London Riots

[RainingAmoeba79]

I don't buy for a second that it's anything to do with stop and searches or jobs or anything like that... i just see it as a poor attempt to attatch some shred of credibility to what they're doing. If it really was a protest thing, nobody could be so stupid as to think that wrecking small businesses (which struggle enough as it is) and torching random peoples' shops and homes is any way to make their point. Whatever they're claiming it's about, it can only be about wanting to smash burn and loot, safety in numbers.

By their logic, I've decided to go and cut my neighbour's cat's head off in protest at people tramline serving on TS4.

I LOL'ed.

[edlglide]

PC brigades again saying no cctv, random searches, DNA database etc. I don't understand it, if you follow the law why would you be bothered about it. Protecting our communities is a fundamental right for honest law abiding people who pay their taxes.

This has nothing at all to do with the riots, which are ridiculous and have nothing to do with that point (and even if they were rioting for that reason, it would still be absurd because that's the worst possible way to go about it).

But the problem with the point you're making is that it isn't about breaking or following the law. When you start allowing governments to do that sort of thing, it opens everyone up to serious abuses of power. You don't have to be breaking the law to get caught doing something embarrassing, which could be used against you. Also opens things up to complete fabrications against innocent people for political purposes.

[jayl0ve]

Plus, I really enjoy breaking the law, and really hate getting caught on camera doing so.

[beltic caldy]

Just to be clear, the teen did shoot at a police officer first.

He was 29years old, he had a loaded pistol but didn't fire at police. not trying to defend him or anything, just don't know where any of you are getting your information from.

i wish the media would get some actual facts out about the shooting myself - trivial little details, like the exact circumstances....crazy idea i know....instead we're getting largely rubbish reportage that seems intent only on inciting further action.

all we got after things calmed down a little was headlines all over the UK along the lines of "No evidence that killed man's gun was fired!"....yeah....nice job BBC, really.

was he warned to put the gun down? what was he doing carry a loaded weapon in the UK in the first place? I've yet to see any kind of reliable information on these massively important details.

all i've heard that i put any stock in is that he was 'known to the police', which in itself is open to interpretation, but may be indicative.

as regards the subsequent riots and looting and deaths....shameful and no excuses as far i'm concerned.