Here we go (aka UK riots thread)

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Didn't they often even pay up front?!

I don't actually know, just asking.

And are you more entitled to do something if you're perfectly willing and able to pay for it... possibly.

Commit criminal damage?

Ok, ok, so you either break the law or you don't, and you're either entitled to do something or not. Fine.

But if someone does damage they are willing and able to pay for, that's not as irresponsible and reprehensible as doing damage that someone else is definitely going to cause somebody else loss...

[Lord Kangana]

But that would rely on the intention to pay in the first place.

Sounds very much like a get out of jail free card if you're caught.

And if you're not, its still criminal damage.

[Prufrock]

What's that got to do with it? The attitude I can smash up people's businesses and it'll be fine coz daddy will pay for it is just as offensive, if not in a more entitled way!

[Armchair Wanderer]

Here's the thing. I'm a center-left kinda guy, can't see myself voting Tory in the near future, maybe when I'm nearing retirement things might look different.

However, the whole point about thesen riots is that they happened because they could. Like Bish says, they're going to get off pretty much scott-free.

There was someone on the radio who does something up in Glasgow. He was saying that if there are trouble individuals they sit them down with members of the community. The peaceful law-abiding folk tell the criminal they've had enough and are not going to put up with their behaviour any longer. If they continue with the anti-social behaviour then the "community" will make things very hard for not only themselves, but the people they hang out with (gangs etc). Then said individual is given a telephone number. They are told to go off and have a think. If they want to change their ways they can call the number. If they do not there are measures the community can take.

From memory some of these measures were things like stopping benefits.

Because the threat is there some people do lose benefits and get evicted (so are inconvenienced by having to ask gf/parents/mates for a place to stay) but most people would rather change their ways before it gets to that stage.

Point being is that it apparently works.

"Engaging with people" is obviously the ideal, but some people need boundaries, they need to know that they cannot act in certain ways without bad things happening to them.

[Worthy4England]

Didn't they often even pay up front?!

I don't actually know, just asking.

And are you more entitled to do something if you're perfectly willing and able to pay for it... possibly.

Commit criminal damage?

Ok, ok, so you either break the law or you don't, and you're either entitled to do something or not. Fine.

But if someone does damage they are willing and able to pay for, that's not as irresponsible and reprehensible as doing damage that someone else is definitely going to cause somebody else loss...

I don't think it's about "entitlement" - although iirc that was a word Boris used.

What it is about, is rectifying and paying for damages caused.

So regardless of "entitlement" the perpetrators of either crime need to pay. Now on this, the Bullingdon Club probably just had to go and open daddy's wallet. The rioters on the other hand probably don't have that facility available to them. They should have taken that into account when they thought it was a good idea to go and torch places.

They should me made to pay based on the damage they've inflicted (not their ability to pay). If they can't, take it out of their benefits or stop them altogether. That means the fcukers starve, tough shit. They should have thought about their actions in advance.

[thebish]

They should me made to pay based on the damage they've inflicted (not their ability to pay). If they can't, take it out of their benefits or stop them altogether. That means the fcukers starve, tough shit. They should have thought about their actions in advance.

would you take their kids into state care then - or let them starve too? (just out of interest)

[Lofthouse Lower]

it's not that black and white (for the 10,000th time)

[Worthy4England]

They should me made to pay based on the damage they've inflicted (not their ability to pay). If they can't, take it out of their benefits or stop them altogether. That means the fcukers starve, tough shit. They should have thought about their actions in advance.

would you take their kids into state care then - or let them starve too? (just out of interest)

Take them into care - they're obviously not fit to have kids.

I'm not particularly trying to save the State money in this. I'm only interested in making the perpetrators pay for the crimes they've committed.

[bobo the clown]

They should me made to pay based on the damage they've inflicted (not their ability to pay). If they can't, take it out of their benefits or stop them altogether. That means the fcukers starve, tough shit. They should have thought about their actions in advance.

would you take their kids into state care then - or let them starve too? (just out of interest)

the first would cost a fortune, the latter would be unreasonable. There simply HAS to be a quicker way.

[William the White]

They should me made to pay based on the damage they've inflicted (not their ability to pay). If they can't, take it out of their benefits or stop them altogether. That means the fcukers starve, tough shit. They should have thought about their actions in advance.

would you take their kids into state care then - or let them starve too? (just out of interest)

the first would cost a fortune, the latter would be unreasonable. There simply HAS to be a quicker way.

I think the idea of social reparation is a good one - but it can't mean rendering people homeless or totally devoid of the means of sustenance...

I don't think it would be all that difficult to find other ways...

[Lord Kangana]

I have a friend who is a (right wing, that'll please some of you) economist.

I'll sum up very quickly that he thinks, beyond political sparring, its utterly futile to not give out in a welfare state, because otherwise we'll either have to find these people jobs, or, and this will resonate more readily with many, spend more money on dealing with the issues of having a real underclass. In short, he can sleep easy at night because people are kept just enough above the bread line to avoid serious, desperate, violent crime. And his taxes are lower keeping these people housed than keeping them imprisoned.

I get to the conclusion differently. But ultimately its the same. We want a civilised society where we can (mostly) walk the streets and go about our business, we have to give out benefit money to people we don't like.

