Riots in North London (and other UK cities)

[AiliailiA]

At which point he was under arrest.

Grave_n_idle, you were so strong in the Parents Gone Soft thread against corporal punishment by parents. How can you possibly be advocating far more severe corporal punishment by police? It seems very hypocritical.

First, you might want to actually read my posts in the Parents Gone Soft thread.

Second - there's a big difference between whether mommy should take the belt to little Timmy, and whether or not the cops should be allowed to hit you in the head with a baton for rioting.

If all your argument with Intangelon was just splitting hairs and you were not actually arguing against corporal punishment of children, then there is no reason for me ever to take anything you say seriously. I thought you made strong points against corporal punishment of children, but clearly I read you wrong. It was all just a game of slapping down Intangelon then?

Perhaps that is it. You don't actually want to prove anything or even argue for anything. It's all just about showing other people to be wrong, without ever saying anything you can be held to and proven wrong on?

How very sad. What a waste of your great talent for rhetoric.

Of course cops should not be allowed to hit people in the head for rioting. No matter what their age, if the "person" is apprehended as you said 10 minutes after rioting, if they are as you said "shut down" and if there are plenty of police present to take them into custody, there is absolutely no need for "hitting in the head". They should arrest the suspect as it was plainly in their power to do.

You're defending punishment without trial, by legally privileged persons with physical advantages, and it is not one bit better than child abuse.

[The Bread Sultan]

THE teenager robbed in Barking, East London, as he lay in the street bleeding from the face is called Ashraf Haziq. He is a Malaysian studying in the UK – he’s a first-year accountancy student at Kaplan Financial college. Apparently, he lost his bike, his phone, his wallet and his Playstation.

And some teeth.

His jaw was broken. He’s at the Royal London Hospital having metal plate inserted into his face.

Jamie Cowen wants to help him. We want to know the names of the sadistic bastards are who robbed him.

Come on. It can’t take long…

[Grave_n_idle]

As for 'necessary violence' - smacking a rioter in the head doesn't seem unnecessary.

I agree

But then, I'd be okay with live fire being used on the rioters.

We all say silly things some times.

Indeed. But I've been forgiving it for the last page or two, because I figure you're just over-invested for some reason.

[Grave_n_idle]

I'm not interested in your crocodile tears for criminals. If he didn't want to be hit with a baton, he should have stayed home and watched Corrie.

Oh, ffs. This is always the argument used to justify police brutality. It bugs the shit out of me.

"Corrie" is the go-to argument?

You're bandying around 'police brutality'.

If we were talking about cops walking into a youth club and kicking a group of kids in the balls, I'd say that was a legitimate time to complain about 'police brutality'. If someone was under arrest, and the cops smashed his head into the wall, that might be a legitimate time to complain about 'police brutality'.

Some scally rioter gets whacked in the head with a baton, but nothing serious? Not police brutality.

[Grave_n_idle]

Vegetarians are all pacifists.

I know this, because two things in entirely different spheres just have to be connected.

They don't, but saying, "He's not hurt," about someone who was repeatedly beat with a baton, is a remarkable trivialization when you're someone who acknowledges that slapping hurts.

Again, massively different spheres.

Totally different frame of reference.

[Herador]

Why are they rioting? All I know is the police shot someone and I'm not sure if that's what really happened.

[Grave_n_idle]

If all your argument with Intangelon was just splitting hairs and you were not actually arguing against corporal punishment of children, then there is no reason for me ever to take anything you say seriously. I thought you made strong points against corporal punishment of children, but clearly I read you wrong. It was all just a game of slapping down Intangelon then?

No. Intangelon seems to me to be making fundamental errors in that thread, because he seems to be too invested. Once I realised that he self-identifies as 'somone who spanks', and thus doesn't want to be faced with the 'spanking is abuse' argument, I understood why he seems so upset with my arguments. You'll notice that I've actually responded to Intangelon a lot less often, since.

I made my position clear in that thread - I think it's obvious that spanking is violence, there's really no point in debating that - it's not really debatable. The question is - should parents be ALLOWED to do it. I haven't expressed a position either way - I've just presented the arguments for why it's not necessary.

