London Burning

Official thread theme song ;)
* snip the Chiefs video *

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-What-abject-failure-says-Peter-Hitchens.html

Guy Fawkes muppet OTT:

http://order-order.com/2011/08/13/harriet-harman-is-gangsta-mutha-1/
harriet_harman.jpg

So, she was a crazy ass rad femminist back in the 80's, looks pretty establishment now.


LOL Harriet

Yeah the City Of Westminster, known as both COW and Horseferry Rd Mag has been open 24 hours all week. It's literally up to court, back down, on a van to jail.

The BBC News reported that the one that was open in London today, opened at 08:45 but due to late documents and prisoners, the first case wasn't heard until 11:45. Even then, the prosecution lawyer was ten minutes late.

The magistrate or judge was not amused by all this and called in the Court adminstrator to account for the missing papers, then later the transportation officer to account for the late / missing/ wrong crims.

Personally I think they'll give him a week or so in jail and then give him a community order on the quiet when all the fuss has died down. His mate (also in my van but for other reasons) was giving him stick telling him they were going to throw away the key and then giggling madly.

Ah, thanks and it will be interesting to see if that stops anyone in future, probably not I think.

I think people who have normal lives can sometimes get caught up in the excitement because however scary a riot can be it must also be exciting being that close to all the destruction. I don't know, maybe people just don't see the value in stuff any more, anyone can get credit and no one has to save for anything anymore. I'm not sure an inquiry would help but I don't suppose it could hurt.

Yes, that does sound like what happened.

Say, it started out deliberately with mainly criminals and or gangs, then other people hear about what's going on and join in the mayhem.

I am not for the idea of "let's have a public inquiry" for everything, but I am now thinking it would be a good idea.

There are two things going on to investigate what happened. One is the police and court cases, the other is the Parliamentary Home Affairs Committee review of the Police actions, starting in September.

Neither will be able to form an overview, I believe.

Thank you, I'm fine. I shall be careful.

Good do that, stay safe.
 
Semi-related.

Terrified shoppers watched as an armed officer held a gun over the head of a 15-year-old boy in a Manchester high street.
This dramatic picture shows the officer standing over the boy with the semi-automatic rifle outside a Greggs bakery in Wythenshawe which was the scene of riots just four days earlier.
At least a dozen police officers swarmed the area and searched a group of boys aged between 11 and 15 after someone reported seeing two young men pass a weapon between them.


article-0-0D6CA2EC00000578-674_634x411.jpg

article-0-0D6CA2F400000578-78_634x431.jpg


Three armed officers were among the group with one of the men making a boy lie on the ground while holding the rifle over his head.
Each of the boys had their names and addresses taken and police tore open one of their rucksacks which appeared to contain boxes of smarties and food from Greggs.
One of the boys was arrested and led away while the others were let free.'Tensions have been high since we had the trouble with the rioters. As soon as armed police arrived we though another riot was going to break out but the police managed to keep it under control,' one witness told The People.
'We have heard a lot about police getting tough in the wake of the riots and this lot were zero tolerance, simple as that,' he said.
A police spokesman for Greater Manchester police said that two men were detained and a weapon, which turned out to be a BB gun, was recovered. Both men are still in police custody.
The spokesman at first denied that a gun had been drawn on the boy but later admitted that the officer was entitled to point his gun at a suspect if he felt the threat level was sufficient.
It is believed the second arrest was an adult picked up in a different location but related to the same incident.
 
Wow, looking like they are taking that American style SWAT training to heart very quickly. Got to make it look like things are much worse than they really are to make themselves look useful.
 
Its not usually headline news, but armed response officers are always called when someone is seen with a gun in a public place (bb gun looks like a real gun from distance)
 
Yoko Ono was inspired by the riots and has posted the full film "Bed Peace" online until the 21st.
 
Its not usually headline news, but armed response officers are always called when someone is seen with a gun in a public place (bb gun looks like a real gun from distance)

Exactly this, there are lots of TV street Cops documentaries on here and this type of incident gets shown now and again.

Silly teenagers do not think of the consequences of carrying a BB gun or toy gun into local parks or shopping areas.

Someone phones the cops and the ARV's turn up, then follow standard operating procedure, as seen above in the picture.

All looks a bit scary to the on-looking general public, who are understandably a bit edgy at the moment.

Nothing directly to do with recent events, except perhaps that more people may be phoning the cops about "suspicious persons" than before.
 
