Tottenham Riots

When the PM says the offenders will be dealt with by the most severity what does he mean? Like pointed out above, our cells are now full... do the remainder of the thugs get ignored until more space is freed? Surely that's not dealing with the problem is it!?

If our PM has grown some balls we wouldn't be discussing this now... at-least Maggy Thatcher had the right idea!

Couldn't have said it better myself...

So lets say the offenders do get petty sentences... will me & you... the people paying for the clean-up actually do anything about it, or will we remain to the filed and be sheep again... yessss master :s

 

The scum who have been caught and will be caught in the comming months will get off with slaps on the wrists. Community orders, suspended sentences, fines. Prison terms in the order of months instead of years with the odd few getting a year or two (which will be reduced) as a maximum of punishment.

"Full force of the law" - Spinesless, meaningless politco talk from a spineless, meaningless politico.

Post these pricks on the lines in Afghanistan, send them to Africa as labour gangs to dig wells, build houses and schools and sort out infastructure. This would be punishment. Not a community order that will never be served or a fine that will ultimately be paid by tax payers.

 

I'm not sure where people have got the idea our cells are all full:

 

I literally laughed out loud when Cameron said if you're old enough to commit the crime, you're old enough to be punished, that will never happen. It should, but it won't.

 

Is tv coverage making the riots worse? Watching Sky news last night their helicopter was showing exactly where the police were on the ground and what direction they were headed. All it takes is for one person to be watching and directing the roits by phone.

 

I don't think it will make a differecne as in the past few nights the scum have being cycling around spotting police & radioing back to their mates. This is what I heard on the news in London on Monday night anyway...

 

As dreadful as the riots have been, why are you so (seemingly) disproportionately angry about it, screaming repeatedly for the troops to go in? Have you been personally affected by it, in which case I could better understand your response? Or is it just Amy Winehouse all over again?



As to protest voting, it's all very well but take that to the nth degree and if sufficient people voted for a far right party "in protest" you might well get a stronger response in cases like this but you'd also be giving them licence to govern this country according to their racist beliefs, not something I'd personally want to risk.

 

I feel honoured to have my post grace the lining of your bin.

I have. Twice. Two options:

1. The slow but steady approach: hijack the rioters' social networks by spamming it with posts of known troublemakers' parents, grandparents and younger siblings pleading for them to come home. It socially embarrases them, reconnects them to the fact that they have a family too, and implicitly suggests that this family is in communication with the police. You're not so anonymous now, and your parents are pretty upset with you. Add to that the water cannon with dye. Make them cold and wet, mark them publicly for months to come.

2. The quick and dirty approach: bring in the army, and don't hold back. I mean, put some real blood on the streets. Be prepared to follow through and deal with the bleeding-heart critics and an irrevokable hardening of position on both sides. Expect crime to become harder and deadlier, certain areas of cities to become no-go ghettos, and random revenge attacks. Swat those down mercilessly. It works for China, it works for Syria, it works for Iran. Strong government response; no more riots.

You takes your choice and pays your price. The important thing is to follow through, to the bitter end. If you confront people, you beat them down hard. If you arrest people, you punish them mercilessly. If they get up again, you beat them down again. Boot stamping on the face --forever.

If you don't have the slightly sociopathic attitude for that, then you'll have to take the slow but steady approach, and respond firmly but not in a way that closes off all future attempts at communication and resolution. You have to think beyond the here-and-now of long-term solutions and changes. You have to start addressing the causes, not just the symptoms.

Make a choice. Don't ***** about. But realise that whatever path you take, you'll be 100% committed. You'll have to follow it through, all the way, and there will be no slacking off, no changing of minds. Choose wisely. It is not just your immediate comfort and safety; it is the future of your children's children's children.

 

If you're referring to me, I meant that the cells in police stations are full, not prisons, which makes it logistically impossible to arrest all these people if you have no secure place to hold them. I'm assuming that's why the police would want to arrest them in dribs and drabs afterwards so they don't have to process them all at once before they can be sent to prison.

 

Because me as a TAX payer will see rises again to accommodate the cleaning up process!

PS I shouldn't need a reason to be angered...

 

So you'd like to make that small rise a HUGE rise by taking in the logistical costs, etc. of actually bringing in the military?

 

Mate, if the riot continues far beyond the 4+ days its already caused, bringing in the military to stop this NOW will be far cheaper than to let it 'run its course' as the PM would like to do and some on here...

 

I think you underestimate how much it costs to mobilise a military force, even for a single day.

 

The majority of cost will be fronted by the insurance companies that have covered the damaged and stolen property.

That may mean your insurance premiums go up. Insurance premiums are an optional purchase apart from vehicles (which are high enough already so rises would probably be academic). They would most likely go up if you lived in the areas affected as they would be higher risk to insure now. Aside from that, my point is, they are not a tax. So you can choose not to be affected by it.

As for the cost of the investigation into these scallywags, yes, it will probably be high. Not high enough to introduce a directly linked tax increase though. An 1% income tax increase would probably pay for the investigation 10x over if not more. Still, it's not going to happen.

"shouldn't need a reason to be angered" ? Ah, the cornerstone of irrational thinking. Congratulations, you now know what it's like to have menopause.

 

Add to that a curfew, lose the red tape and allow the police to use force where necessary, give em more vehicles and more bodies on the street and I think we're singing from the same hymn sheet

To me that isn't necessarily the slow but steady approach, nor is it full blown military oppression - rather a good middle ground.

 

Just how old are you your old enough to pay tax yet you seem to have the intellect of a 11 year old who's in need of some anger management therapy

 

Whatever Trevor!

 

Yeah, the idea that you can only go all out or pretty much sit back and hope passive tactics work is absurd, middle ground is surely the most sensible.
Sketchee has it about right I reckon

 

Lol so 11 it is then

 

You will probably be too young to remember the Briston Riots of 1981 (I'm guessing --unless you're about 40). This was a confrontation between the Metropolitan Police and protesters in Lambeth, South London, between 10 and 12 April 1981. The main riot on 11 April, dubbed "Bloody Saturday" by TIME magazine, resulted in almost 280 injuries to police and 45 injuries to members of the public; over a hundred vehicles were burned, including 56 police vehicles; and almost 150 buildings were damaged, with thirty burned. There were 82 arrests. Reports suggested that up to 5,000people were involved.

Between 3 and 11 July of that year, there was more unrest fuelled by racial and social discord, at Handsworth in Birmingham, Southall in London, Toxteth in Liverpool, Hyson Green in Nottingham and Moss Side in Manchester. There were also smaller pockets of unrest in Leeds, Leicester, Southampton, Halifax, Bedford, Gloucester, Wolverhampton, Coventry, Bristol, and Edinburgh. Racial tension played a major part in most of these disturbances, although all of the riots took place in areas hit particularly hard by unemployment and recession.

Sound familiar?

Now Maggie had until 1990 and her pals until 1997 --that is 9 to 18 years-- to examine the contributing causes of these riots and do something about, like, reversing the trend a bit. But fast-forward to 2011 and we are still in exactly the same place. So it seems to me that Maggie Thatcher did not have a clue. She knew how to crack down hard in the short term (although that seems to have made little difference in terms of total damage done), but she didn't know how to follow through with solutions in the long term.

Just like it took someone like Mo Mowlam to actually change the dynamics of N. Ireland, it will take a person of similar insight and wisdom to change the trend here.