Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
This is a disturbing vid, seems that there is a major political bent to these riots. These girls are so imbued in the thought that the rich are causing austerity. This is very disturbing as they're cheering on mindless violence in the name of "get the rich!".

To be fair, "Get the rich!" is a message commonly propagated in the course of mindless political violence.

Stormrider wrote:
Granted this isn't all of why the riots are going on, but just senseless looting and rioting because a thug was shot? I'm not buying it.

People riot because their sports team lost, and even sometimes when they won. Its certainly not beyond the pale for judicial actions to cause riots, there was a particularly famous instance in which this occurred in Los Angeles.

Stormrider wrote:
That's a convenient cover and reason, but not the underlying one. This smacks of a class of people so dependent on Government that they know no other way to function. Pure and simple.

I'm confused, how are you linking this to socialism?

Stormrider wrote:
I don't know what's worse, that the riots are going on or that the BBC called people defending their homes & businesses as "Vigilantes". Disgusting. Try rioting around here and you're likely to wind up dead or horribly injured for your actions. When did the UK become so neutered?

See, people have said that several times in this thread, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when American police resorted lethal force in the face of a riot; and it certainly hasn't been sufficiently widespread to make the suffering of either consequence "likely". The use of lethal force in the suppression of rioters is generally the province of authoritarian governments, not liberal democracies.

What about the NYC draft riots?, though that was after the police had been completely overpowered, and the Military was called in. For our friends overseas, this is the incident that was seen in the movie "Gangs of New York", not sighting that as historically accurate to the letter, just a good overview.

After this they should all be tried for Treason as terrorists.

Ow you´re such a racist...
(sarcasm)

So, when will the army show up? Not fire, mind you, but drive a few tanks in to scare the living feth out of them. That should sort things out.

Also, that riot police video was disgusting. WHY ARE THERE 8 COPS WITH TINY SHIELDS DEFENDING A WHOLE CITY BLOCK?

In the words of the German pak 38 from CoH "How is that tiny shield going to protect us?".

Police are planning on using plastic bullets soon at least according to the news here.

romegamer wrote:
What about the NYC draft riots?, though that was after the police had been completely overpowered, and the Military was called in. For our friends overseas, this is the incident that was seen in the movie "Gangs of New York", not sighting that as historically accurate to the letter, just a good overview.

It certainly has happened, though the US probably would not have been considered a liberal democracy at the time. Then there's the issue of the Civil War, and the unique pressure it put on the political climate of the time.

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:Manchester city centre is chaos at present - widespread looting and disorder. My missus was in a pub with a friend and they started putting the shutters down so she legged it across town and managed to get beck to our house in the northern suburbs of the city. Worrying times. I am furious.

Do you see more cops now than before Alby? Glad she made it home.

Thanks. I wasn't in the city centre as I was at the studio, but I could hear sirens all night, and I live several miles outside of the centre. Apparently it was total chaos. The restaurant Mrs. Albatross was at had it it's windows smashed up shortly after she left... she got home fine though.

Are the hooligans limited to business areas or are they in residential neighborhoods now?

Looks like it's just business areas - they certainly haven't made it this far to the north of the city.

SOFDC wrote:
To boot, one stands a better chance armed and outnumbered than they do unarmed and outnumbered. The cost of losing is also no higher. Being beaten to death is a better fate than being shot dead only in the minds of people who still have romantic notions of fighting.

I'm not sure that first part is true if the people doing the outnumbering are also armed. In either case the best option is to flee, if the goal is protecting one's life.

In either case, from the perspective of the state, gun ownership during a riot is a liability as it will generally render the riot more difficult to suppress due to the presence of weapons on par with those possessed by the police. Whether or not individuals are able to better defend themselves is basically irrelevant, as individual lives do not matter in the face of regaining order.

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
This is a disturbing vid, seems that there is a major political bent to these riots. These girls are so imbued in the thought that the rich are causing austerity. This is very disturbing as they're cheering on mindless violence in the name of "get the rich!".

To be fair, "Get the rich!" is a message commonly propagated in the course of mindless political violence.

Stormrider wrote:
Granted this isn't all of why the riots are going on, but just senseless looting and rioting because a thug was shot? I'm not buying it.

People riot because their sports team lost, and even sometimes when they won. Its certainly not beyond the pale for judicial actions to cause riots, there was a particularly famous instance in which this occurred in Los Angeles.