Perhaps that is it. You don't actually want to prove anything or even argue for anything. It's all just about showing other people to be wrong, without ever saying anything you can be held to and proven wrong on?

No, you're just attributing positions to me that I never claimed. I'm arguing that spanking isn't necessary. I'm arguing that it's violence.

That doesn't mean I have to oppose all violence - I just don't think it's necessarily good parenting.

How very sad. What a waste of your great talent for rhetoric.

Thanks?

Of course cops should not be allowed to hit people in the head for rioting.

There's no 'of course', there.

No matter what their age, if the "person" is apprehended as you said 10 minutes after rioting, if they are as you said "shut down" and if there are plenty of police present to take them into custody, there is absolutely no need for "hitting in the head". They should arrest the suspect as it was plainly in their power to do.

Maybe they could have apprehended him without the batons. Or maybe he'd have fought back. It's a complex theatre - and I don't object to the tactical decisions they made.

You're defending punishment without trial, by legally privileged persons with physical advantages, and it is not one bit better than child abuse.

Nonsense. Totally different spheres. That's like saying you can't oppose the death penalty, but be in favour of your nation fighting a war of defence.

[Volnotova]

(Image)

THE teenager robbed in Barking, East London, as he lay in the street bleeding from the face is called Ashraf Haziq. He is a Malaysian studying in the UK – he’s a first-year accountancy student at Kaplan Financial college. Apparently, he lost his bike, his phone, his wallet and his Playstation.

And some teeth.

His jaw was broken. He’s at the Royal London Hospital having metal plate inserted into his face.

Jamie Cowen wants to help him. We want to know the names of the sadistic bastards are who robbed him.

Come on. It can’t take long…

But think of the poor criminals real victims of racism that were so frustrated and personally inconvenienced by the state enforced poverty! They had to led go of their frustration and anger!

To be exact, we should bash their skulls in help them, because they are the ones that need psychiatric our help!

[Trixiestan]

Westminster vows to evict social tenants involved in riots

Westminster council has warned it will fight to evict tenants who took part in violent riots and looting – and their families – from social housing across the borough.

Jonathan Glanz, cabinet member for housing, called on the government to give councils more power to deal with the fallout from the riots, which spread across London earlier this week. Issuing a warning to those involved in the trouble, Glanz said: "Social housing isn't a right, it's a privilege and if people abuse that privilege then in common with anyone else they should face the consequences.

"Families have to take responsibly for children living in their households, and we have a responsibility to our communities at large. Many people living in these communities are playing by the rules and were not involved in criminal activity over the last few nights. They wouldn't want to live next door to people who are getting away with bad behaviour and enjoying the privilege."

He added that he would argue tenants evicted due to involvement in the riots had made themselves intentionally homeless, reducing the council's obligation to find them alternative accommodation. "Nobody is saying you have to go out looting and therefore it's a choice that has been made. It's about taking responsibility for your actions."

However, Westminster may find it difficult to evict tenants, as current laws suggest that councils can only remove residents when they commit antisocial behaviour on or around the grounds of their property. Emma Salvatore, a legal executive in the property litigation team at Trowers & Hamlins, said the locality restriction may prove to be a barrier for local authorities and housing associations.

"There are two limbs to this argument that councils must prove. First, that the behaviour of the tenant is proving a nuisance or annoyance to persons with a right to reside in the area. This does have to be in the locality of the property. The second is if the tenant has been convicted of an indictable offence, one that would be tried in the crown court rather than magistrates, but again this has to be in the locality," she said.

"Whilst it's commendable that landlords are thinking about taking this kind of action, it's not going to be an easy action for them to bring. A lot will depend on what each tenant was doing, the level of violence and whether it's just theft, as well as their whereabouts."

Other councils, including Greenwich, have now followed Westminster's lead and are looking into their ability to evict tenants actively involved in the riots this week. Housing minister Grant Shapps has also shown his support for stronger action.

"Criminal or antisocial behaviour in the local neighbourhood by a tenant or a member of their family can provide grounds for eviction," he said.

