Mass rioting in London

[kiwinavega]

Hello all,

I was just wondering if the widespread rioting in my home city of london is getting much coverage internationally. Anyone seen any reporting on it? What are people saying about all this?

kiwinavega

[joz]

People here in the states are speculating that maybe the pubs ran out of beer.

[elrod21]

Here in Canada they are reporting it. It is terrible. Are you anywhere near where the major rioting areas are?

[kiwinavega]

It's all over London - not everywhere, but there are pockets of it all over the place. I haven't seen any of it first hand, as in physically there, but it's pretty crazy. It seemed to stem from a peaceful protest on Saturday after police shot a man dead on Thursday. The protest turned violent and has now spread. Other than the first protest though, the rioting doesn't seem to be political - it seems like it's an excuse to go out looting.

[Squall]

And of course, it has nothing to do with the fact that this is the first generation where the youth have had less prospects than their parents ;)

[kiwinavega]

That's an interesting point Squall, and of course it's valid. But there's no semblance of these riots being political. You don't make a stand for your self and your generation by - in one instance, for example - looting charity shops. I am looking at it in this way:

What is being stolen? School uniforms or expensive trainers? Books or plasma TVs? Food or stereos? One option might command sympathy, one certainly doesn't.

[Ashums]

It's not just London anymore, the rioting had spread to Birmingham last night also and my sister was in the city centre at the time, she was lucky to get home safe.

This country is in enough mess as it is, the last thing we need is this rioting and looting, it's just going to raise taxes to pay for the damages and we will be even worse off.

And think of all of the lost jobs for people who's work has got burned down and stuff, it's not fair.

I agree with kiwinavega, they don't care about the political reason that started the protest, its just an opportunity to go out looting.

[Slime Slayer]

...its just an opportunity to go out looting.
This is what my local news has been reporting.

[RU Joe]

Hello all,

I was just wondering if the widespread rioting in my home city of london is getting much coverage internationally. Anyone seen any reporting on it? What are people saying about all this?

kiwinavega
Someone in the room is talking but only for the first few seconds.
‪London Riots. (The BBC will never replay this. Send it out)‬‏ - YouTube

[Dudebro]

What's the point of your video JG? It seems like a crazy old man ranting.



The general feeling in the news is that the riots started out as a reaction to that guy getting killed by police but the majority of what's going on, looting ect, are copy cat opportunists who just wanna get away with being criminals.
It makes no sense for people get back at the police by destroying their own community. So the only people who are really doing this are ignorant or they don't actually care about what sparked it.


Btw Conservapedia(the stupidest site on the internet) is implying that this is caused by London(or England in general) being the capital of atheism. Funny right?

[RU Joe]

DB:
What's the point of your video JG? It seems like a crazy old man ranting.

I thought it sort of speaks for itself - you have a man talking about the increasing social inequality and ongoing poor treatment of innocent people by Police in London, and how this is the underlying reason for the rioting, and concerning the incident which allegedly sparked the rioting he says that the Police '... blew the guy's head off ...' - to which the reporter immediately countered that he 'shouldn't say that before there's an inquiry'.

What?
How will an inquiry change the facts?
Why shouldn't he say that, if it's true - and if it isn't, then shouldn't he be arrested or something?
But I didn't mean to get into a political discussion over it, I just thought you guys would be interested in hearing what he had to say.

[Dudebro]

The reporter is right. He shouldn't be making claims that will incite more violence without an investigation. The police claim the shooting was justified and some other people claim they held him down and shot him repeatedly in the head execution style. Maybe you have no trouble believing that story but I sure do. Why would the police do that in front of witnesses? It seems a lot more likely that he gave them a reason, like pulled a gun, and they put him down. Then his family flips out, understandably, and people pick this up as a reason to riot.

Besides all that who is this guy? Seems like just another person off the street to me. I don't trust joe six pack to tell me the facts of a police investigation.

[Kugyince]

@DB: Darcus Howe is anything but a "crazy old man." He's actually quite brilliant in my opinion. You're forgiven for not knowing him though since you're neither Brittish nor a Socialist.

[Dudebro]

How do you know I'm not a socialist?

Btw I only call him a crazy old man because he really looks and sounds like one. Regardless of his actual standing his opinion on the shooting still doesn't amount to jack.

[samejamesbond]

I heard about this from other people, but I haven't heard much details about it.
Sound pretty bad based on what you guys are saying.

When did these start anyway?