Stormrider wrote:
That's a convenient cover and reason, but not the underlying one. This smacks of a class of people so dependent on Government that they know no other way to function. Pure and simple.

I'm confused, how are you linking this to socialism?

Stormrider wrote:
I don't know what's worse, that the riots are going on or that the BBC called people defending their homes & businesses as "Vigilantes". Disgusting. Try rioting around here and you're likely to wind up dead or horribly injured for your actions. When did the UK become so neutered?

See, people have said that several times in this thread, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when American police resorted lethal force in the face of a riot; and it certainly hasn't been sufficiently widespread to make the suffering of either consequence "likely". The use of lethal force in the suppression of rioters is generally the province of authoritarian governments, not liberal democracies.

Point 1: Certainly, it's easy to gin up the masses by playing to their jealousy. This is neither new or exciting, just typical class warfare rhetoric.

Point 2: They do indeed riot over inane things such as professional sports. Mayhem has no one true source, but this one seems like a more overt class struggle. It's not helping their case at all. I see most of the sports related riots here in North America are a few fans that are either bombsauced or bombsauced+furious over their team's win/loss and need to go be a bit too exuberant and burning cars/storefronts becomes fun. These people should be ashamed of themselves.

Point 3: I've read a couple articles over the last couple of days (combined with the Student Protests/Riots earlier this year in the UK) about the youth complaining about Government backed college tuition being cut back. I would imagine that the cuts do indeed have some effect on this rash of violence. When the girls talked about the "rich", they're probably referring to austerity. It's been conditioned into them that they're entitled to another person's money and it's rearing it's ugly head now that the money dried up a bit.

Point 4: I'm not referring to the local government, I'm referring to the homeowner and business owner. At least where I live the police would probably not frown upon you defending your property from vagrants. This is particularly true with uninvited home/business invaders. In bigger cities they (local and municipal government) have the attitude that the police should handle everything, nonsense. They can't be on every street corner, at every store, in every house to prevent every crime. Independent initiative in cases like this are needed. Riots are a collection of brave cowards, scare the piss out of one and the rest tend to scatter. No one wants to be the hero unless they're crazy.

dogma wrote:

SOFDC wrote:
To boot, one stands a better chance armed and outnumbered than they do unarmed and outnumbered. The cost of losing is also no higher. Being beaten to death is a better fate than being shot dead only in the minds of people who still have romantic notions of fighting.

I'm not sure that first part is true if the people doing the outnumbering are also armed. In either case the best option is to flee, if the goal is protecting one's life.

In either case, from the perspective of the state, gun ownership during a riot is a liability as it will generally render the riot more difficult to suppress due to the presence of weapons on par with those possessed by the police. Whether or not individuals are able to better defend themselves is basically irrelevant, as individual lives do not matter in the face of regaining order.

You may argue that they are irrelevant to the police, but it sure as s*** isn't irrelevant to the individual, and that's the point of view I'm taking, although you may be thinking from a different perspective in which case you are absolutely right. I do not agree with your argument of the armed mob, because looters are not fighting for a cause they are willing to die for, which is what they would face against armed police, even if they had weapons to shoot back. The police and the shopkeep are fighting for something, the looters, not so much, you have to remember, this isnt a political popular revolution, its a bunch of thugs out to steal and victimize.

dogma wrote:

SOFDC wrote:
To boot, one stands a better chance armed and outnumbered than they do unarmed and outnumbered. The cost of losing is also no higher. Being beaten to death is a better fate than being shot dead only in the minds of people who still have romantic notions of fighting.

I'm not sure that first part is true if the people doing the outnumbering are also armed. In either case the best option is to flee, if the goal is protecting one's life.

In either case, from the perspective of the state, gun ownership during a riot is a liability as it will generally render the riot more difficult to suppress due to the presence of weapons on par with those possessed by the police. Whether or not individuals are able to better defend themselves is basically irrelevant, as individual lives do not matter in the face of regaining order.

The rooters in LA learned in a quick hurry it was a bad idea to assault homes and businesses where the owners were armed and not shy about using their guns. Those places ended up faring far better than their unarmed equivelents because the people were defending their families, lives, and livelihoods, while the rioters were just looking for easy pickings.

