Any London left?

bails87

notsoblue wrote:

Seriously? Its ok to trash someone else's property as long as you pay them for it afterwards? The looting isn't equivalent to a "Bullingdon Blind" but come on, trashing someone's restaurant is pretty thuggish whether you pay the owner for the damages or not. If anything the fact that they paid people off adds insult to injury. To me it basically says "We're rich enough to do whatever the f*ck we want, we're above the law".

Exactly, there's no reason why, after smashing up someone's business and then offering to pay for the damage you shouldn't also be punished by the law. Otherwise what's the incentive to not do it again? If mummy and daddy are going to pay for any damage you've done then you can keep doing it with impunity. But then I suppose it's the business owner's imperative to report it to the police.

tailwindhome

Astounding how the same set of facts can be twisted to fit your own world view.

Obviously I'm using the word facts very loosely

rick_chasey

As much as I dislike Cameron etc, I'd take the stories of the bullingdon with a pinch of salt.

mybreakfastconsisted

Cameron has always refused to talk about his exploits, saying only: “I did things when I was young that I should not have done and I regret.”

But Johnson recalled a 1986 incident when a plant pot was thrown through a window and he was one of several arrested. He said: “We ended up crawling through hedges trying to escape police dogs.

“Once we were in the cells we became pathetic namby pambies.”


http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/tv/2009/ ... z1UiBuraWG

notsoblue

MonkeyMonster wrote:

They were likely very very drunk at the time and not in control of their faculties or sense of right/wrong. Once realised they made amends. That they had the money to pay is largely irrelevant in this case. If they went back and worked (for free) to pay off the damages would that be acceptable?

They did wrong, they made amends.

Ah well if they were shitfaced that makes it ok The club had a bit of a reputation for doing stuff like this though didn't it? And theres no smoke without fire, right?I think its interesting how its easier to make excuse or explain the bad behaviour of people who have money than those who don't. Anyhoo, this is pretty OT, don't mean to derail.

UndercoverElephant

You think you London types had it bad. Witness the shocking goings on in Edinburgh this past week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG-XWBVdonQ&NR=1

bails87

Rick Chasey wrote:

As much as I dislike Cameron etc, I'd take the stories of the bullingdon with a pinch of salt.

Yeah, I was never sure if the "boris started a fire" quote was actually true, or just a bit of folklore.

antfly

That never happened you gullible fools.

notsoblue

antfly wrote:

That never happened you gullible fools.

Source?

clarkey cat

BBC news is boring now isnt it.

tailwindhome

clarkey cat wrote:

BBC news is boring now isnt it.

Try watching BBC Northern Ireland News.

Hasn't been the same for years....

mybreakfastconsisted

10.50am: The Guardian's Jeevan Vasagar has this from Manchester:

A woman with 96 previous convictions for theft pleaded guilty to stealing alcohol, cigarettes and mobile phone accessories which had been looted during riots in Manchester.

Linda Boyd, 31, was one of a series of defendants who appeared before Manchester magistrates court, which sat late into the night on Wednesday.

The court heard that she was drunk and had found an orange bin liner filled with the stolen goods in Manchester city centre, and began dragging it away, intending to share it with friends.

Her case was adjourned to 16 August, when she will be sentenced at Manchester crown court. Boyd stalked from the glass-walled dock telling the district judge who presided over the magistrates' court to:

"Go away, shut up."

notsoblue

From the Guardian, this is quite interesting:

"UK riots: cyclist praised for Twitter coverage of Bristol unrest"

[url=http://bit.ly/nMFiBn]The Guardian[/url] wrote:

Supported by several friends around the city, Piers cycled the often hilly streets around the epicentres of the unrest – St Pauls, Stokes Croft, Cabot Circus and Broadmead – on his custom-built bike, covering about 35 miles in under two days and putting out over 200 bulletins and requests for information.

In little over a day, his feed had attracted more than 3,000 followers and applause from the city's police, councillors and local media. It was cited as further evidence that social media, abused by rioters and their supporters, could have great positive value.

Clever Pun

MonkeyMonster wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

while I dislike them both intently, least they paid up of their own free will for anywrong doings.. Not the right thing to do initially but they were in a position to attempt to right the wrongs.

The people looting/rioting have made zero attempt to right their wrongs and if they get caught they will pay involuntarily.

Quite an obvious dividing line there for me.. it's not about rich or poor it's about the right attitude. While they both stink initially only one group has a social conscience.

Seriously? Its ok to trash someone else's property as long as you pay them for it afterwards? The looting isn't equivalent to a "Bullingdon Blind" but come on, trashing someone's restaurant is pretty thuggish whether you pay the owner for the damages or not. If anything the fact that they paid people off adds insult to injury. To me it basically says "We're rich enough to do whatever the f*ck we want, we're above the law".

