so far but over a much larger area on a much grander scale. A scale that would overwhelm the police's ability to deal with it and would threaten everybody who was in those areas. The military would then be brought in to act as a deterrent against all but the most die hard or anarchic of rioters.

11 Aug 2011

Quote by neilinleeds
perhaps you have nothing in your life worth fighting for.

Himandher, you disappoint me. I thought you were a more skilled reader than that. Try reading it again. You might understand it on a second read?
*shakes head*
N x x x
I don't need to read it again. If any person has to read more than once anything that anyone has written in order to understand it, then it could not have been written clearly enough in the first place.
For the avoidance of doubt - I don't agree with what you are saying - and I do agree with what Foxylady was saying.
As an aside, anyone is free to read what you or I (or anyone else) has written and free to agree or disagree with it as they please.. If you require a "skilled reader" to make sense of what you are saying, then either make that clear at the beginning of your posts or articulate your points with more clarity - this will displace the requirement for any thickies out there to make sense of your views.
* Doesn't shake head - if you cannot understand then read someone else's drivel *

11 Aug 2011

Quote by poundindigo

Don't think I've tried to ,have I ?? I may have suggested that there are reasons behind the violence greed and destruction but hey ho
Don't think that I've tried to ignore your point about escalation ... just pointed out that I think sending in the troops would be counter-productive... but seeing as we're on the subject, what do you imagine the nature of this escalation may be ?? Or what would you class as an escalation that would require the military ??

I agree that there well may be reasons behind the violence, greed and destruction. There may well have been a noble and just reason for people to descend into anarchy and burn down buildings (note: that's satirical). Sadly, when people abandon peaceful means and descend into violence with no provocation (yes, the very first protest might have had one, but I don't think the rest had anything) then there isn't any real reason behind their motivation other than the three reasons stated above.
As for the escalation, thankfully it hasn't happened. If an escalation were to happen that would justify military intervention in my eyes, then that escalation would involve the same level of violence, looting and destruction of property that we've seen so far but over a much larger area on a much grander scale. A scale that would overwhelm the police's ability to deal with it and would threaten everybody who was in those areas. The military would then be brought in to act as a deterrent against all but the most die hard or anarchic of rioters.
Thank you ... I don't agree

11 Aug 2011

Quote by Staggerlee_BB

Don't think I've tried to ,have I ?? I may have suggested that there are reasons behind the violence greed and destruction but hey ho
Don't think that I've tried to ignore your point about escalation ... just pointed out that I think sending in the troops would be counter-productive... but seeing as we're on the subject, what do you imagine the nature of this escalation may be ?? Or what would you class as an escalation that would require the military ??

I agree that there well may be reasons behind the violence, greed and destruction. There may well have been a noble and just reason for people to descend into anarchy and burn down buildings (note: that's satirical). Sadly, when people abandon peaceful means and descend into violence with no provocation (yes, the very first protest might have had one, but I don't think the rest had anything) then there isn't any real reason behind their motivation other than the three reasons stated above.
As for the escalation, thankfully it hasn't happened. If an escalation were to happen that would justify military intervention in my eyes, then that escalation would involve the same level of violence, looting and destruction of property that we've seen so far but over a much larger area on a much grander scale. A scale that would overwhelm the police's ability to deal with it and would threaten everybody who was in those areas. The military would then be brought in to act as a deterrent against all but the most die hard or anarchic of rioters.
Thank you ... I don't agree
I don't agree either - it's a load of rubbish.
What would the terms of reference be? Who would be in charge? Would martial-law be declared? Would the Human Rights Act be set aside for the purposes of Freedom of Association? Would the Armed Forces Act 2006 come into effect for the arrest of civilians on the grounds of obstructing the military? Would the Section 56 PACE rights to have a solicitor be set aside for persons arrested on reasonable suspicion? Would the detention clock be held in abeyance? Would the rights of arrest before an act has being committed be extended to soldiers - or would they be required to have a police officer in attendance?
What Public Order training do the military have? When was the last time that the military were trained in the use of Baton Guns? Where do they get their equipment from? Who takes jurisdiction if a soldier uses lethal force on a civilian whilst acting under Police orders?
The military Spearhead Lead Element is an infantry regiment that is ready to go at 6 hours notice - they are ready now. There is a place for the military in these situations, but its use really is a last resort, and I suspect that if it were you that was walking about your business and smashed in the face by a soldier, thrown into jail without trial with no legal representation purely because that soldier had the power to do so.... and you had done nothing wrong - that you might think differently. Do you rememember internment without trial in Northern Ireland?
If you use a hammer then everything is seen as a nut.