I wish I was over there shoulder to shoulder with you British Dakkites right now. Nothing pisses me off more than oxygen thieves like these looters.

Relapse wrote:

dogma wrote:

SOFDC wrote:
To boot, one stands a better chance armed and outnumbered than they do unarmed and outnumbered. The cost of losing is also no higher. Being beaten to death is a better fate than being shot dead only in the minds of people who still have romantic notions of fighting.

I'm not sure that first part is true if the people doing the outnumbering are also armed. In either case the best option is to flee, if the goal is protecting one's life.

In either case, from the perspective of the state, gun ownership during a riot is a liability as it will generally render the riot more difficult to suppress due to the presence of weapons on par with those possessed by the police. Whether or not individuals are able to better defend themselves is basically irrelevant, as individual lives do not matter in the face of regaining order.

The rooters in LA learned in a quick hurry it was a bad idea to assault homes and businesses where the owners were armed and not shy about using their guns. Those places ended up faring far better than their unarmed equivelents because the people were defending their families, lives, and livelihoods, while the rioters were just looking for easy pickings.

I wish I was over there shoulder to shoulder with you British Dakkites right now. Nothing pisses me off more than oxygen thieves like these looters.

Yes, I have mentioned the Korean shopkeepers several times in this thread, I totally agree with you.

romegamer wrote:

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
This is a disturbing vid, seems that there is a major political bent to these riots. These girls are so imbued in the thought that the rich are causing austerity. This is very disturbing as they're cheering on mindless violence in the name of "get the rich!".

To be fair, "Get the rich!" is a message commonly propagated in the course of mindless political violence.

Stormrider wrote:
Granted this isn't all of why the riots are going on, but just senseless looting and rioting because a thug was shot? I'm not buying it.

People riot because their sports team lost, and even sometimes when they won. Its certainly not beyond the pale for judicial actions to cause riots, there was a particularly famous instance in which this occurred in Los Angeles.

Stormrider wrote:
That's a convenient cover and reason, but not the underlying one. This smacks of a class of people so dependent on Government that they know no other way to function. Pure and simple.

I'm confused, how are you linking this to socialism?

Stormrider wrote:
I don't know what's worse, that the riots are going on or that the BBC called people defending their homes & businesses as "Vigilantes". Disgusting. Try rioting around here and you're likely to wind up dead or horribly injured for your actions. When did the UK become so neutered?

See, people have said that several times in this thread, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when American police resorted lethal force in the face of a riot; and it certainly hasn't been sufficiently widespread to make the suffering of either consequence "likely". The use of lethal force in the suppression of rioters is generally the province of authoritarian governments, not liberal democracies.

What about the NYC draft riots?, though that was after the police had been completely overpowered, and the Military was called in. For our friends overseas, this is the incident that was seen in the movie "Gangs of New York", not sighting that as historically accurate to the letter, just a good overview.

Indeed, these riots were in our most authoritarian time in our history. The North was a pretty close to a dictatorship.

Stormrider wrote:

romegamer wrote:

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
This is a disturbing vid, seems that there is a major political bent to these riots. These girls are so imbued in the thought that the rich are causing austerity. This is very disturbing as they're cheering on mindless violence in the name of "get the rich!".

To be fair, "Get the rich!" is a message commonly propagated in the course of mindless political violence.

Stormrider wrote:
Granted this isn't all of why the riots are going on, but just senseless looting and rioting because a thug was shot? I'm not buying it.

People riot because their sports team lost, and even sometimes when they won. Its certainly not beyond the pale for judicial actions to cause riots, there was a particularly famous instance in which this occurred in Los Angeles.

Stormrider wrote:
That's a convenient cover and reason, but not the underlying one. This smacks of a class of people so dependent on Government that they know no other way to function. Pure and simple.

I'm confused, how are you linking this to socialism?

Stormrider wrote:
I don't know what's worse, that the riots are going on or that the BBC called people defending their homes & businesses as "Vigilantes". Disgusting. Try rioting around here and you're likely to wind up dead or horribly injured for your actions. When did the UK become so neutered?

See, people have said that several times in this thread, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when American police resorted lethal force in the face of a riot; and it certainly hasn't been sufficiently widespread to make the suffering of either consequence "likely". The use of lethal force in the suppression of rioters is generally the province of authoritarian governments, not liberal democracies.

