London Riots
Aug 11th 2011 | 10:26 am
#301
Seasoned Maritimer
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,309
From: Fredericton, New Brunswick CA
Aug 12th 2011 | 12:29 am
#302
Lowering the tone
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 8,154
From: Here and there
Re: London Riots
I have to say that Peter Oborne's opinion on the week's events pretty much sum up my own feelings. The rot starts at the top.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/pe...as-the-bottom/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/pe...as-the-bottom/
Last edited by Jingsamichty; Aug 12th 2011 at 12:42 am. Reason: To fix the link?
Aug 12th 2011 | 12:34 am
#303
Pictou County Superstarâ„¢
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,219
From: On top of the Green hill, NS
Re: London Riots
That dead link tells tales, good night last night? 
htthttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100100708/the-moral-decay-of-our-society-is-as-bad-at-the-top-as-the-bottom/p://
htthttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100100708/the-moral-decay-of-our-society-is-as-bad-at-the-top-as-the-bottom/p://
I have to say that Peter Oborne's opinion on the week's events pretty much sum up my own feelings. The rot starts at the top.
Aug 12th 2011 | 12:36 am
#304
Slightly Canadian
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 10,146
From: St. John's, Newfoundland
Re: London Riots
I have to say that Peter Oborne's opinion on the week's events pretty much sum up my own feelings. The rot starts at the top.
Aug 12th 2011 | 12:42 am
#305
Lowering the tone
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 8,154
From: Here and there
Re: London Riots
Good night last night? I'm stuck in a dry camp, it's currently 26 days since I last had so much as a drop.
Aug 12th 2011 | 12:47 am
#306
Pictou County Superstarâ„¢
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,219
From: On top of the Green hill, NS
Aug 12th 2011 | 1:21 am
#307
Pictou County Superstarâ„¢
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,219
From: On top of the Green hill, NS
Re: London Riots
The "culture of greed and impunity" isn't really something new for which blame can be accurately aimed; hasn't it been part of cultures, corporations, governments, gangs etc around the world since, well, the beginning?
Perhaps the failures here are that the current UK government are really not very good at "getting away with it".
As for handling the riot, leaving good citizens unprotected and terrified for hours has caused fear and outrage that arguably could have been avoided (had the government acted more timely, intelligently and with adequate numbers).
I was curious about who pays for the damage to the stores and buildings. Isn't damage from 'civil unrest' an uninsurable loss? If that's the case, hopefully the government will man-up and fix it all without using funds taken from the taxpayers. They just stood back and let it happen, why should taxpayers foot the bill?
OK, in wondering who is going to pay, I did a quick bit of research and the following article has enlightened me (as well as make me laugh at something I really shouldn't be laughing at):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...ot-not-a-riot/
Perhaps the failures here are that the current UK government are really not very good at "getting away with it".
As for handling the riot, leaving good citizens unprotected and terrified for hours has caused fear and outrage that arguably could have been avoided (had the government acted more timely, intelligently and with adequate numbers).
I was curious about who pays for the damage to the stores and buildings. Isn't damage from 'civil unrest' an uninsurable loss? If that's the case, hopefully the government will man-up and fix it all without using funds taken from the taxpayers. They just stood back and let it happen, why should taxpayers foot the bill?
OK, in wondering who is going to pay, I did a quick bit of research and the following article has enlightened me (as well as make me laugh at something I really shouldn't be laughing at):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworst...ot-not-a-riot/
Aug 12th 2011 | 1:27 am
#308
Banned
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 3,824
From: the GTA
Re: London Riots
I was curious about who pays for the damage to the stores and buildings. Isn't damage from 'civil unrest' an uninsurable loss? If that's the case, hopefully the government will man-up and fix it all without using funds taken from the taxpayers. They just stood back and let it happen, why should taxpayers pay.
Doesn't everything the UK Gov't own or receive belong to the taxpayers?
Doesn't everything the UK Gov't own or receive belong to the taxpayers?
Aug 12th 2011 | 1:38 am
#309
Pictou County Superstarâ„¢
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,219
From: On top of the Green hill, NS
Re: London Riots
Not sure about that, don't the political parties have a bank account with money they can call "their own" in it?
I'm fully aware I'm being whimsical here but if they want to show a bit of moral fibre and lead by example, they should at least offer to pay for some part of the damages with their 'own' cash.
I'm fully aware I'm being whimsical here but if they want to show a bit of moral fibre and lead by example, they should at least offer to pay for some part of the damages with their 'own' cash.
Aug 12th 2011 | 1:48 am
#310
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,402
From: South of Calgary
Re: London Riots
I was curious about who pays for the damage to the stores and buildings. Isn't damage from 'civil unrest' an uninsurable loss? If that's the case, hopefully the government will man-up and fix it all without using funds taken from the taxpayers. They just stood back and let it happen, why should taxpayers foot the bill?
As I said above, hindsight is a wonderful thing.