11 Aug 2011

Quote by HimandHer
If you use a hammer then everything is seen as a nut.

Firstly, nice reasoned post.
Secondly, surely if everything is seen as a nut you need a spanner.

12 Aug 2011

Himandher, I'd be the first to admit that I am not always as succinct and direct as I would like to be, but you see, I'd gone to such great lengths to type up what I actually meant, believing those words to be true, and then you'd gone to such great lengths to show that you'd read my post, even going so far as to hit a quote button, and drag yer mouse across the bits you wanted to highlight in bold . . . . .
I guess I was just somewhat dumbfounded to find that you had somehow gone from one of my explicit assertions, in the very paragraph you quoted, that there are some things in life I would defend, to your last, almost throwaway comment? confused

Back on topic, would it be labouring the point to suggest that when gambling, you do at least try to make sure the stakes are in some way equivalent, material / immaterial, replaceable / irreplaceable, before you go up against the house?
As for 'lots of people cannot afford to lose their material posessions', I'd suggest that, having somehow managed to acquire them in the first place they can, and perhaps anyone who thinks otherwise might wanna have a word with themselves as to how much value they invest in these material things they think they can't afford to lose?
N x x x ;)

12 Aug 2011

Quote by neilinleeds
Himandher, I'd be the first to admit that I am not always as succinct and direct as I would like to be, but you see, I'd gone to such great lengths to type up what I actually meant, believing those words to be true, and then you'd gone to such great lengths to show that you'd read my post, even going so far as to hit a quote button, and drag yer mouse across the bits you wanted to highlight in bold . . . . .
I guess I was just somewhat dumbfounded to find that you had somehow gone from one of my explicit assertions, in the very paragraph you quoted, that there are some things in life I would defend, to your last, almost throwaway comment?
Back on topic, would it be labouring the point to suggest that when gambling, you do at least try to make sure the stakes are in some way equivalent, material / immaterial, replaceable / irreplaceable, before you go up against the house?
As for 'lots of people cannot afford to lose their material posessions', I'd suggest that they can, and perhaps anyone who thinks otherwise might wanna have a word with themselves as to how much value they invest in these material things they think they can't afford to lose?
N x x x ;)

nicely thought out neil but its always irreplaceable sentiment that breaks the heart and sometimes the will to continue :sad:

12 Aug 2011

i understand that there is a shortage of locksmiths in london wink

12 Aug 2011

Course it is Rob. Soul destroying to watch someone else rob you of your efforts, I know. In the context of the thread though, I do pretty much think that the father of one of the dead, who even in the turmoil of the immediate aftermath so movingly called for calm despite his loss, knows that the life of his son was worth any number of shops he died trying to protect. Noone will ever be able to convince me that the loss of a human life, let alone three, was in some way a fair and equitable exchange for a parade of fucking shops. I can't make that sum add up, whichever way I spin it. That's all I'm saying.
At the risk of sounding like a bloody Chumbawumba song, when we get knocked down, we get up again, cos the will to continue no matter what is innate in us, and I am absolutely steadfast in my absolute belief that a human life is always more important than things. Risking one for the other just ain't reasonable?
N x x x ;)

12 Aug 2011

Quote by neilinleeds
Himandher, I'd be the first to admit that I am not always as succinct and direct as I would like to be, but you see, I'd gone to such great lengths to type up what I actually meant, believing those words to be true, and then you'd gone to such great lengths to show that you'd read my post, even going so far as to hit a quote button, and drag yer mouse across the bits you wanted to highlight in bold . . . . .
I guess I was just somewhat dumbfounded to find that you had somehow gone from one of my explicit assertions, in the very paragraph you quoted, that there are some things in life I would defend, to your last, almost throwaway comment? ;)

Then the answer is simple - either be more explcit or don't whine when your points are re-dressed.
There are things that you have said in reply, that quite frankly cannot be substantiated regarding what I have said - I remain silent on them as clearly you either do not understand what I am saying or I have failed to demonstrate my point. I am not whining - because in either case it will not alter the price of fish.