They were likely very very drunk at the time and not in control of their faculties or sense of right/wrong. Once realised they made amends. That they had the money to pay is largely irrelevant in this case. If they went back and worked (for free) to pay off the damages would that be acceptable?

They did wrong, they made amends.

Exactly, Notsoblue I say that it wasn't the right thing to do didn't I^^^.. kind of implies it's wrong but they had the social responsibility to say sorry and pay for their mistakes.

Once again: Not the right thing to do initially but at least they made attempts to right the wrongs

Please read before galloping off on any high horses

mybreakfastconsisted

Errr, they paid up to avoid a criminal record. Neither Boris nor Bumface would have achieved high office with a criminal record, they used mumsie's cash to avoid any unpleasantness with Johnny Law, now Cameron's waving his might sword of Justice around as if he has any claim whatsoever to the moral high ground!

I hope they both die in freak gardening accidents.

notsoblue

Clever Pun wrote:

Once again: Not the right thing to do initially but at least they made attempts to right the wrongs

Please read before galloping off on any high horses

I understood what you said, I just didn't think that paying for the damages made it less thuggish. Sorry if I appeared to gallop off but I *still* get surprised when people have different opinions to me even after being exposed to the internet for so long.

Mr Sworld

bails87 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

As much as I dislike Cameron etc, I'd take the stories of the bullingdon with a pinch of salt.

Yeah, I was never sure if the "boris started a fire" quote was actually true, or just a bit of folklore.

Acording to this website its not really true...

http://www.leftfutures.org/2010/12/david-cameron-on-student-rioting/

And Google shows no search results before December 2010.

Bugger.... I wish it was a real quote!

Clever Pun

notsoblue wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Once again: Not the right thing to do initially but at least they made attempts to right the wrongs

Please read before galloping off on any high horses

I understood what you said, I just didn't think that paying for the damages made it less thuggish. Sorry if I appeared to gallop off but I *still* get surprised when people have different opinions to me even after being exposed to the internet for so long.

yeah it's bloody irritating isn't it

Clever Pun

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Errr, they paid up to avoid a criminal record. Neither Boris nor Bumface would have achieved high office with a criminal record, they used mumsie's cash to avoid any unpleasantness with Johnny Law, now Cameron's waving his might sword of Justice around as if he has any claim whatsoever to the moral high ground!

I hope they both die in freak gardening accidents.

but they showed remorse... other than the occasional mumbled sorry the looter/rioters have shown no inclination as far as I've seen.

agreed on the second paragraph

garnett

Thread seems to have moved on a bit, so I can't resist coming back...

Firstly I'd say that anyone with a left wing stance posting a link to the Guardian website and saying "reasonable appraisal" is akin to some frothing rightwinger linking to the Daily Mail.

WIth that in mind, here's an interesting link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... we-do.html

(If you ignore the comments section)

mybreakfastconsisted

Garnett wrote:

Thread seems to have moved on a bit, so I can't resist coming back...

Firstly I'd say that anyone with a left wing stance posting a link to the Guardian website and saying "reasonable appraisal" is akin to some frothing rightwinger linking to the Daily Mail.

Not really, since the Mail print lies and hateful infammatory garbage whereas The Guardian have led on stories like phone hacking with quality, truthful journalism.

DonDaddyD

Clever Pun wrote:

MonkeyMonster wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

while I dislike them both intently, least they paid up of their own free will for anywrong doings.. Not the right thing to do initially but they were in a position to attempt to right the wrongs.

The people looting/rioting have made zero attempt to right their wrongs and if they get caught they will pay involuntarily.

Quite an obvious dividing line there for me.. it's not about rich or poor it's about the right attitude. While they both stink initially only one group has a social conscience.

Seriously? Its ok to trash someone else's property as long as you pay them for it afterwards? The looting isn't equivalent to a "Bullingdon Blind" but come on, trashing someone's restaurant is pretty thuggish whether you pay the owner for the damages or not. If anything the fact that they paid people off adds insult to injury. To me it basically says "We're rich enough to do whatever the f*ck we want, we're above the law".

They were likely very very drunk at the time and not in control of their faculties or sense of right/wrong. Once realised they made amends. That they had the money to pay is largely irrelevant in this case. If they went back and worked (for free) to pay off the damages would that be acceptable?

They did wrong, they made amends.

Exactly, Notsoblue I say that it wasn't the right thing to do didn't I^^^.. kind of implies it's wrong but they had the social responsibility to say sorry and pay for their mistakes.