Been there. We shoot video weekly with replicas and it's something we're always aware of when transporting them in public. We have been arrested before after a random traffic stop with half a dozen in our boot. The police don't want or have the authority to say "oh it's not real" and let you go - they have to call in the specific firearms rozzers to check it over thoroughly, in case they're letting you go with a real firearm. Working around that is a pain when it's something you have to do every weekend, but I guess I understand.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...larkes-family-evicted-Wandsworth-Council.html

Idiot Mother Plays to Daily Mail Narrative

We've got the Daily Mail at its finest here:
- "I'm not responsible for my son's actions - what about my human rights?"
- " their ?225,000 taxpayer-subsidised flat"
- "But Sartain-Clarke?s mother said her human rights had been ?taken for granted?. Spanish-born Maite de la Calva, 43, said: ?I understand there are people who have got to face justice because all this has been madness and savagery. ?But, I believe our human rights have been completely taken for granted. Daniel was just in the wrong place at the wrong time."
- "?He?s a staunch member of the church,? she said."
 
These councils have Good Behaviour clauses in their Housing Contracts, its not just because of rioting, if they were convicted of anything they would be kicked out.

They signed the contract then broke it, their problem.
Oh, so since they signed a contract, this will only be their problem? That's a wonderfully naive point of view. Sure, it might not be their legal or moral responsibility, but it IS their problem when this makes the local community worse.

And I'd like to know wether or not the mother would be evicted if her son was convicted of murdering someone? Know what, in any normal situation, it would never have happened. The tabloids would have killed them for it. Rightly so. Punishing families for the actions of one of their number is a barbarical act, it's like the Israelis bulldozing the houses of terrorists. Sort off.

This is an idiotic, unfair, morally bancrupt and disasterous policy. It's not really worthy of critic, it's just terribly embarrising for your nation. This council should be ashamed.

The con certainly had no idea it was even a crime, although he probably would have done it anyway. I think they have gone a bit overboard with the whole show of strength thing with the sentencing. I mean either be strong all the time or act as normal. You can't really pick and choose.
My point entirely. Changing policy while something like this goes on is good for politicians, but rarely good for society as a whole. While it's quite wrong to penalise anyone from context, there are things you must do in the heat of the moment. Harder policing when needed, for instance. I may not think it's right to give children a criminal record for being stupid on Facebook, but that's just me (and you're just doing your job).

Thank you, I'm fine. I shall be careful.
Good.

Margaret Mountford while doing the papers on skynews, said there's no point putting them in jail if it doesn't discourage them and there is nothing done with them when they come out.
There is one point in putting young people in jail. They get the needed training to become proper criminals.

Wow, looking like they are taking that American style SWAT training to heart very quickly. Got to make it look like things are much worse than they really are to make themselves look useful.
Tactical firearms deployment looks pretty much the same all over he western world, most have adopted a lot from GSG9, American style SWAT and British SAS. And whatever the French units are called, I'm sure.
Yoko Ono was inspired by the riots and has posted the full film "Bed Peace" online until the 21st.
 
Oh, so since they signed a contract, this will only be their problem? That's a wonderfully naive point of view. Sure, it might not be their legal or moral responsibility, but it IS their problem when this makes the local community worse.

And I'd like to know wether or not the mother would be evicted if her son was convicted of murdering someone? Know what, in any normal situation, it would never have happened. The tabloids would have killed them for it. Rightly so. Punishing families for the actions of one of their number is a barbarical act, it's like the Israelis bulldozing the houses of terrorists. Sort off.

This is an idiotic, unfair, morally bancrupt and disasterous policy. It's not really worthy of critic, it's just terribly embarrising for your nation. This council should be ashamed.

They signed a contract which explicitly said that any misbehaviour would result in the loss of their social housing, they misbehaved, they were kicked out. It is that simple.

The waiting times for these houses are immense, so it is a privilege when they are given them over someone else, so personally I do not see it as too Out of This World to require them to obey the rules of the law while they are resident there.

These evictions take place regularly for a variety of reasons, but they are hardly ever headline news.
 
Last edited:
Oh, so since they signed a contract, this will only be their problem? That's a wonderfully naive point of view. Sure, it might not be their legal or moral responsibility, but it IS their problem when this makes the local community worse.

And I'd like to know wether or not the mother would be evicted if her son was convicted of murdering someone? Know what, in any normal situation, it would never have happened. The tabloids would have killed them for it. Rightly so. Punishing families for the actions of one of their number is a barbarical act, it's like the Israelis bulldozing the houses of terrorists. Sort off.

This is an idiotic, unfair, morally bancrupt and disasterous policy. It's not really worthy of critic, it's just terribly embarrising for your nation. This council should be ashamed.

You could be right, but this is non-riot specific behaviour; the ASBO system has had the police punishing households for anti-social individuals for a decade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Social_Behaviour_Order

Remember though that many of those convicted are minors - parents are held responsible for ill-behaviour of minors all over the world as it's their parenting that's being punished as much as the minor's behaviour.
 
They signed a contract which explicitly said that any misbehaviour would result in the loss of their social housing, they misbehaved, they were kicked out. It is that simple.

The waiting times for these houses are immense, so it is a privilege when they are given them over someone else, so personally I do not see it as too Out of This World to require them to obey the rules of the law while they are resident there.