What about the NYC draft riots?, though that was after the police had been completely overpowered, and the Military was called in. For our friends overseas, this is the incident that was seen in the movie "Gangs of New York", not sighting that as historically accurate to the letter, just a good overview.

Indeed, these riots were in our most authoritarian time in our history. The North was a pretty close to a dictatorship.

Totally agreed. A turbulent time in the country's history, to be sure, but that's what makes us American. Sorry, ranting.

Stormrider wrote:
Point 2: They do indeed riot over inane things such as professional sports. Mayhem has no one true source, but this one seems like a more overt class struggle. It's not helping their case at all. I see most of the sports related riots here in North America are a few fans that are either bombsauced or bombsauced+furious over their team's win/loss and need to go be a bit too exuberant and burning cars/storefronts becomes fun. These people should be ashamed of themselves.

I would say that an overt class struggle is far more legitimate reason to loot and burn than professional sports. I mean, plenty of revolts against the state have been driven by class struggle, at least in part. Its certainly no worse than rioting over national pride, or a desire to oust a supposedly unjust regime.

Stormrider wrote:
Point 3: I've read a couple articles over the last couple of days (combined with the Student Protests/Riots earlier this year in the UK) about the youth complaining about Government backed college tuition being cut back. I would imagine that the cuts do indeed have some effect on this rash of violence. When the girls talked about the "rich", they're probably referring to austerity. It's been conditioned into them that they're entitled to another person's money and it's rearing it's ugly head now that the money dried up a bit.

Its not really a matter of entitlement so much as sociopolitical institution which they have begun accustomed to that is being taken away. You would see a similar reaction if the American government decided to repeal the 1st or 2nd Amendment, and end its legal protection of the rights to speak freely and bear arms. Indeed, some of the Tea Party protests over healthcare, while not riots in any sense, were extremely vitriolic and intensely focused on political institutions that the healthcare bill was said to be ending, or negatively impacting.

Stormrider wrote:
Point 4: I'm not referring to the local government, I'm referring to the homeowner and business owner. At least where I live the police would probably not frown upon you defending your property from vagrants. This is particularly true with uninvited home/business invaders. In bigger cities they (local and municipal government) have the attitude that the police should handle everything, nonsense. They can't be on every street corner, at every store, in every house to prevent every crime. Independent initiative in cases like this are needed. Riots are a collection of brave cowards, scare the piss out of one and the rest tend to scatter. No one wants to be the hero unless they're crazy.

Strictly speaking, people taking matters into their own hands during a riot is the sort of vigilantism that exacerbates the problem of returning order to the affected area. It is one thing to defend yourself and your property, but going out and directly confronting rioters essentially just makes you another rioter, and therefore another problem because police entering the area will not differentiate between the two. This is a situation in which the police actually should handle everything, because it is the role of the police to maintain order, which also includes enforcing the law.

I don't agree that rioters are brave cowards however, unless their motive is looting. People angry enough to riot do not generally make sufficiently rationale decisions to be referred as cowards.

dogma wrote:

Stormrider wrote:
Point 2: They do indeed riot over inane things such as professional sports. Mayhem has no one true source, but this one seems like a more overt class struggle. It's not helping their case at all. I see most of the sports related riots here in North America are a few fans that are either bombsauced or bombsauced+furious over their team's win/loss and need to go be a bit too exuberant and burning cars/storefronts becomes fun. These people should be ashamed of themselves.

I would say that an overt class struggle is far more legitimate reason to loot and burn than professional sports. I mean, plenty of revolts against the state have been driven by class struggle, at least in part. Its certainly no worse than rioting over national pride, or a desire to oust a supposedly unjust regime.

Stormrider wrote:
Point 3: I've read a couple articles over the last couple of days (combined with the Student Protests/Riots earlier this year in the UK) about the youth complaining about Government backed college tuition being cut back. I would imagine that the cuts do indeed have some effect on this rash of violence. When the girls talked about the "rich", they're probably referring to austerity. It's been conditioned into them that they're entitled to another person's money and it's rearing it's ugly head now that the money dried up a bit.

Its not really a matter of entitlement so much as sociopolitical institution which they have begun accustomed to that is being taken away. You would see a similar reaction if the American government decided to repeal the 1st or 2nd Amendment, and end its legal protection of the rights to speak freely and bear arms. Indeed, some of the Tea Party protests over healthcare, while not riots in any sense, were extremely vitriolic and intensely focused on political institutions that the healthcare bill was said to be ending, or negatively impacting.