[TANGODANCER]

We want a civilised society where we can (mostly) walk the streets and go about our business, we have to give out benefit money to people we don't like.

Put like that it sounds like an organised protection racket: "You pay us or we'll smash your business up".( and every so often we'll smash them up anyway, just to show we can) Guess it is really. What shall we call em, The Chaffia ( Chav Mafia)?

[Lord Kangana]

Its either that or an actual protection racket.

[Prufrock]

Its either that or an actual protection racket.

Most def. Can Keveh do a t-shirt, coz it is that simple.

[Prufrock]

I mean obviously not JUST that, we'd do some lefty shit about education as well, but the whole not having thousands of people knocking about the streets with nothing to lose and a (FACT) playstation (presumably PS3 now) and Sky waiting for them, is probably a decent shout.

[2399]

Saw that four of my fascebook friends like this:
77,999 people like this (in total)!!!

Dear England, now who's full of convicts? Yours sincerely, Australia.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dear-Engl ... 1396530758" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It's gone up in liking by 120 people in a minute or two!

[Worthy4England]

They should me made to pay based on the damage they've inflicted (not their ability to pay). If they can't, take it out of their benefits or stop them altogether. That means the fcukers starve, tough shit. They should have thought about their actions in advance.

would you take their kids into state care then - or let them starve too? (just out of interest)

the first would cost a fortune, the latter would be unreasonable. There simply HAS to be a quicker way.

I think the idea of social reparation is a good one - but it can't mean rendering people homeless or totally devoid of the means of sustenance...

I don't think it would be all that difficult to find other ways...

Would you care to elucidate on the possibilities then good Sir?

From a hard line attitude, I'm willing to listen.

[Worthy4England]

I have a friend who is a (right wing, that'll please some of you) economist.

I'll sum up very quickly that he thinks, beyond political sparring, its utterly futile to not give out in a welfare state, because otherwise we'll either have to find these people jobs, or, and this will resonate more readily with many, spend more money on dealing with the issues of having a real underclass. In short, he can sleep easy at night because people are kept just enough above the bread line to avoid serious, desperate, violent crime. And his taxes are lower keeping these people housed than keeping them imprisoned.

I get to the conclusion differently. But ultimately its the same. We want a civilised society where we can (mostly) walk the streets and go about our business, we have to give out benefit money to people we don't like.

I think most people would recognise that as a reasonable approach.

It doesn't address the problem of people independently taking the view that although they're housed by the state, clothed by the state, fed by the state and have their kids bought up by the state, they still don't have as much as Fred down the road, so rioting is a good way of showing their disaffection.

I'm more than happy to contribute to the welfare state, both as a social and an economic good idea.

I'm happy to listen if people tell me it's still leaving them below the breadline, but let's face it, half the looters were out in trainers I couldn't justify spending the money on.

When they take matters into their own hands and determine that an appropriate course of action is to take the piss out of people who are generally hard working and actually paying for them, then I lose sympathy and they need to put back in to society, that which they've taken out. As a punitive measure.

[a1]

I have a friend who is a (right wing, that'll please some of you) economist.

I'll sum up very quickly that he thinks, beyond political sparring, its utterly futile to not give out in a welfare state, because otherwise we'll either have to find these people jobs, or, and this will resonate more readily with many, spend more money on dealing with the issues of having a real underclass. In short, he can sleep easy at night because people are kept just enough above the bread line to avoid serious, desperate, violent crime. And his taxes are lower keeping these people housed than keeping them imprisoned.

I get to the conclusion differently. But ultimately its the same. We want a civilised society where we can (mostly) walk the streets and go about our business, we have to give out benefit money to people we don't like.

the point might be that theres too many of those sorts that "the taxpayer" cannot afford to do it anymore. the welfare state bill is already nearly the same (by that i mean its already overtook it) as the income tax bill. the money might run out.

theres paying for them , but paying for them and having them steal off you too, is what folk carnt take. thats costing you three times. the looters were already wearing nike/adidas/xbox/whateverbranded stuff while they were carrying it out of the smashed shopfronts. you may as well not give em nowt then assume they'll steal off you , but get shit you know they wont like.

these types are that thick as feck that theyd only ever get "dig holes jobs" even if they didnt have criminal records blotting their CVs and i'm sure employers would rather employ somebody that wont steal, so theyve kinda pissed on their chips there and/or manufactured a convienient excuse.

so what some social worker types / labour politicians / tory politicians will come up with is some scheme whereby some "bad lad" types gets some job coz theyve paid/bribed/begged an employer to let him queue jump over other unemployed teens. then after about 4 days he'll stop turning up.

then in about four possibly eight years times this'll happen agen . but its not worth arguing over, next time just get ready for the ruck.

[Hoboh]

Didn't they often even pay up front?!

I don't actually know, just asking.

And are you more entitled to do something if you're perfectly willing and able to pay for it... possibly.

Commit criminal damage?

Ok, ok, so you either break the law or you don't, and you're either entitled to do something or not. Fine.

But if someone does damage they are willing and able to pay for, that's not as irresponsible and reprehensible as doing damage that someone else is definitely going to cause somebody else loss...

You of all people should know better!!! Paying might be considered in mitigation by the beak when considering his sentence but has fook all to do with the eyes of the law and it really depends if said beak had caught his missis in bed with the gardner that morning (even worse if said gardner was Megson )