Quote by neilinleeds
Back on topic, would it be labouring the point to suggest that when gambling, you do at least try to make sure the stakes are in some way equivalent, material / immaterial, replaceable / irreplaceable, before you go up against the house?

No it would not be labouring the point - it would be illustrating it to my mind.
When I state my opinions I do not gamble with them by making some spurious claim that might be right, and if I am the one picking a fight - then I will only pick a fight that I know I can win. If it is the case that someone picks on me - then I will fight my corner or simply run off - I don't know which one it would be, as it would be dictated by the circumstances.
I say/do what I mean and what I believe - if/when I am subsequently proven to be wrong then I will learn from that experience and take away the fact that I know something now that I did not know before.
However, and to continue the gambling analogy... I don't go up against "the house"... ever.
The odds are always stacked against you and although you may win the odd battle you will ultimately lose the war.

Quote by neilinleeds
As for 'lots of people cannot afford to lose their material posessions', I'd suggest that they can, and perhaps anyone who thinks otherwise might wanna have a word with themselves as to how much value they invest in these material things they think they can't afford to lose?
N x x x ;)

To address the last point first... this ridiculous winking emoticon "N x x x ;)" that you have placed at the end of your statement. What is its purpose - are you saying that what you have said you yourself don't agree with or is it an online provocation of some sort. In either case it is a useless gesture as I don't understand what you are trying to illustrate with its employment and harks back to my earlier point about you failing to demonstrate what you are saying. It could of course be the case that I am "not down wiv da kidz m8 innit" and that you are clearly more hip and trendy than I am - so please feel free to use these stupid things, but if the point is directed at me then please make clear what you mean by them.
Now to the point in bold - can I ask exactly who you are to suggest that other people can afford to lose their possessions? Are you some form of omnipetent omnicompetent socio-economic guru?
Can you set out the grounds on which a third party should "have a word with themselves" in respect of them attaching any value to whatever possessions they have.
Importantly, I can appreciate and fully support the view that you hold, inasmuch as you are completely at liberty to attach whatever value you care to - to anything you like without further justification to anyone on any grounds.
However can you explain the theory that you have which clearly states if a third party opinion ascribes a value to a material item - that they must be wrong to do so on the grounds that it is not consistent with the views that you believe they should hold?

12 Aug 2011

Have skimmed this thread, not read all of it properly, but do get the gist of the anger towards the rioting morons - so apologies for not reading all properly :uhoh:
I can't call them anything other. To me they're scum, lower than that even mad

But what gets my back up just as much, is the complete lack of anger, want of revenge/justice, was only a little while ago...
Politicians looting, taking from the tax payer etc. The only difference is that the rioters done it en masse, went out in force and looted/destroyed peoples livlihoods by using that good old fashioned 'pack' instinct.
Our good law abiding, upstanding members of the community, aka politicians, however done the exact same thing from what I can see (please correct me if I'm wrong)only a short while ago, only singularly and in different ways/tricks!!
Of course they're too posh to call it common old looting - but surely claiming second houses, cars, holidays, house cleaners, first class travel etc is the same thing ........ ok "expense claims" was what they called it - but how necessary was it for the tax payer to buy these people (plus families) 2nd homes etc for the good of the country? dunno

Lead by example I say, and from the past dirt dredged up, maybe they should get off their high horses and admit they're no better than the morons of this week!! confused