What about those that caused the damage? I guess your answer to this depends upon whether you believed they were justified in performing their acts.
I note that everyone wants to blame some particular section of society but, it appears to me, that it is society as a whole that is to blame. The electorate obtain the Government they deserve. If they are not prepared to hold their politicians to account (look at the numbers that don't vote), IMO, they can't complain when their politicians act in an inappropriate manner.
Aug 12th 2011 | 2:13 am
#311
Pictou County Superstarâ„¢
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,219
From: On top of the Green hill, NS
Re: London Riots
Well, why not? Again, I'm well aware it's a whim but, (and not wanting to repeat myself), if the government members paid for some of the damages with their own cash, the publicity would be a lot better than "taxpayers pay for all the damages".
Are you really serious, suggesting that the criminals will be able to pay? Better get them back on the streets quick then, to sell the amount of drugs that will enable them to afford it.
I don't really get your argument that the whole of society is to blame. There were a lot of very scared, innocent, people (good citizens). Some of which were very old, some very young, and others that require security and protection. Are you saying they're to blame too, that they brought it on themselves? I know it's Friday, but come on...
Are you really serious, suggesting that the criminals will be able to pay? Better get them back on the streets quick then, to sell the amount of drugs that will enable them to afford it.
I don't really get your argument that the whole of society is to blame. There were a lot of very scared, innocent, people (good citizens). Some of which were very old, some very young, and others that require security and protection. Are you saying they're to blame too, that they brought it on themselves? I know it's Friday, but come on...
Are you arguing that the politicians should pay for this personally? If not, then doesn't the Government = taxpayers?
What about those that caused the damage? I guess your answer to this depends upon whether you believed they were justified in performing their acts.
What about those that caused the damage? I guess your answer to this depends upon whether you believed they were justified in performing their acts.
Aug 12th 2011 | 2:44 am
#312
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 13,402
From: South of Calgary
Re: London Riots
I don't really get your argument that the whole of society is to blame. There were a lot of very scared, innocent, people (good citizens). Some of which were very old, some very young, and others that require security and protection. Are you saying they're to blame too, that they brought it on themselves? I know it's Friday, but come on...
Who do you believe is to blame? And for what?
Last edited by Almost Canadian; Aug 12th 2011 at 2:53 am.
Aug 12th 2011 | 2:50 am
#313
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,244
From: Toronto, ON
Re: London Riots
I have to say that Peter Oborne's opinion on the week's events pretty much sum up my own feelings. The rot starts at the top.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/pe...as-the-bottom/
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/pe...as-the-bottom/
Aug 12th 2011 | 3:05 am
#314
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,244
From: Toronto, ON
Re: London Riots
Tell me, oh wise one, what legal authority would you have used to achieve this? When would you have done this? I am sure that you are aware the RIM have opposed such tactics in other jurisdictions in the past.
Do you honestly believe that Cameron was incapable of providing instructions via phone? Do you honestly believe that seeing any policitian actually on the street would have prevented the mob continuing with its actions? Do you believe that Cameron would have had a greater impact than King Canute did?
The benefit of hindsight. What do you mean by tougher? Hit them on the head with a baton, push them over, shoot them? One wonders what armchair experts like you would be saying now if they did.
I don't doubt for a minute that he is doing so. But, once again, what would you have done to resolve the financial crisis? Please be as specific as possible.
What is hard punishment? Are you arguing that only middle aged and old people should go to jail? If the troublemakers are not to be sent to jail (assuming they are convicted) what would you do with them?
Smacks of this to me:
Do you honestly believe that Cameron was incapable of providing instructions via phone? Do you honestly believe that seeing any policitian actually on the street would have prevented the mob continuing with its actions? Do you believe that Cameron would have had a greater impact than King Canute did?
The benefit of hindsight. What do you mean by tougher? Hit them on the head with a baton, push them over, shoot them? One wonders what armchair experts like you would be saying now if they did.
I don't doubt for a minute that he is doing so. But, once again, what would you have done to resolve the financial crisis? Please be as specific as possible.
What is hard punishment? Are you arguing that only middle aged and old people should go to jail? If the troublemakers are not to be sent to jail (assuming they are convicted) what would you do with them?
Smacks of this to me:
The fact that you think Cameron could have done this by phone from his Tuscany beach is just incredulous. The sight and presence of political leadership can/does make a difference in situations of social unrest, however unpopular they may be. Plenty of historical precedents for this.
Aug 12th 2011 | 3:18 am
#315
Lowering the tone
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 8,154
From: Here and there
Re: London Riots
Well, perhaps one could point out that there were no riots in Scotland, nor in Wales. The governments of those countries could generally be described as being more left-wing and with a (small s) socialist agenda, certainly when compared to David Cameron's Westminster government.
When one looks at the sheer numbers of "haves" in England, especially in London and the South East, I do believe there are genuine concerns about the impact they have on national politics - the views of the "have-nots" always seem to take second place.
Ah well, come the revolution...