These evictions take place regularly for a variety of reasons, but they are hardly ever headline news.
Which is a pity. It's a stupid system, and any logic dictates it's as useful as a cardboard box for a stab west. It just won't work. It looks very tough, it seems quite rough on crime. But it's not being smart on crime. It's being monumentally stupid on crime. I know some of them have signed contracts to keep their children in order, but come on. I was a calm and respectful teen. I know loads who were. And I know people who were anything but. I have family with immense social trouble, and not one thing would become better by kicking them out of their homes. There comes a point, where controlling a child or a teenager is no longer possible. Believe me, I've seen it happen, in just four months.

Please explain how it would help the situation to penalize whole families for that? I put it to you, that it will just give the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland more trouble. Not less.

You could be right, but this is non-riot specific behaviour; the ASBO system has had the police punishing households for anti-social individuals for a decade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Social_Behaviour_Order

Remember though that many of those convicted are minors - parents are held responsible for ill-behaviour of minors all over the world as it's their parenting that's being punished as much as the minor's behaviour.
ASBOs are stupid as well. A crime is a crime. Act against crimes. As for parents being responsible for ill-behaved minors, that's an interesting point. Yes, there's usually an economic penalty for a parent when a child breaks something. If your child breaks my camera, you've got some responsibility to get me a new camera.

But we don't put parents in jail for what their children do, and we shouldn't. The whole idea that it will be in any way prefrable to kick out people from council houses because of what their parents does is just stupid.

I know it's legally possible. But I'm asking those in favor of kicking families out of council estates, will it help your society? WILL IT MAKE ANY PREFRABLE DIFFERENCE WHAT-SO-EVER?

-

I think Prezza made a good point on Question Time. I know it sounds weird, but I do. What if you gave some of these youths the opertunity to do an unpaid apprenticeship to learn a trade, to build up the localities they've broken? You rebuild those places that are gone, and you teach them a way further. You learn them to fish, to put it to the point.

I guess I just think that's a good idea. It might not be as effective as evicting families, but I just thought I'd throw it out there. Any opinions?
 
Which is a pity. It's a stupid system, and any logic dictates it's as useful as a cardboard box for a stab west. It just won't work. It looks very tough, it seems quite rough on crime. But it's not being smart on crime. It's being monumentally stupid on crime. I know some of them have signed contracts to keep their children in order, but come on. I was a calm and respectful teen. I know loads who were. And I know people who were anything but. I have family with immense social trouble, and not one thing would become better by kicking them out of their homes. There comes a point, where controlling a child or a teenager is no longer possible. Believe me, I've seen it happen, in just four months.

Please explain how it would help the situation to penalize whole families for that? I put it to you, that it will just give the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland more trouble. Not less.

Its to try and prevent criminality from those children who haven't been completely converted, those who if threatened with their family losing the roof over their head might actually change their ways. Participating in a riot is not exactly an everyday occurrence, the system is mostly for mid/high level antisocial behaviour which builds over time, but if we start using exact language for which type of behaviour is/isn't allowed then it is wide open to abuse from savvy teens, so overall it is better just to have a blanket system which occasionally results in a situation which could be viewed as harsh. Obviously there will always be some no-hopers who have completely given up and won't care regardless of what happens to their family.

The thing to note is that losing a house in this way doesn't ban them from reapplying again, they would just be at the end of the queue.
 
Its to try and prevent criminality from those children who haven't been completely converted, those who if threatened with their family losing the roof over their head might actually change their ways. Participating in a riot is not exactly an everyday occurrence, the system is mostly for mid/high level antisocial behaviour which builds over time, but if we start using exact language for which type of behaviour is/isn't allowed then it is wide open to abuse from savvy teens, so overall it is better just to have a blanket system which occasionally results in a situation which could be viewed as harsh. Obviously there will always be some no-hopers who have completely given up and won't care regardless of what happens to their family.

The thing to note is that losing a house in this way doesn't ban them from reapplying again, they would just be at the end of the queue.
The fact is that they would be put on the street. I completely disagree with every fabric of your opinion in this case, but I am sure that comes as no suprise..

:)
 
The fact is that they would be put on the street. I completely disagree with every fabric of your opinion in this case, but I am sure that comes as no suprise..

:)

they wouldn't be put on the street, even assuming that the family doesn't work, the benefits that they receive would still be more than enough to rent low end private accommodation.
 
they wouldn't be put on the street, even assuming that the family doesn't work, the benefits that they receive would still be more than enough to rent low end private accommodation.
Still need to find accomodation. What about those who are in line for council houses, then? THey haven't signed the contract yet, will they be denied housing?

Sorry, this is just collective punishment, putting that clause in the contracts in the first place was wrong.
 
What about those who are in line for council houses, then? THey haven't signed the contract yet, will they be denied housing?

