Thanks for that, but I meant UK Riots.

Education is education, you apply your critical capabilities to whatever the situation.

Who are the real looters – rioters or MPs?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...rs-rioters-mps

"Keith Vaz, the chairman of the home affairs select committee that will play a key role in investigating the riots, made a number of purchases that cost more than set out in parliamentary guidelines, including a £550 rug – and after questions about claims for a home 12 miles from Westminster, also repaid a handsome £18,949.82."

The moment a lone figure took on the looters - before thugs let off fire extinguisher in his face

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz1VPw9Uu8z

Funeral held for three Birmingham men killed in last week's riotshttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...s-2340053.html

Vaseline Vaz on the corrupt take again eh?
Well wonders will never cease !

I am surprised this man can stand up and walk he is so slippery...

Dread - x

Article also mentions Michael Gove, David Cameron, Oliver Letwin and Hazel Blears.

And?....... Don't care for any of them, but it Doesn't make Vaseline Vaz any less slippery.

Dread - x

Just wondered why he is twice picked out for special mention. (Not that I admire him particularly). I used to admire Hazel Blears though (much to OH's disgust).

Unlike most democracies, the UK does not have a constitution, written or verbal.


.

Couple of things:

1) We have seen that people of all skin colors have been involved. I have no idea how many of what sort, and nor does anyone else.

2) One should not confuse causation and proximity. The fact that two things are found together does not mean that one caused the other. If indeed it does turn out to be the case that more people with more melanin in the skin were involved, though I have no idea how we would set about counting that, it does not prove that they rioted because they are of darker tone. People don't riot because they are not white. Skin tone doesn't cause anything (except possibly bigoted reactions in some). What obviously does cause this sort of behaviour is poverty and hopelessness with its attendant ills. This is why we don't have middle class riots, though we have plenty of middle class crime.

So if, as in the case in American cities and across most of the country, the Black population is over represented in prisons, they are also over represented among the poorest segments of the population for long-standing historical and social reasons, all of them reprehensible.

Higher crime among the poor is true in countries where everyone is pretty much the same colour.

So saying "more black people were involved than white, and therefore black people are in some way more disposed to riot and crime" is a complete logical fallacy. It's like saying "people who come from France live longer than others" when the facts turn out to be that the French are exercising every day. Their Frenchness is entirely irrelevant.

My sister the solicitor and clerk of court would profoundly disagree with you. We do have a constitution - it's just not written down all in the same place.

The vast body of law, precedent, and system of government built up over centuries IS our constitution, and barristers, solicitors, judges and Parliament uphold it every day.

So as I said,

We have a motley collection of laws, precedents, treaties, traditions etc, most of which can be interpreted in different ways or challenged through the courts. We do not have a clearly defined constitution as many other countries have..............fact, whatever your sister says

Will it fit on a sheet of A4? No. But I"m not sure whether that is of much significance.

But it's clear enough to those who study and practice it, I think.

The U.S. has a bit of paper - but there are just as many challenges, efforts to interpret, etc. There is no constitution that lays down exact procedures for exact instances, I don't think.

So perhaps this is a distinction without a difference.

Johnny five is correct. We do not have a constitution either written or verbal. What we have is a collection of laws set by judges setting precedents, a collection of laws made by our government and such things as the Magna Carta and the act of settlement, there is also royal prerogative. Some people chose to call this collection the British constitution but unlike a written constitution it is a fluid thing. Perhaps if we had had a written constitution successive governments could not have handed over much of our sovereignty to the EU (but thats a whole other subject).

Um, ok, fine.

This must be one of those agree to differ situations.