Once again: Not the right thing to do initially but at least they made attempts to right the wrongs

Please read before galloping off on any high horses

I have to side with Notsoblue on this one. The point isn't that they having the social responsibility to say sorry (let alone the ability to pay) isn't the point. The is and should always be they should have the moral sense not to do it in the first place.

Much like the rioters, take the primary school teaching assistant, sure he could say sorry now. Point is he should never had committed his crime in the first place and should be punished accordingly irrespective of whether he can pay for the damages or not.

If the story is true the it is slightly hypocritical of Boris and Cameron.

rjsterry

Garnett wrote:

Thread seems to have moved on a bit, so I can't resist coming back...

Firstly I'd say that anyone with a left wing stance posting a link to the Guardian website and saying "reasonable appraisal" is akin to some frothing rightwinger linking to the Daily Mail.

WIth that in mind, here's an interesting link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... we-do.html

(If you ignore the comments section)

A good observation, although immigrants is slightly inaccurate when you are talking about second and third generation British Asians. We (white British) seem stuck with the EDL, which is a depressing state of affairs, although as was being discussed on Newsnight last night, there were other examples without the extreme right association. I've often wondered whether national self-loathing should be listed along with 'fair play' and other supposed British values.

garnett

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Not really, since the Mail print lies and hateful infammatory garbage whereas The Guardian have led on stories like phone hacking with quality, truthful journalism.

Yes, yes - your paper prints the truth and all the others are wrong. Not at all similar to the attitude held by the readership of any other paper.

:roll:

mybreakfastconsisted

Garnett wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Not really, since the Mail print lies and hateful infammatory garbage whereas The Guardian have led on stories like phone hacking with quality, truthful journalism.

Yes, yes - your paper prints the truth and all the others are wrong. Not at all similar to the attitude held by the readership of any other paper.

:roll:

I like how you express a tired resignation after completely changing what I said to something utterly different.

It's quite easy to win arguments when you invent stuff people haven't said, but then that's exactly the sort of response I'd expect from a man who urinates on baby mice and stuffs them up his arse.

I am comparing the journalistic standards of The Mail (Littlejohn, Mad Mel Jan Moir-22,000 complaints to the PCC, et al) with the award-winning journalism of the Guardian.

clarkey cat

Guardian is full of typos though.

Clever Pun

I'm not sure how any government official being hypocritical is revealing news to anyone

It's always been do what I say not what I do

rick_chasey

Garnett wrote:

Thread seems to have moved on a bit, so I can't resist coming back...

Firstly I'd say that anyone with a left wing stance posting a link to the Guardian website and saying "reasonable appraisal" is akin to some frothing rightwinger linking to the Daily Mail.

WIth that in mind, here's an interesting link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... we-do.html

(If you ignore the comments section)

The only bit in the Guardian I said was a reasonable assessment was the comment on how the debate is likely to crystalise. i.e. every side of the spectrum will see what they want to out of the riots. The left - how inequality causes social problems - the right on how there isn't enough discipline and this is what happens when people go soft.

That's by and large been the political debate here. I'd say that's quite accurate.

As an aside, since the Guardian puts more resources into its online capabilities and real-time news than other papers, it's inevitably going to have a competitive advantage on internet forums. Before the Mail conquered the internet with it's 'sleb' gossip and pap picture section, the Guardian absolutely dominated the online newspaper market. Wiki says in 2010 it had the 2nd largest online readership in the world, behind the NY Times

bails87

Garnett wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Not really, since the Mail print lies and hateful infammatory garbage whereas The Guardian have led on stories like phone hacking with quality, truthful journalism.

Yes, yes - your paper prints the truth and all the others are wrong. Not at all similar to the attitude held by the readership of any other paper.

:roll:

The Daily Mail is the most complained about newspaper in the country, and it has the most rulings against it, not just 'baseless' accusations.

only four papers had suffered more than fifty successful complaints - The Times, the Mirror, the Sun and, comfortably ahead with 153 successful complaints about its reporting, the Daily Mail

@Tabloidwatch

A while ago they were forced to retract or amend a whole raft of false stories about Polish immigrants, and I can't see it being too long before they're forced to do the same with all the stuff they blame on muslims, that actually has nothing to do with muslims at all.

There's slants to newspaper reporting, there's reading stuff that reinforces your views, and then there's knowing that the Daily Mail is a particularly odious lie spreading machine.

mybreakfastconsisted

Mad Mel is particularly insane today:

She wrote in her piece about the "gay curriculum":

"And it's all part of the ruthless campaign by the gay rights lobby to destroy the very concept of normal sexual behaviour. "


Also, when gay people wave at you it makes you a bit gay, right Mel?