This changes depending on what the individual council's rule is, some are much more strict about priors than others.

Sorry, this is just collective punishment, putting that clause in the contracts in the first place was wrong.

Using the main use of these clauses as an example: why should someone be allowed to stay in low-cost council-maintained social housing if they act antisocially, vandalising property, disturbing neighbours ect, when there is always somebody else on the waiting list who would follow the rule of law and not disturb the local peace? If these clauses didn't exist then the councils would need to go through eviction proceedings with the possibility of it being dragged through the court system, all while the offending family remains in the home, continuing to break the law.
 
Then they might not get to stay on. But their families shouldn't be penalised for that. You don't up the Poll Tax of rich families when their kids act anti-socially. I'm sure it's possible to do it, to pass a law to do so. But it will only happen to these people. Really, it is just a big load of rubble. It won't make any difference other than to penalise innocent people, and if any difference is noticed, it will probably be more social issues.

It's just a piece of autoritarian bullshit. As for the harsher sentences being dealt out these days, that's okay when it's actually warranted, but we are seeing a great number of unjust convictions, and I am absolutely sure we will see some very incorrect convictions as the courts get busier and busier, and people are convicted by guilt by assosiation.

If you break the law, you get fined, you get a custodial sentence or some community work to do. You just don't build up a system where people get further and further into a bad situation. Trouble breeds trouble, and this system will create a lot of trouble.

When historians analyse these riots, they will conclude it happened for a number of reasons. Racial tension, probably. Lack of respect for autority (among other reasons, they will point to people being penalised for living in the wrong place, leeding to distrust of police), they will point to unemployment, to bad schools. They will point to youth clubs closing down, to a deteriorating social fabric and lack of a common identity. Cuts will be mentioned, the debt will be mentioned. It will be about class, and a thousand other reasons.

There's a mood to just talk about the new, ugly, disrespectful society where no one cares about moral or personal responsibility. And there's a mood to talk about cuts, about austerity, about youth clubs and bad policing.

The common demoninator is that most arguments are split by party lines. I just ask one question; what happened to your copassionate Britain? Where has it gone? Where's the ideals of that greatest generation, the war generation.. and what the hell happened to it?
 
Then they might not get to stay on. But their families shouldn't be penalised for that. You don't up the Poll Tax of rich families when their kids act anti-socially. I'm sure it's possible to do it, to pass a law to do so. But it will only happen to these people. Really, it is just a big load of rubble. It won't make any difference other than to penalise innocent people, and if any difference is noticed, it will probably be more social issues.

It's just a piece of autoritarian bullshit. As for the harsher sentences being dealt out these days, that's okay when it's actually warranted, but we are seeing a great number of unjust convictions, and I am absolutely sure we will see some very incorrect convictions as the courts get busier and busier, and people are convicted by guilt by assosiation.

If you break the law, you get fined, you get a custodial sentence or some community work to do. You just don't build up a system where people get further and further into a bad situation. Trouble breeds trouble, and this system will create a lot of trouble.

There was a documentary series on BBC or Channel4 last year following housing officers from a couple of different councils while they went about their day to day work (sorting out disputes, getting homes ready to re-let, ect), one thing that always came out was that in the vast majority of cases the scummy kids have scummy parents, as equally guilty of terrorising the neighbours as the children. One of the families shown the kids would terrorise the houses surrounding theirs, and one time one of the neighbours brought it up with their mother, the mother thought she was being cheeky and proceeded to smash the neighbour's face in. This council didn't have a clause on their contract and had already issued 3 warnings about behaviour before they started eviction procedures through the courts, this took another few weeks during which they continued to terrorise the locals.
We need systems in place to deal with people like that quickly, which is where the clauses come in.

With regard to the riots then it comes down to personal responsibility, if the 18 year old had known beforehand that his actions would lead to his family being forced to find a new home, would he have done what he did? Possibly, but his mother seems like quite a normal grounded person so his actions probably come down to the fact that he thought he wouldn't be caught.
 
A channel 4 reality TV documentary? That's as sound proof as a banana with a hat! I may not do social work, but I do quite a bit of video work. A lot of happy families doesn't sell. They edit it down to get greatest effect. It's done every single day, and it's effective. If they terrorise their neigbors, kick them out. If it's because of something their kids did, then don't. It's that simple.

These 18 year old kids didn't think about concequences. It's just a consignment of geriatric shoe makers to think that being tougher will have any impact. Tougher sentences has never been seen to work, even if you bulldoze someone's home (like the Israelis used to do), it doesn't work. Someone needs to start thinking about how to stop these things from happening. Chest beating just isn't helpful. It's never been, and it never will. But it's popular, it sounds nice in the Mail. It might even lure over some of those middle class people who still vote Labour. But in terms of helping the situation, it is just not useful.
 
Top