Gilly wrote:
Get in there Gilly.

mushy wrote:
Thats a bit weak. There's plenty of evidence the cops sat back and watched while it got kicked off.

nirvana wrote:
But what kind of person are you becoming when you just dismiss people as animals without any kind of consideration of the circumstances who made them who they are? I've met gang members and although some of these are total assholes, a lot of these kids are actually ok one to one when they're not having to keep their front up. A lot of them have their fears and insecurities but they're terrified of showing any kind of weakness in front of their mates. That doesn't help when they're waving a gun at somebody or kicking their head, but it's sad that they feel they have to be like this. And again some of them are just nasty pieces of work, but someof them really don't know how else to be.

I don't like crack or heroin but dealing them does make sense. It's entrepeneurial - it's the black market side of what we're programmed to idolise. It's getting on your bike and starting a small business or working your way up one by starting out doing runs. Of course if crack and heroin were legal, gangs wouldn't sell them. Heroin only took off in the UK after they stopped doctors giving it to the small minority of addicts. This inevitably led to a black market and any market is keen to market its product. You could destroy the heroin trade ihn this country - just get everyone prescribing diamorphine instead of methadone or subutext. Addicts get the drug they want 100% guaranteed clean at a predictable dose. There's no need to buy it on the street to top up your meth or whatever. Of course some people would get into that way, but addicts wouldn't be keen to give away their scrpit and keeping it purely on prescription controls access. Nobody sets out to become a smack head. The black market would implode - any company will fail when undercut by superior product at a lower price. The only problem no party in power would dare as there'd be tabloid hysteria. There've experiemented with it, but it's no good if you're doing it with a few people in isolated boroughs. Buit all the evidence suggests if you give people what they want, crime drops. Gangs don't cause drug peoblems - it's the government with their crazy drug laws.

Youm\ay do the best with what you have, but you can't expect everybody too. Particularly when they live in an environment that idolises material wealth and constantly dangles goodies in their face - and the younger you are, the more intensely you've been subjected to that since birth as advertising and branding have become far more pervasive and sophisticated.

How often does stop and seach actually find guns? Like Dubmeup said, if you want to find guns do some proper investigative work - not lazily harass random youth on the street and promote the idea the police can arbitrarily pick on anyone they choose.

nirvana wrote:
Awww don't be so hard on yourself. A racist jew is halfway in the door

psketti wrote:

Im not exactly stormfront material even thoe i do think most neo nazi are just insecure looking for something to cling to. All the neo nazi i have known in the past from school all had fathers walk out on them and i get the sense they would cling to anything looking for security.

dubmeup wrote:

You have the right to your opinion

dogsmilk wrote:

You seem to have sympathy for these lads Do you feel sympathy for the idiots on storm front aswell? these idiots may be insecure and see the way to security is brotherhood with fellow gang members like inner city gangs.

Just because wealth is raised infront of their facesdoes give these idiots the right to rob anyone at knife point or gun point sorry if that seems abit harsh

nirvana wrote: That's actually a very very odd statement don't you think?

dubmeup wrote:
Whats odd about having the right to your own opinion? Do you not agree

nirvana wrote:
I have sympathy for ALL the kids who have been robbed of a decent childhood thanks to the fucked up system that is hell bent on keeping it that way.

You seem intent on blaming the people on the bottom of the pile. Ever thought of looking at it from the top end down?

nirvana wrote:
An opinion is something that is formed within one's consciousness using information, understanding etc.
To say it is a right is erroneous. It is a natural function of consciousness in the material plane.
To say opinion is a right belies little understanding of either opinions or rights

nirvana wrote:
It depends on who they are and what they've done. I've met some of them and felt sympathy for them when I've got to know them and what their lives are like. Others I've found it very difficult to be sympathetc to. It depends.

I'm sure I would feel sympathy for some of the Stormfront clowns if I knew them as people. They're still people. I do know one bone fide full on neo-Nazi. I say hello to him but don't hang round with him. He has 'issues' and AFAIK has never actually done anything bad or hurt anyone. He's just fucked up and confused. So I feel quite sympathatic towards him, while at the same finding his views repulsive.
Even online - I think Eternal Spirit is a bigoted moron and I've called him every name under thesun in the past. But on the other hand we've also had banter from time to time. If we met, I'm sure we wouldn't be mates, but there's a reasonable chance he might be on ok person. Even Hadaka Jimmy liked animals. I think it's fine to pour scorn on people and I do it too (sometimes intentionally over-egging it for reality check purposes), but we are all still people and if it goes too far you start to lose your own humanity while protesting a lack of in others.
I really don't like the Stormfront people, but at the same time I do try to understand their views. However ferociously I've argued with Holocaust deniers, I still sometimes try to think from their perspective so I understand how they think. Robert Anton Wilson once recommended spending a day as Nazi and trying to live in that reality - and any other reality you can think of. I think that was good advice. And finding you couldn't spend your life in that reality teaches you more about why you don't like that reality and what's flawed about it.