"The government is looking to strengthen those powers and so anyone involved in the current unrest should stop and think about the long-term impact that their actions will have on the rest of their lives. We will strongly back social landlords who take their behaviour into account."

It's almost as if they want this to repeat in the not-to-distant future. Either way to just encourage the rioting to continue.

EDIT:

Also, here's the current live blog on the Guardian.

[Sremski okrug]

Good.

[Vellosia]

The most signed of the Government's 'e-petitions' is the one calling for all rioters to lose their benefits, if on them.

It has 78,000 signatures - just 22,000 short of going to the Backbench Business Committee.

[The Parkus Empire]

Oh, ffs. This is always the argument used to justify police brutality. It bugs the shit out of me.

"Corrie" is the go-to argument?

You're bandying around 'police brutality'.

If we were talking about cops walking into a youth club and kicking a group of kids in the balls, I'd say that was a legitimate time to complain about 'police brutality'. If someone was under arrest, and the cops smashed his head into the wall, that might be a legitimate time to complain about 'police brutality'.

Some scally rioter gets whacked in the head with a baton, but nothing serious? Not police brutality.

I'd prefer to have my balls kicked or my head smashed against the wall, than be beaten with a baton, personally. The third experience is by far the most painful and jarring. Batons suck. Fuck, they really fucking suck.

[Greater Cabinda]

The most signed of the Government's 'e-petitions' is the one calling for all rioters to lose their benefits, if on them.

It has 78,000 signatures - just 22,000 short of going to the Backbench Business Committee.

Wow. That's exactly the wrong thing to do.

[Vellosia]

The most signed of the Government's 'e-petitions' is the one calling for all rioters to lose their benefits, if on them.

It has 78,000 signatures - just 22,000 short of going to the Backbench Business Committee.

Wow. That's exactly the wrong thing to do.

It's quite indicative of public sentiment towards this, I think.

[New Norman England]

What else have I been asked to source?

Pretty much everyhitng, though, to be fair, you did link Sky once, so I guess that's 1 or 2 out of 5 or 7.

So you couldn't think of an example, good-o.

When you were on the dole did you sit and stare at the grey corner of your room thinking about how you needed to get a job and nothing else while you waited for something to come along?

No I was doing a course that the Jobcentre provided for me (I didn't really need it as I had qualifications, but this gave me a minor qualification I didn't have). I also volunteered at a charity shop selling clothes. But I guess you think the only thing people on the dole should be doing is watching Jeremy Kyle.

Speaking of the dole, I just got home from paying more taxes for these "poor, excluded souls". Waiting to see if they riot again.

[Grave_n_idle]

Westminster vows to evict social tenants involved in riots

Westminster council has warned it will fight to evict tenants who took part in violent riots and looting – and their families – from social housing across the borough.

Jonathan Glanz, cabinet member for housing, called on the government to give councils more power to deal with the fallout from the riots, which spread across London earlier this week. Issuing a warning to those involved in the trouble, Glanz said: "Social housing isn't a right, it's a privilege and if people abuse that privilege then in common with anyone else they should face the consequences.

"Families have to take responsibly for children living in their households, and we have a responsibility to our communities at large. Many people living in these communities are playing by the rules and were not involved in criminal activity over the last few nights. They wouldn't want to live next door to people who are getting away with bad behaviour and enjoying the privilege."

He added that he would argue tenants evicted due to involvement in the riots had made themselves intentionally homeless, reducing the council's obligation to find them alternative accommodation. "Nobody is saying you have to go out looting and therefore it's a choice that has been made. It's about taking responsibility for your actions."

However, Westminster may find it difficult to evict tenants, as current laws suggest that councils can only remove residents when they commit antisocial behaviour on or around the grounds of their property. Emma Salvatore, a legal executive in the property litigation team at Trowers & Hamlins, said the locality restriction may prove to be a barrier for local authorities and housing associations.