Stormrider wrote:
Point 4: I'm not referring to the local government, I'm referring to the homeowner and business owner. At least where I live the police would probably not frown upon you defending your property from vagrants. This is particularly true with uninvited home/business invaders. In bigger cities they (local and municipal government) have the attitude that the police should handle everything, nonsense. They can't be on every street corner, at every store, in every house to prevent every crime. Independent initiative in cases like this are needed. Riots are a collection of brave cowards, scare the piss out of one and the rest tend to scatter. No one wants to be the hero unless they're crazy.

Strictly speaking, people taking matters into their own hands during a riot is the sort of vigilantism that exacerbates the problem of returning order to the affected area. It is one thing to defend yourself and your property, but going out and directly confronting rioters essentially just makes you another rioter, and therefore another problem because police entering the area will not differentiate between the two. This is a situation in which the police actually should handle everything, because it is the role of the police to maintain order, which also includes enforcing the law.

I don't agree that rioters are brave cowards however, unless their motive is looting. People angry enough to riot do not generally make sufficiently rationale decisions to be referred as cowards.

There is no legitimate reason to loot the shops of people in your own community to get back at the state.

In LA people calling for help from the police were often told that they were on their own for a while. I'd call that liscence to do what it took to defend themselves and property.

romegamer wrote:I do not agree with your argument of the armed mob, because looters are not fighting for a cause they are willing to die for, which is what they would face against armed police, even if they had weapons to shoot back. The police and the shopkeep are fighting for something, the looters, not so much, you have to remember, this isnt a political popular revolution, its a bunch of thugs out to steal and victimize.

Not everyone riots in order to loot. In fact, considering how much property destruction tends to go on, I would say that its a fairly minor motive. Indeed, you can pick out the areas in which looting is more widespread by the absence of fighting and burning things. Those people tend to operate on the edges of the riot in order to make a quick profit, and generally avoid violence. The rioters themselves, the angry violent people, are less concerned with theft than breaking things and causing harm to others. They're not usually armed, at least not uniformly, but I think it would be a mistake to think that they won't fight and kill people, even when presented with resistance, especially early in a riot.

dogma wrote:

romegamer wrote:I do not agree with your argument of the armed mob, because looters are not fighting for a cause they are willing to die for, which is what they would face against armed police, even if they had weapons to shoot back. The police and the shopkeep are fighting for something, the looters, not so much, you have to remember, this isnt a political popular revolution, its a bunch of thugs out to steal and victimize.

Not everyone riots in order to loot. In fact, considering how much property destruction tends to go on, I would say that its a fairly minor motive. Indeed, you can pick out the areas in which looting is more widespread by the absence of fighting and burning things. Those people tend to operate on the edges of the riot in order to make a quick profit, and generally avoid violence. The rioters themselves, the angry violent people, are less concerned with theft than breaking things and causing harm to others. They're not usually armed, at least not uniformly, but I think it would be a mistake to think that they won't fight and kill people, even when presented with resistance, especially early in a riot.

The looters in LA couldn't get away from armed resistance fast enough.

Ghandi, defeated the most powerful empire on earth in his struggle for freedom, without leading any riots, looting, or burning. Martin Luther King Junior did the same. I wish people could learn from their example.

romegamer wrote:
There is no legitimate reason to loot the shops of people in your own community to get back at the state.

Well, if your purpose is just to get back at the state, then you might do such a thing in order to make it look weak, and so shake public support for them. The reality is that it tends to be a matter of simply being angry at the society, and everything that is part of it. Additionally, being a member of what we call a community in common parlance doesn't mean a community is actually there. For example, live in a Central Illinois college town, but the community of which I am a part is only a small section of it. I'm not part of the community that constitutes the townies, or even undergraduate students, and I'm sure those groups would further breakdown into even small communities organized around smaller institutions.

dogma wrote:

romegamer wrote:
There is no legitimate reason to loot the shops of people in your own community to get back at the state.