12 Aug 2011

And there was me thinking I was having a slow night . . . .
Fucking 'ell Himandher, bet you're a barrel of laughs when you open your post of a morning? Best regards? Yours sincerely? WTF does that mean? Have to say you're the first person I've come across so far that thought that deconstructing my habitual, casual sign off by way of a pleasantry was all that worthy of their time and energy? Still, there's a first time for anything I suppose.
N x x x ;)

12 Aug 2011

Quote by Missy
Have skimmed this thread, not read all of it properly, but do get the gist of the anger towards the rioting morons - so apologies for not reading all properly :uhoh:
I can't call them anything other. To me they're scum, lower than that even
But what gets my back up just as much, is the complete lack of anger, want of revenge/justice, was only a little while ago...
Politicians looting, taking from the tax payer etc. The only difference is that the rioters done it en masse, went out in force and looted/destroyed peoples livlihoods by using that good old fashioned 'pack' instinct.
Our good law abiding, upstanding members of the community, aka politicians, however done the exact same thing from what I can see (please correct me if I'm wrong)only a short while ago, only singularly and in different ways/tricks!!
Of course they're too posh to call it common old looting - but surely claiming second houses, cars, holidays, house cleaners, first class travel etc is the same thing ........ ok "expense claims" was what they called it - but how necessary was it for the tax payer to buy these people (plus families) 2nd homes etc for the good of the country?
Lead by example I say, and from the past dirt dredged up, maybe they should get off their high horses and admit they're no better than the morons of this week!!

And that is wisdom!

13 Aug 2011

I think you're right Missy? It's easier, and way more photo-opportunistic and tele-genic having these little bluddy scrotes parading about in front of a burning shop with their hoodies up, innit? Small picture on a t.v. screen that speaks directly to our inner caveman is always gonna be easier to get a handle on? Moreso than it is trying to get to grips with some kind of amorphous supranational metaphor whose own creators are frank in their statements to eachother that even they don't fully understand the forces they've unleashed any more? They'll keep on trying to piss up our backs and tell us it's raining for a bit just yet, but like all pissing contests, it really is just pissing in the wind. It's not big, and it's not clever, and it all smells the same in the end.
Course, I can already hear the reactionary right screaming that seeking to understand is the same as excuse. No it's not. T'would absolutely be an interesting and worthwhile experiment, trying to get in to the minds of these rioters, because despite what the world and his wife would have us believe going by the daily papers, they are anything but mindless. Be useful to know what was in their minds, and where had it come from, and where they thought they were going with it? Maybe we'd learn something as a society that might help us have less of this in the future? Maybe, as a society we could choose to learn something from it for once, and try and heal some deep hurts? Do something properly fundamental and radical for change, instead of this same-old, same-old that every single rational person in the country, of whatever political stripe, knows has failed. Doesn't mean I still wouldn't lock every last one of 'em up if they deserved it, obviously?
I'll not hold me breath though. We've been here before, and while some good came out of the last few, as a populace we tend not to like having dark mirrors held in front of our faces all that much?
N x x x ;)

13 Aug 2011

If this calm reasoned wisdom is infectious, I hope I get a dose.

13 Aug 2011

Quote by Ben_Minx
If this calm reasoned wisdom is infectious, I hope I get a dose.

Perhaps we could get it into the water supply and thus infect the Houses of Parliament and Sink Estates of our larger cities in one dose. :thumbup:
Oh, hang on, we'd have to get it into the whiskey and lager supplies respectively. But we could try. :giggle:

13 Aug 2011

Quote by Ben_Minx
If this calm reasoned wisdom is infectious, I hope I get a dose.

first time i seen any one wish for an std, but hey it takes allsorts i spose bolt

