Smoke screen?

nickmason

edinburgher wrote: »

Ummm... ok?



I never said that - I said insurance means that it's not worth shooting people looting/attacking businesses. Very different things.

So does insurance taken out by the victim make a difference to the perpetrator and how they are treated? Should it?

edinburgher

So does insurance taken out by the victim make a difference to the perpetrator and how they are treated?

By 'how they are treated' all I'm saying is 'don't kill them'. It's hardly particularly liberal

ILW

edinburgher wrote: »

By 'how they are treated' all I'm saying is 'don't kill them'. It's hardly particularly liberal

I would be cheaper and of more benefit in the long term to kill them though.

edinburgher

I would be cheaper and of more benefit in the long term to kill them though.

Now you're just winding me up

ILW

edinburgher wrote: »

Now you're just winding me up

I cannot see a downside, can you?

edinburgher

I cannot see a downside, can you?

Absolutely. I believe in the possibility of rehabilitation (and second chances)

nickmason

edinburgher wrote: »

By 'how they are treated' all I'm saying is 'don't kill them'. It's hardly particularly liberal

Agreed - and apologies if I was picking up on one particular element, and to a pedantic level, but I object to memes such as "insurance" polluting the debate, and just wanted to note that it is irrelevant. There is nothing necessarily illogical with the position of "kill them in homes, but not in business property", but there is in thinking that "covered by insurance" makes any difference to the validity of that position.

ILW

edinburgher wrote: »

Absolutely. I believe in the possibility of rehabilitation (and second chances)

I would suggest that a fear of dire consequences stopping them offending in the first place may be a better solution.

edinburgher

I would suggest that a fear of dire consequences stopping them offending in the first place may be a better solution.

There is plenty of research that suggests this doesn't make any difference and I think you'd end up making too many 'martyrs'. In a work by philosopher Michel Foucault, he talks about how capital punishment has actually led to riots against those doling out the punishment. I can absolutely see that happening in the UK and that takes us back to square one.

StevieJ

tomterm8 wrote: »

This is a riot, so insurance companies will not cover it. The state pays compensation. Which means, all taxpayers will have to pay for it. I can think of better things to spend my money on than this. Like schools, libraries or hospitals.

I will wait a few days before buying those Aviva shares :eek:

Most householders and business owners whose property has been damaged by the violence of the past few days should be covered by their insurance policies.
The Association of British Insurers (ABI) said that home insurance should cover fire and looting, and accommodation for those forced out.
Commercial policies have similar cover with some also compensating for interruption to trade.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14458505