I didn't say it gives them a right to rob people. But I think it's best to try to understand why people rob people. That way you're far more likely to get to the root of the problem.

andyh wrote:
well it depends on how deal with that bit of information ,
if the police were standing idly by why have the army on standby
and if tptb wanted the police the stand by so they could put army on the street why were the army on standy and not deployed

theres no evidence to suggest the police stood idly by that isnt speculation ,
the only hint of truth in the whole theory is the fact that met controllers wanted met officers to deal with certain flare ups but the police was maniacly bringing in more officers trouble was more rioters were joining in than police officers and it was until 3rd day that mutual agreement order was used (still no army )
in fact if the riots kept going the extra officers drafted in wouldve not been enough either and using them left other areas of britain
at risk ,
i expect this was expected and was the reason behind using mutaul agreement order being used once intel on other areas
meant it was ok to do so .

id like to see the hard evidence of non pro active policing during riots ,
also although bit late in the events was the fact that 200 police were sitting in a car park with useless radios unaware of other officers needing assistance elsewere ,

show me the evidence of the police standing by while it kicked off that isnt speculation ?

good bit on it here
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/08/london...s-met-police-tactics

telling bit here ,
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg called the rioting "opportunistic theft" but UKIP leader Nigel Farage tweeted: "Seeing pictures of looting whilst the police do nothing is frankly astonishing. That's not protesting, that's stealing."
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14442821
all those saying police stood by seem to hail from or be influenced by a particular group of mal contents intent twisting the truth
and helping nobody come to realistic conclusion by muddying the water with speculation and rumour .

..........
statements like this are goldust to speculators looking to stir something up but if read properly and in context with outside influences they are very informative -
"We got as many officers there as quickly as we could, last night we got three times more officers out and tonight there will be more officers.

"This criminality - these people using an excuse to go and rob local businesses, to destroy local livelihoods - will not be tolerated."

A Met spokesman added that it has contingency plans to deal with disorder but would not discuss specific tactics.

"We have officers available as necessary to deal with any contingency," the spokesman said.

But how should police deal with a riot and its aftermath?

Peter Waddington, who has studied policing and public order for 30 years, said it was a very fine balancing act.

He said the key conundrum for police is always whether to contain the situation in a stand-off or whether to disperse trouble-makers.

At the weekend, he said, police did "as well as you would reasonably expect" by standing back.

"If they [rioters] continue to attack and potentially destroy business premises it may, on balance, be better to allow them to continue to do that without scattering them because they are likely to do more damage somewhere else," said Professor Waddington of Wolverhampton University.

if resources are overstretched and they were during the riots some might see that as a way to put blame elsewhere so to speak
and bypass reality alltogether for the sake of some agenda .

mushy wrote:
Just in case it got out of hand, even the so called 'libertarian' UKIP leader was calling for martial law...
The thugs got the message it was christmas, nuff said. Someone gave them that message.

nirvana wrote:

What?!

mushy wrote:
There are hundreds of videos on youtube that clearly show police holding back, or just not being there at all. Even if there were 2000 police in Tottenham, That still leaves 12000 plus the extras that were brought in from the home counties. I don't see why it's so hard to understand that a perfect PRS game plan would leave we the people begging for the army. Which is exactly what happened. What we are left with is as follows:

1. Any future similar incident will evoke an over the top police response, with little or no complaint from Joe Pubic, as "well we don't want a repeat of last time".
2. Enable the government to quietly slip in new laws, which will most definitely throw a big fat spanner in the works for future 'peaceful' protests. There will be plenty to protest about over the next 5 years, trust me.
3. The people of the UK have been totally alienated from each other. When I walked through South London last month you could really feel it. I can only describe it as a very uncomfortable atmosphere. Imagine 12 people in a small room and one person has chronic body odour, everyone can smell it, but nobody feels comfortable speaking up and passing over the Right Guard.

Maybe my tea machine analogy didn't quite cut it. How about this, if you want a cake that tastes of chocolate, but you don't actually have any chocolate to put on your cake, if you can convince everyone around you that the cake tasting of chocolate would be the right way to go, eventually they will throw chocolate on it for you, regardless of whether or not it actually was the right thing to do. You only need to convince them. They do the rest for you.... Chocolate cake anyone?

boywonder wrote:
Yes please, can I have a big bit?

what do you see here ?

mushy wrote:
I see about nine riot squad not being able to do very much in particular, seeing as you asked. Why do you suppose that there were only nine of them there in the first place? I know, I know...you've said it all already. I still don't buy it though.

Flat downstairs from me got raided a couple of months back and there was more of them there for that one bloke in a bedsit.

I had more 50 than that raid my caravan when I was 16 mushy.

So, I see a token gesture with a similar token presence 100 yards back up the road.