"There are two limbs to this argument that councils must prove. First, that the behaviour of the tenant is proving a nuisance or annoyance to persons with a right to reside in the area. This does have to be in the locality of the property. The second is if the tenant has been convicted of an indictable offence, one that would be tried in the crown court rather than magistrates, but again this has to be in the locality," she said.

"Whilst it's commendable that landlords are thinking about taking this kind of action, it's not going to be an easy action for them to bring. A lot will depend on what each tenant was doing, the level of violence and whether it's just theft, as well as their whereabouts."

Other councils, including Greenwich, have now followed Westminster's lead and are looking into their ability to evict tenants actively involved in the riots this week. Housing minister Grant Shapps has also shown his support for stronger action.

"Criminal or antisocial behaviour in the local neighbourhood by a tenant or a member of their family can provide grounds for eviction," he said.

"The government is looking to strengthen those powers and so anyone involved in the current unrest should stop and think about the long-term impact that their actions will have on the rest of their lives. We will strongly back social landlords who take their behaviour into account."

It's almost as if they want this to repeat in the not-to-distant future. Either way to just encourage the rioting to continue.

EDIT:

Also, here's the current live blog on the Guardian.

Interesting to see how that one develops. This might be a swift and bloodless solution.

[Greater Cabinda]

Wow. That's exactly the wrong thing to do.

It's quite indicative of public sentiment towards this, I think.

It's still the worst possible policy I can think of.

The result of doing that would just be a repeat/continuation of riots.

[Grave_n_idle]

"Corrie" is the go-to argument?

You're bandying around 'police brutality'.

If we were talking about cops walking into a youth club and kicking a group of kids in the balls, I'd say that was a legitimate time to complain about 'police brutality'. If someone was under arrest, and the cops smashed his head into the wall, that might be a legitimate time to complain about 'police brutality'.

Some scally rioter gets whacked in the head with a baton, but nothing serious? Not police brutality.

I'd prefer to have my balls kicked or my head smashed against the wall, than be beaten with a baton, personally. The third experience is by far the most painful and jarring. Batons suck. Fuck, they really fucking suck.

So does being anyone but the rioter, in a riot.

[Grave_n_idle]

It's quite indicative of public sentiment towards this, I think.

It's still the worst possible policy I can think of.

The result of doing that would just be a repeat/continuation of riots.

I'm not so sure.

Hitting people in the wallet works surprisingly well, a lot of the time.

[Vellosia]

It's quite indicative of public sentiment towards this, I think.

It's still the worst possible policy I can think of.

The result of doing that would just be a repeat/continuation of riots.

Maybe. But society and sentiment tends to be unpredictable.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

It's almost as if they want this to repeat in the not-to-distant future. Either way to just encourage the rioting to continue.

]

Ah good old collective punishment.

[Greater Cabinda]

It's still the worst possible policy I can think of.

The result of doing that would just be a repeat/continuation of riots.

I'm not so sure.

Hitting people in the wallet works surprisingly well, a lot of the time.

Not when their wallet gets hit even if they stop rioting.

[The Parkus Empire]

I'd prefer to have my balls kicked or my head smashed against the wall, than be beaten with a baton, personally. The third experience is by far the most painful and jarring. Batons suck. Fuck, they really fucking suck.

So does being anyone but the rioter, in a riot.

I fail to see your point. I could see a civilian as justified in beating a rioter with a baton out of anger, but not a cop--not after the guy surrendered, anyway, I don't care if he had no choice but to surrender.

[Greed and Death]

I wish Americans would riot like this.

[Astholm]

I wonder, does the phone-hack scandal play a part in this:

A generation that has no respect of the police"

Well you can see why. This is what happens when the police give up their moral authority, and our politicians are seen as having their hands in the till too. After the NoTW story uncovered the corruption inherent in the MET, if i was a criminal i would consider the police one of my own. They're probably thinking 'if the police can get a piece of the action then so can i'. Im laughing my arse off at Cameron saying that these people will feel the full force of the law - when will he see the full force of the law for his creation of policy solely for Murdoch's benefit? When will the ex-commissioner and asst commissioner of the MET see the full force of the law for their corruption?

Original source http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/ ... -four-live