[RU Joe]

This has been going on for a few days now SJB, and it allegedly started with the Police shooting and killing a young black man in a district of London.

[samejamesbond]

So it's like the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles?

It was pretty much a bunch of cops getting away with murdering a black man,
thus causing a huge riot across the city.

[Dudebro]

There's no direct evidence to say they murdered someone. As far as the official report goes the suspect was shot during an arrest. People are speculating that he was killed execution style in the street like the cops don't have a care in the world. Sounds like a load of bull cooked up to start a riot, imo.

[Kugyince]

How do you know I'm not a socialist?

Because you've stated your political affiliation before.

[Dudebro]

I have? I honestly forget what I said but can't I be considered a liberal democrat socialist ect? I'm not too familiar with the specifics of it all so I'm probably missing something obvious.

[Kugyince]

Anyways, I only know of him because he's worked with Tariq Ali.

Tariq Ali - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Dudebro]

No really what part of my political affiliation makes me unable to be a socialist? I'm being sincere here. I've been called all three before so I'm not sure what to make of it, liberal, democrat, socialist.

[kiwinavega]

I've not been online for a couple of days and I think it's interesting how this debate has moved on.

The initial incident was a young black man shot by the police. Now, regardless of what crimes he was accused of or commited, the idea of police carrying out summary executions is frightening. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has concluded that the young man hadn't discharged his weapon.

The fact the police were wrong is not in dispute from me.

I do take exception with the idea that these riots can be justified with conventional arguments. There is no clear political statement being made by these riots. The fact that it has all spread to unrelated areas is disturbing but the trouble has died down now.

Darcus Howe is an interesting man, he gave up a career in law to become a journalist (I think in Trinidad & Tobago) and relocated to London. I think the way he was treated in that interview was ignorant and disrespectful, actually. Regardless of the rights and wrongs of hs argument, and I don't know enough detail to comment on that, I thought he was being brushed aside.

Thanks to everyone for their input on this. It's an area full of grey, dispute some people thinking that, quite literally, it's an issue that's black and white.

[Kugyince]

No really what part of my political affiliation makes me unable to be a socialist? I'm being sincere here. I've been called all three before so I'm not sure what to make of it, liberal, democrat, socialist.

Because Socialists have their own political party/ies.

Socialist Party of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Dudebro]

The initial incident was a young black man shot by the police. Now, regardless of what crimes he was accused of or commited, the idea of police carrying out summary executions is frightening. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has concluded that the young man hadn't discharged his weapon.
Of course it's scary to think of police executing people but is there any evidence that it actually happened that way? Just because he didn't discharge his gun doesn't mean he wasn't going to before he got shot, right?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it against the law for British citizens to even carry a gun? If so I think that makes this guy a lot less sympathetic as a victim. Also wasn't he supposedly a drug dealer?

I'm not trying to make light of the guy getting killed but from my point of view it doesn't sound like anything more than an unfortunate death in the course of a police investigation.



@Tenser- Well the conservatives in the US need to learn the difference. They call anyone who's a liberal a socialist. They say it like they're calling us satanists, it's super bad apparently.

[Kugyince]

They love to confuse it with Communism as well. Most FOX viewers are either too stupid, ignorant, or uncaring to know the difference.

[Dudebro]

Yeah I've heard that comparison too, some call it communism lite. It's strange to me because the stuff I hear them complaining about sounds good to me, like helping people as opposed to being concerned about maximizing profits.

[kiwinavega]

Of course it's scary to think of police executing people but is there any evidence that it actually happened that way? Just because he didn't discharge his gun doesn't mean he wasn't going to before he got shot, right?

Please correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it against the law for British citizens to even carry a gun? If so I think that makes this guy a lot less sympathetic as a victim. Also wasn't he supposedly a drug dealer?

I'm not trying to make light of the guy getting killed but from my point of view it doesn't sound like anything more than an unfortunate death in the course of a police investigation.


First point: Eyewitness accounts suggest he wasn't in the act of even pulling a weapon. Some even suggest that he was dragged from a car and shot four times in the head. This isn't established fact though and probably never will be. There is, however, a reasonable doubt.

Second point: It is against the law for British citizens to carry guns, correct. I certainly don't think the victim was a saint and don't intend to portray him as a saint. However, it's not a good enough reason for the state to sanction shooting someone in the head. Also, the point about him being a drug dealer is unclear. I don't know if his previous record has been made public - if it has, I haven't seen it. If he's a convicted drug dealer, what's to say he hasn't reformed? If he's not convicted, then in the eyes of the law he's innocent. If more details emerged to suggest he was about to shoot someone, or pulled a weapon, then I don't think people would have such a problem.