13 Aug 2011

Quote by neilinleeds
Course it is Rob. Soul destroying to watch someone else rob you of your efforts, I know. In the context of the thread though, I do pretty much think that the father of one of the dead, who even in the turmoil of the immediate aftermath so movingly called for calm despite his loss, knows that the life of his son was worth any number of shops he died trying to protect. Noone will ever be able to convince me that the loss of a human life, let alone three, was in some way a fair and equitable exchange for a parade of fucking shops. I can't make that sum add up, whichever way I spin it. That's all I'm saying.
At the risk of sounding like a bloody Chumbawumba song, when we get knocked down, we get up again, cos the will to continue no matter what is innate in us, and I am absolutely steadfast in my absolute belief that a human life is always more important than things. Risking one for the other just ain't reasonable?
N x x x ;)

so i will return to and stand by my original statement that the police should have gone in hard and not stand by
i do believe the death toll is 5 possibly to rise to seven if this had been stamped out early then the needless loss of lives homes and possessions would have been far less IMO
i also believe that human and civil rights should be forfeited when will-full acts of violence and destruction are initiated in this manner jmho
and before anyone jumps on the band wagon remember you house and car insurance will rise by at least 20 % next year because of these riots regardless of where you live

13 Aug 2011

Quote by Lizaleanrob
and before anyone jumps on the band wagon remember you house and car insurance will rise by at least 20 % next year because of these riots regardless of where you live

£200 million is the overall cost to insurers estimated by the trade body. There is in my view no justification for a 20% increase in premiums to cover such a figure AND they can and probably will claim compensation from government. That said I imagine it will be used as an excuse for profiteering, they are insurance companies after all. Insurers in the main do not adjust premiums regardless of where you live, competition sees to that.

13 Aug 2011

Quote by Ben_Minx

and before anyone jumps on the band wagon remember you house and car insurance will rise by at least 20 % next year because of these riots regardless of where you live

£200 million is the overall cost to insurers estimated by the trade body. There is in my view no justification for a 20% increase in premiums to cover such a figure AND they can and probably will claim compensation from government. That said I imagine it will be used as an excuse for profiteering, they are insurance companies after all. Insurers in the main do not adjust premiums regardless of where you live, competition sees to that.
have you any idea how many underwriters there are ben ?? and the difference between insurance company and underwriter ???
i think you`ll find its the underwriters who will set the prices the amount of profits made and final premiums are up to the insurance companies the base figure they all work from is always the same wink

and based on the facts that this is now considered a uk riot and not a london riot you`ll find the uk will now suffer as a whole
but then im happy to wait till next year to find out s all mine have just been renewed lol

13 Aug 2011

I only contribute when I am sharing my experience or seeking to learn from others.
I have a tiny bit of experience in these particular matters.
Your synopsis is quite wrong.

13 Aug 2011

Quote by Ben_Minx
I only contribute when I am sharing my experience or seeking to learn from others.
I have a tiny bit of experience in these particular matters.
Your synopsis is quite wrong.

the particular information was gleaned to me via an employee of Loyd's of London this very morning
and a very insightful conversation as to how the insurance industry works from the top to the very bottom despite the government giving 280million of tax payers money to pay the bill(efectively the working public have underwritten the cost), for the next three years riots/public order/looting/arson will be considered a much higher risk than previously considered thus a rather large increase in insurance premiums the excuse will be a rise in claims this year althought the insurance co`s will have payed out very little
funny what makes the world go around dont ya think lol

13 Aug 2011

Quote by neilinleeds
Course, I can already hear the reactionary right screaming that seeking to understand is the same as excuse. No it's not. Be useful to know what was in their minds, and where had it come from, and where they thought they were going with it? Maybe we'd learn something as a society that might help us have less of this in the future? Maybe, as a society we could choose to learn something from it for once, and try and heal some deep hurts?

nell reely.
reeding some of the comments on this thred i am afraid to say that if peeple in responsible positions in life have adopted the same attitudes then i am not suprised there were facts the only thing i am suprised about is that it has taken this long for the riots to happen.
nell i believe that if you want to look into the minds of these morons then it would be a great place to start at there birth. the parents instill no boundaries many times and the schools teech no respect ether. is it any wonder that these peeple end up being where they are now with no moral guidance in there lives?
no experiment needed nell reely as it is very clear that years of no moral compass from either the parents or teechers or anyone else in there lives, has been a big factor in them turning out the way they have. it reely is as simple as that.:notes: