RIOT!

[Glenryck Pilchards]

I am glad that the discussion has turned away from why these economically deprived people have turned to violence and destruction, as it is clear as day it is just greedy people trying to keep up with the Jones's. It's not looting, it's just deregulated shopping; it's free market ideology applied at its most basic level.

[Van Dammer]

I don't mean to be patronising, but it's frustrating when there's so much active hostility to the mere desire for broader debate. Anyway, I've been praising Whiskey, not myself. I've lost any clear-mindedness I was striving for a few times in the face of Pitcos' trolling.

 

Well no, you practically said 'I thought I was the only intelligent level headed person in here'. And theres been plenty of broad debate and there will be more in the future, I think its understandable some people are too angry at the moment to consider all of the broad reasons at this time though.

[WildSybianRider]

When did Happ Hazzard change his username to LoKi? I must have missed the memo.

 

I'm disappointed in you, mayn. I know this thread has got tense but that's bullshit and you know it, bobs. The Loki account is clearly Joe the Lion.

[Kiffy]

It's amazing how far to the right peoples views have got as this thing goes on, not just on here but on facebook, the fucking guardian website comments have got a shitload of people quoting powell's rivers of blood speech and talking about it being the end for multicultural society (of course the manchester riots being predominantly white is nothing more than a red herring).

It's a disgusting unjustifiable bit of mindless thuggery, no doubt, but anyone trying to look at it in a broader sociological context seems to just get shouted at at the moment, which is really rather disheartening.

[bobbins]

That's a very eloquent explanation of it, Adam. You bring in the tiniest element of common-sense and pragmatism into liberal politics and some loony labels you a Nazi. I really hate ideologues of any description, they are incapable of proper debate, and therefore in the long-term can contribute nothing to the betterment of society.

 

I've spent my life in support of the Lib Dems - when they were the Liberal Party, then the Alliance, I still have David Steel placards in the shed. But that doesn't mean I will blindly support every policy or decision that liberal politicians make, nor does it mean that I subscribe to a particular set of ideological conceits. They are just the party that is closest aligned, generally, to my beliefs.

 

For someone like dopper, though, apparently that's a betrayal of the cause. It's really quite sad.

I actually think that's exactly what you've been guilty of. Your opinions have conveniently moved to the right since the formation of the coalition, constantly making excuses for your party's capitulation. I'm not suggesting you should stick to rigid ideology, but you've either abandoned your principles in order to defend your party or you never really had any.

 

The issue isn't about people being wrong - in terms of proposing solutions to the situation going forward, I think you were right. However, I don't recall hearing from either of you as to what you thought that the situation in the short-term should have been.

Actually Whiskey went to great length to try and come up with short-term solutions. But it's a completely misleading and distracting argument. It's not as if perfect short-term answers were demanded of anyone other than those wishing to discuss the broader issues. Those demands were made out of a desire to move away from a political argument that didn't fit a certain world view. There is no easy quick solution to stop rioting, if there was, the authorities would have thought of it long before anybody on the UKFF.

 

Even when Whiskey advocated the use of water cannons (which I believe to be totally inappropriate and counter-productive), it wasn't good enough for the "smash heads and lock them up forever" brigade.

 

In the end it looks like the policy of vastly increased police numbers, but non-aggressive, non-violent policing has done the trick. Do you think any of us suggesting that would have been greeted happily by the smash heads lot?

 

It's amazed me that people actually think that the police haven't resorted to violence because of hand-tying bureaucracy, rather than because it would be a tactical error.

[King Pitcos]

I don't mean to be patronising, but it's frustrating when there's so much active hostility to the mere desire for broader debate.

 

"Broader debate" = "everyone to stop saying the looters are bad."

 

As established yesterday, nobody (bar perhaps Smeg) is ignorant of society's ills or of the benefits of the long-term solutions proposed. But constantly dropping idealistic liberal rhetoric from the ivory tower to try and grandstand over and patronise anybody with a distaste for the looters is what met with hostility, for the same reasons Woodyat avoids a lot of activism.

 

And more telling is the fact you don't really even think the product of the environment stuff does excuse the rioters, so you've been behaving that way in the thread purely for smug points-scoring purposes against people who aren't "liberal enough" as became extremely apparent with your recent digs at Loki. And that's fine, I'm a big proponent of smug points-scoring, but you've no grounds for crying victim when someone takes against it or responds in kind.

 

I think you're being disingenuous with the "I only wanted broader debate!" thing, because I doubt you ever really thought someone on here going "the scum are smashing up my cousin's house, the police should crack their skulls" or whatever was going to read your posts about how society has failed the looters and go "actually, you're right. Let's have a think about how the government can do right by them, guys." But for argument's sake, if I've misrepresented you in the italics at the top of this post, what kind of broader debate were you actually striving for?

[Smeg_&_The_Heads]

"Broader debate" = "everyone to stop saying the looters are bad."

 

As established yesterday, nobody (bar perhaps Smeg) is ignorant of society's ills or of the benefits of the long-term solutions proposed. But constantly dropping idealistic liberal rhetoric from the ivory tower to try and grandstand over and patronise anybody with a distaste for the looters is what met with hostility, for the same reasons Woodyat avoids a lot of activism.

 

Actually I'm very well aware and do think long term solutions will help there is a lot of help what could be given at the same time there are some people where no matter how much help you give them no matter what you build for them or give them tto help make their life better some will still turn out bad.

 

If they had all of that I still think this may of happened sooner or later maybe not as bad as what we saw but all it takes is a few to start the trouble and others will soon join it's even been said some of the looters have got a good life and earn more money than most people here and in some cases have had a university education.

 

To use that word scum it's nothing to do with environment or upbringing or what you have or don't have you will find scum bags in the poorest of the poor to the richest of the rich.

[tiger_rick]

I think this has been a cracking thread, even with the ponces crying on both sides. It's been a great source of info, featured live accounts, good links and sane reporting. It's had some good discussion too. Not only that but in 135 pages, there have only been 4 reports (all ignored) which shows we can actually debate sometimes without it descending into bullying and name calling.

 

Well done chaps.

[Burchill's Buddy]

Even when Whiskey advocated the use of water cannons (which I believe to be totally inappropriate and counter-productive), it wasn't good enough for the "smash heads and lock them up forever" brigade.

Did I miss an entire section of this thread somewhere? When Whiskey suggested that everyone agreed with him and the point was pretty much dropped.

[tiger_rick]

When Whiskey suggested that everyone agreed with him

I didn't, I think they're pointless in this situation. Don't put words in my mouth, you bastard!

[tiger_rick]

1707: The BBC apologises for a live interview on its news channel - broadcast on Tuesday - in which presenter Fiona Armstrong accused guest Darcus Howe of taking part in riots. The Corporation said it had not intended to show him any disrespect.

 

Here's the exchange between Mr Howe - a writer and presenter - and Ms Armstrong:

 

Armstrong: "You are not a stranger to riots yourself I understand, are you? You have taken part in them yourself."

 

Howe: "I have never taken part in a single riot. I've been part of demonstrations that ended up in a conflict. Stop accusing me of being a rioter and have some respect for an old West Indian Negro, because you wanted for me to get abusive. You just sound idiotic - have some respect."

[Richie Freebird]

Well said Rick. I tend to keep pretty quiet in threads with political arguing but this has been a smashing one to sit back and observe.

[Dirty Eddie]

I think this has been a cracking thread, even with the ponces crying on both sides. It's been a great source of info, featured live accounts, good links and sane reporting. It's had some good discussion too. Not only that but in 135 pages, there have only been 4 reports (all ignored) which shows we can actually debate sometimes without it descending into bullying and name calling.

 

Well done chaps.

Agreed on the interesting debate.

 

I've barely posted in here (probably a crap joke) but I've read it all and it's been pretty good for weeding out the bullshit "twitter news" and the like.

[Loki]

I think this has been a cracking thread, even with the ponces crying on both sides. It's been a great source of info, featured live accounts, good links and sane reporting. It's had some good discussion too. Not only that but in 135 pages, there have only been 4 reports (all ignored) which shows we can actually debate sometimes without it descending into bullying and name calling.

 

Well done chaps.

 

 

My feeling exactly. Barring one or two posters with fingers in their ears, it's been a really good spectrum of opinion. I think it's when things are literally happening outside your window, it sharpens the immediacy of a subject that is often too remote. I've personally enjoyed the posts of guys with completely different politics to myself like David, Smeg and even mickey, who is not just a cartoon EDL supporter but a guy with relevant input to make, and actually if anything it shows that there's a lot more that we all have in common than divides us; very similar goals albeit different opinions on how to get there.

 

Well moderated, by the way. I probably won't ever say that again, so enjoy

[Frankie Crisp]

I think this has been a cracking thread, even with the ponces crying on both sides. It's been a great source of info, featured live accounts, good links and sane reporting. It's had some good discussion too. Not only that but in 135 pages, there have only been 4 reports (all ignored) which shows we can actually debate sometimes without it descending into bullying and name calling.

 

Well done chaps.

Absolutely. This thread has been like an accelerated version of the phone hacking thread, especially over the past couple of evenings, with a post or two every other page evoking a 'bloody hell' moment as events unfolded. Christ, we've had stuff posted on here before the news channels! rohpete was like the UKFF's own Kate Adie in the late hours of yesterday and Monday.

 

I don't think in the years I've viewed this board I've ever seen a thread grow so quickly and retain such interest throughout. With the exception of the Benoit thread, which for obvious reasons went off like a rocket, I've never been as willing to read every post on every page like I have with this one.

 

Great stuff.

Edited August 10, 2011 by Frankie Crisp