Third point - to suggest his death is unfortunate suggests luck is involved, like it was bad luck he got shot. Regrettable, yes. Unfortunate, no. Fortune had no role here.

The fact remains that, whether he was a dealer or not, whether he was carrying a gun or not, the whole point about justice is that it's not enough for it to be done, it must be seen to be done. The British public got neither. If we accept something like this happening, what's to stop the police being trigger happy in future? If we're even vaguely complicit in this then we begin a journey on a very slippery slope indeed.

We've been hearing a great deal from our politicians the last few days about "policing by consent" being a cornerstone of our democracy. Well, we can't give consent to this, retrospectively or otherwise.

Also, as an additional note, I should point out that the police are getting almost total backing for how they;ve tried to handle the public disorder we've seen. There's a strong anti-establishment tendency in the UK and usually when there is any unrest the default position is to question the authorities. That hasn't happened this time.

[RU Joe]

I do not live in London, and only have what's posted on the internet to keep me informed about what actually transpired.

{edit: I was going to post the lyrics of Linton Kwesi Johnson's song 'Da Great Insurreckshan' but decided that Pat Condell's video would be better.
For those not aware, LKJ's song was all about the Brixton riots of 1981, which were in response to the 'Sus Law' which was passed in an attempt to thwart rampant street crime.
Basically, the Police stopped and searched 1000 people within 6 days - mostly ethinic minorities - and this is what was said to have triggered the rioting.}

Here's what Pat Condell, a long time London resident and political 'comedian', has to say about it:

PAT CONDELL'S GODLESS COMEDY (http://www.patcondell.net/)

I think he's overlooking the fact that gangs in London have been using the riots to turn a profit, coordinating their looting through Blackberry and other wireless networks.
{which can be tracked by satellite in real time - which authorities did not do}

Also the Police completely stood down ... why?
Do they want to create the pretext to get the troops policing the public like in the U.S. by creating the illusion that the Police can't handle rioting?
I would like to point out that London Police were all gung - ho beating up protesters of the G20 .. but they're concerned that someone will sue them for beating them during a riot? - what's wrong with this picture?
I tell you this has more to it than meets the eye.
:search:

[Demon-Mask]

@Tenser- Well the conservatives in the US need to learn the difference. They call anyone who's a liberal a socialist. They say it like they're calling us satanists, it's super bad apparently.
But, Satanism isn't inherently bad. I've known good people who are Satanists. But, that is beside the point.
They love to confuse it with Communism as well. Most FOX viewers are either too stupid, ignorant, or uncaring to know the difference.
But, Socialism isn't Communism. FOX really needs to stop being run by idiots for idiots.

[Dudebro]

First point: Eyewitness accounts suggest he wasn't in the act of even pulling a weapon. Some even suggest that he was dragged from a car and shot four times in the head. This isn't established fact though and probably never will be. There is, however, a reasonable doubt.

Second point: It is against the law for British citizens to carry guns, correct. I certainly don't think the victim was a saint and don't intend to portray him as a saint. However, it's not a good enough reason for the state to sanction shooting someone in the head. Also, the point about him being a drug dealer is unclear. I don't know if his previous record has been made public - if it has, I haven't seen it. If he's a convicted drug dealer, what's to say he hasn't reformed? If he's not convicted, then in the eyes of the law he's innocent. If more details emerged to suggest he was about to shoot someone, or pulled a weapon, then I don't think people would have such a problem.

Third point - to suggest his death is unfortunate suggests luck is involved, like it was bad luck he got shot. Regrettable, yes. Unfortunate, no. Fortune had no role here.

The fact remains that, whether he was a dealer or not, whether he was carrying a gun or not, the whole point about justice is that it's not enough for it to be done, it must be seen to be done. The British public got neither. If we accept something like this happening, what's to stop the police being trigger happy in future? If we're even vaguely complicit in this then we begin a journey on a very slippery slope indeed.

We've been hearing a great deal from our politicians the last few days about "policing by consent" being a cornerstone of our democracy. Well, we can't give consent to this, retrospectively or otherwise.