Well, if your purpose is just to get back at the state, then you might do such a thing in order to make it look weak, and so shake public support for them. The reality is that it tends to be a matter of simply being angry at the society, and everything that is part of it. Additionally, being a member of what we call a community in common parlance doesn't mean a community is actually there. For example, live in a Central Illinois college town, but the community of which I am a part is only a small section of it. I'm not part of the community that constitutes the townies, or even undergraduate students, and I'm sure those groups would further breakdown into even small communities organized around smaller institutions.

If that is the case then you destroy the store and merchandise, like at the Boston Tea Party. You don't take home the big screen T.V. and plug it in your living room. To me it's petty theft, plain and simple.

romegamer wrote:Ghandi, defeated the most powerful empire on earth in his struggle for freedom, without leading any riots, looting, or burning. Martin Luther King Junior did the same. I wish people could learn from their example.

The thing about MLK and Ghandi is that everyone seems to forget that, while they advocated nonviolence, they were both simply parts of larger movements that were not so inclined. These more violent groups, like the Black Panthers and the Sepoys, were also important to the successes achieved by Ghandi and MLK.

Nonviolence almost never works in isolation, because ultimately they're just dissenters until violent resistance labels them as "good dissenters."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

romegamer wrote:
If that is the case then you destroy the store and merchandise, like at the Boston Tea Party. You don't take home the big screen T.V. and plug it in your living room. To me it's petty theft, plain and simple.

Why is theft preferable to the destruction of property? In both cases you deprive the original owner of his things.

dogma wrote:

romegamer wrote:Ghandi, defeated the most powerful empire on earth in his struggle for freedom, without leading any riots, looting, or burning. Martin Luther King Junior did the same. I wish people could learn from their example.

The thing about MLK and Ghandi is that everyone seems to forget that, while they advocated nonviolence, they were both simply parts of larger movements that were not so inclined. These more violent groups, like the Black Panthers and the Sepoys, were also important to the successes achieved by Ghandi and MLK.

Nonviolence almost never works in isolation, because ultimately they're just dissenters until violent resistance labels them as "good dissenters."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

romegamer wrote:
If that is the case then you destroy the store and merchandise, like at the Boston Tea Party. You don't take home the big screen T.V. and plug it in your living room. To me it's petty theft, plain and simple.

Why is theft preferable to the destruction of property? In both cases you deprive the original owner of his things.

I do not think it is preferable, my point is that, if your aim was to strike out angrily at society, you don't steal one item that is all you can carry, then run off back to where you came from.
And I would argue that MLK was the large movement, and the the black panthers were a violent minority of it. His actions such as the bus boycott almost exclusively got real results, and he had meaningful communication with the president. Malcom X did not.

Relapse wrote:
The looters in LA couldn't get away from armed resistance fast enough.

Looters are easy to deal with, its the people that actively intend to harm you that are a problem.

I think it should also be stated that both MLK and Gandhi were killed while pursuing their agendas, IMO that says a lot about the fate of non violent protests. You might get your point across, you might even win out in the end, but a whole lot of people are going to die or get hurt in the process.

"How is that tiny shield going to protect us?".

I keep thinking the same thing about Captain America.

I think they should of deployed a regiment that had just come back from a tour of Afghanistan to help the police. Hmmm, lets see, blokes who'd seen action and probably seen mates die, v the scum who have contributed nothing.

I love how people are saying "Oooh they should be tougher with the rioters!"

If I was a copper, why the feth would I fire an AEP round (baton gun) in a riot situation? If it goes even slightly wrong and somebody is killed (and it will happen, that 41mm piece of hard plastic can kill someone) then I will receive no support at all from the media, politicians, senior police officers or ill informed members of the public. I will be tried by the media and I can kiss goodbye to my job/pension/liberty.

They are even making out that the fething scumbag that got shot was a "selfless family man" who "doted on his children" despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Leftie pinkos caused this mess, an alarming number of people I know on facebook are still chirping on about the bankers instead of condemning the people responsible.

I hope London, Manchester and Birmingham get absolutely anhilated. Hundreds of millions of pounds worth of damage. I hope that decent people who naively sit to the left of centre and chirp on about human rights all the time lose absolutely everything.

Only then, can we start to get gak done. And by getting gak done, I mean bust out the water cannons, the CS gas and the baton guns and start mashing some heads.

http://london.craigslist.co.uk/mob/2536072357.html

..seems legit, I'm sure.

"discount if you buy 3 or more " that's good of him.

lol!

If he doesn't get a visit from the coppers something's wrong.