General discussion for (Tottenham) riots

lostinrates

lostinrates wrote: »

I wonder if caught the sentence will be a carpet?

I can't believe this didn't raise more appreciation and therefore I conclude you are all considerably posher than me.

Mrs_Bones

olly300 wrote: »

Lots of insurance polices do not cover "civil disturbances" or riots. So riots aren't victimless crimes.

In the case of large retailers most (but not all due to the state of the economy) can get money lent to them to sort things out but in the case of small retailers, people whose homes are damaged and whose cars have been burnt out they have to bear the cost themselves.

Not quite, insurance does not tend to pay out for damage in riots true. It's the police and government who cover the costs in cases of civil disturbances, so the tax payer will pick up the bill, people won't have to cover the costs themselves. Though knowing the way any government scheme works it could take time for the money to reach them. I'm sure the insurance firms will use the riot as a reason to put up the cost of premiums though and make insurance more difficult to get for some in the area.

pqrdef

People riot because they're angry. The anger just attaches itself to whatever target is handiest. This riot wasn't about Tottenham, it could have broken out in many other places.

Some things to be angry about - icons of the state of the country:

(1) Fred Goodwin's pension

(2) economic growth of 0.2% in nine months, and no Plan B

(3) elderly women being told to sh*t themselves in bed if they can't get up

(4) Operation Weeting. Report a burglary, nothing happens, not enough manpower. But dozens of detectives can be assigned to go through Greg Mulcaire's bin bags and apologise to C-list celebs for the police having better things to do the first time round.

The whole phone-hacking crisis has been a sorry tale of the Establishment not only fiddling while Rome burns, but going round congratulating themselves on how well they were playing.

A._Badger

pqrdef wrote: »

The whole phone-hacking crisis has been a sorry tale of the Establishment not only fiddling while Rome burns, but going round congratulating themselves on how well they were playing.

I agree that they are cause enough for riots - but I'd bet a penny to a pound that none last night's rioters is aware of even a single one of those casus belli!

drc

pqrdef wrote: »

People riot because they're angry. The anger just attaches itself to whatever target is handiest. This riot wasn't about Tottenham, it could have broken out in many other places.

Some things to be angry about - icons of the state of the country:

(1) Fred Goodwin's pension

(2) economic growth of 0.2% in nine months, and no Plan B

(3) elderly women being told to sh*t themselves in bed if they can't get up

(4) Operation Weeting. Report a burglary, nothing happens, not enough manpower. But dozens of detectives can be assigned to go through Greg Mulcaire's bin bags and apologise to C-list celebs for the police having better things to do the first time round.

The whole phone-hacking crisis has been a sorry tale of the Establishment not only fiddling while Rome burns, but going round congratulating themselves on how well they were playing.

Can I add to that list;

5) No chicken korma at my local Indian restaurant. I think I need an excuse to go out, smash some windows and nick some expensive trainers .

ruggedtoast

London. So glad I no longer live there.

People seem to be surprised that the Met arent 'doing' anything, but they never do anything when there is disorder. I used to live on Greenwich High Street, a nice area. and it was like some giant re-enactment of Fight Club there some evenings. Despite the police station being literally right there we never saw a copper.

One night at about 2 am a couple of dozen chavs started some kind of street war outside our flat. After about half an hour of them fighting and shouting ans screaming we called the police station for a second time when a girl was knocked to the ground and three men started stamping on her head.

"Oh is that still going on?" They said. "Yeah everyone has been calling about that."

A bit later a large number of cops did turn up, and watched doing nothing whatsoever as half the chavs ran away towards Deptford and the other half jumped on a bus. God help the bus driver was all I could think.

A._Badger

A friend of mine had drug deals openly taking place outside his house most evenings. He called the local police (this was in luvverly Croydon) who told him to take car registration numbers for them.

They weren't in the least interested.

The time was when an outburst like this would have provoked a lot of sympathy for the police but I get the strongest feeling that the public has been so alienated by, on the one hand, PC PCs and, on the other, the persecution of the 'easy meat' middle classes, that the police will get far less support than they would have, even ten years ago.

vivatifosi

Another thing that won't win support for the police is that the Guardian is reportedly stating that the bullet in the policeman's radio was police issue and therefore not the result of a gun battle.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/07/police-attack-london-burns

Which not only raises questions about the role of the police, it also brings into question how the Guardian is getting all of its scoops lately.

A._Badger

vivatifosi wrote: »

Another thing that won't win support for the police is that the Guardian is reportedly stating that the bullet in the policeman's radio was police issue and therefore not the result of a gun battle.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/07/police-attack-london-burns

Which not only raises questions about the role of the police, it also brings into question how the Guardian is getting all of its scoops lately.

We know the answer to that last part (well, those of us who don't solely rely on the BBC!). At least one Guardian hack has been outed for phone tapping.

http://order-order.com/

I can't imagine why the BBC would be neglecting such a story!

fc123

darkpool wrote: »

you think we should let all those "gangstas" just shoot each other?

everyone criticises the police at times, but they do uphold law and order.

darkpool wrote: »

i agree it's a cultural issue. some cultures in london do seem to have a problem with guns/ drugs/ crime.

Quite a few shootings in our area on a regular basis and all are gang related. The big news occurs when a bystander get's shot by accident but unless that happens, they are not reported in the press just a yellow board put up.

There is a known drug dealer near us, been dealing for years, everyone knows and he's still there, popping out to cars that pull up.
A few years back a kid of 18 got stabbed to death a few yards away and nothing done, no-one knew who, zilch.

Mrs_Bones wrote: »

Not quite, insurance does not tend to pay out for damage in riots true. It's the police and government who cover the costs in cases of civil disturbances, so the tax payer will pick up the bill, people won't have to cover the costs themselves. Though knowing the way any government scheme works it could take time for the money to reach them. I'm sure the insurance firms will use the riot as a reason to put up the cost of premiums though and make insurance more difficult to get for some in the area.

When we owned shops, if we had been looted + shop front damaged we could have claimed for the glass repair and temp hoarding call out but not the lost stock. If someone goes into your store and clears it out you are on your own.