Also, as an additional note, I should point out that the police are getting almost total backing for how they;ve tried to handle the public disorder we've seen. There's a strong anti-establishment tendency in the UK and usually when there is any unrest the default position is to question the authorities. That hasn't happened this time.
1. Is it really reasonable? Do people really think the police dragged a guy from a taxi and executed him in public? That seems unreasonable to me, why not throw him in a the car and do it where no one would see?
But if it is true then it's just an isolated incident and those cops should be charged with murder. It would still be no reason to riot and destroy houses and businesses.

2. Of course it's not justification to murder someone but if he was a drug dealer and he was packing heat then he chose to be a dangerous criminal in the eyes of the law. Once you cross that line you put your life at risk. So that being said he escalated this situation by being armed in a country that prohibits it.

3. I do think it was luck. He knowingly gambled with his life when he brought a weapon with him. He lost. It is regrettable either way though.


You're implying that this was an execution and that the police are trigger happy. Are there more incidents like this that show the police are out of control? I'm asking sincerely, I don't know.
Btw the British public got neither? How is that possible if the investigation isn't complete and people flipped out and rioted over eye witness reports(which are known to be unreliable)? Sounds more like the public just assumed the worst and took it as an opportunity to be criminals. The rioters were not interested in the truth.

You can't give consent to the police potentially shooting an armed suspect? Or did you mean the execution that is not proven to be true?

I think people are less rabid and anti establishment because there's no concrete social injustice driving this. It's all speculation and emotional reactions.

Btw I just read that 1,900 people were arrested. That's a lot of morons who'll have a record for nothing, some are as young as 11 years old too.

[Kong]

FOX really needs to stop being run by idiots propagandists for idiots average people.Fixed.

[Slime Slayer]

My opinion has changed drastically on this. Before it was: "Victim -father of 4", now it is "Victim -drug dealer". My sympathies basically went out the window with that.

---------- Post added at 01:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 AM ----------

@DN Satanism is bad, it's based on being selfish.

[Dudebro]

To be fair I can't say he was a drug dealer with 100% certainty. That's just what I read.

And yeah Satanism is bad, it's the worship of the most evil being in christian mythology. I don't see how that can be twisted into something good. I think the good is when they confuse it with wicca or paganism.

[DrunkN]

Law enforcement in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Somewhat interesting. It's Wikipedia, so take everything with a grain of salt, but based on what I've read, police ethics, methods, and competence tend to always stand in a negative light. It's easy to see how any situation could be twisted against law enforcement, so at the moment I wouldn't be too surprised if there is a majority of people who dislike, distrust, or wish for improvement to occur with U.K. authority.

But maybe this is old news, and I'm slow on the uptake.

[Demon-Mask]

And yeah Satanism is bad, it's the worship of the most evil being in christian mythology.
Okay, so all of the good people I've met who happened to be Satanists were secretly bad people? Isn't that wonderful? You can't judge people based solely on what religion they practice.
This is as far as I'll take this tangent.

[Dudebro]

I'm not interested in debating it but it's hard to say you're a good person when you pray to the ultimate evil(according to the religion that invented him). I'm not making a judgment on anyone personally, it's just a logic issue imo.

[Demon-Mask]

These people I've know, I'll admit may be the exception to the rule.
I doubt Satanism teaches to give to charity and help those in need. It was almost like some of them were "Good Christians" but, with a different book.
It is a logic issue to me as well but, a good person is a good person.

And, not all "branches" of Satanism treat Satan/Lucifer as the "ultimate evil" sometimes it is taught he was unfairly kicked out of Heaven or something like that.

[samejamesbond]

If you remember to the Metal Club episode of Tosh.0, the girl on the club
said she's a Satanist because the religion accepts everyone.

Maybe there's a logic we just aren't seeing.

[Kugyince]

LaVeyan Satanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Demon-Mask]

And, your point is?
There are all kinds of Satanism, just like how there are all kinds of Christianity.

[samejamesbond]

I hear they adapted Black Sabbath's music as the official music for the church.

[Demon-Mask]

Nothing wrong with that. Hell, that's an improvement.

[samejamesbond]

Of course there's nothing wrong with that, Black Sabbath is epic.

Now if only the Church would adapt Stairway to Heaven into mass...

[Demon-Mask]

Yeah, but that song is all allegory and is more about drugs and materialism than anything else.

[samejamesbond]

I know, but it still would be awesome.

[Demon-Mask]

Yeah, it really would be awesome.

[Dudebro]

Ok this is veering off course and the riots are over(right?). I moved this to chat but if there's more riots or heated discussion about them I'll move it back. If you guys wanna make a topic about satanism go for it but lets end this derail.