e-petition to have convicted rioters lose their benefits..

Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum

Help Support Beekeeping & Apiculture Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Its hard to feel sympathy for those "underprivileged" who have to steal trainers or X-box games to survive.

They and indeed the arsonists who think that Nov 5th has come early deserve everything they (legally) get.

Absolutly zero to do with political protests such as the poll tax and miners strike.

Everything to do with greed.

I see where your coming from at the beginning of your point, but it has been reported that supermarkets have been cleared of food also. As well as drink and electrical goods and as you say clothing. And I am NOT saying its the correct behaviour. NOT at all. And I agree that should they get caught the full weight of the law should descend on them from a great hight. However I also understand why they have done it.

None of use are whiter than white. It all depends on our moral compass. Whatever that is will be different from person to person. From not owning up if the shopkeeper gives you too much change, to finding a wallet, to paying less tax than you should, to claiming for things that do not fall into the criteria or what is permitted (moat clearing). These politicians paid back the monies they wrongly claimed and then the matter was dropped. Only those that stood their ground and would not pay it back have been prosecuted. LOL. So morality it appears is also influenced by social position.

You missed my point with regard to the miners strikes and the poll tax riots. My point was not the specifics of each of these. But the fact that when it affected a lot of people everyone kicked off. At present the cuts and circumstance are not effecting everyone. But if/when it does you will see whats happening now, happening again on the same large scale as the exmples I gave.
 
Storm
We are all going to be poorer in the future. The economics say so.

And if people want to riot that costs us all a lot of money..

So it's got to be regained somehow. So starting with those who cause the problem seems only just.

As for your personal comments about "superior", be aware that personal comments are a sign of losing an argument..
 
Storm
We are all going to be poorer in the future. The economics say so.

And if people want to riot that costs us all a lot of money..

So it's got to be regained somehow. So starting with those who cause the problem seems only just.

As for your personal comments about "superior", be aware that personal comments are a sign of losing an argument..

No madasafish personal comments are not a sign of losing an argument. They can be exaggerated, unfair, precise or many other things but they are not a sign of losing an argument. Your comments were however superior as in fact was your "oh dear oh dear oh dear" comment. Or more precisely patronising. Intentionally or otherwise. That is fact, not losing. And it is not an argument it is a discussion based on opinion which hopefully is based on experience. Which tends to lend credibility to a position.

I would be amused to see you explain the journey of how being personal relates to losing an argument but I wont put you on the spot. I will just assume that you are regurgitating this social cliché in the hopes of attaining some sort of victory, but in fact actually means nothing. <- You could however say this was bating ;)
 
Well, its obviously a very popular petition.

Its being banded about on Facebook and Twitter.

The site (epetitions) is getting so many hits, it keeps crashing.
 
Reactionary bandwagon mentality though. Fire fighting instead of removing further fuel. Its always the same with large organisations. Something goes wrong - they move to patch it up. What they should do is consider all possible outcomes and make policy to cover it. The only way that can be done is to speak to "the scum" as they call them and work out exactly whats going on. Cameron will say he is doing this - speaking with police, local communities, government advisor's. And that every effort will be made to prevent this happening again. OK. So.......

We should not reduce police numbers as stated by all and sundry - Cameron - these cuts are sustainable I wont back down about this.

At best these types only grudgingly compromise and never abide by the advice totally. Then why say they are a democratic organisation. Surly that is autocratic rule not democratic leadership.

The cuts are far too fast far too deep - as stated by all his financial peers - I will not back down I will not listen these cuts are sustainable.

Well ok whateva clearly your not listening, you will not listen to those that are at the coal face you will enforce your bad choices until it blows up in your face because to back down gets you negative exposure in the press. The one phrase that makes a PM lose sleep at night is the phrase "government U turn". And sadly we see that as a bad thing, indecisive and poor leadership. I see it as listening to those that put him in power, and a damn good honest, mentally sound leader of people.
 
Last edited:
I didnt see any signs of food being looted, not to worry, Im sure they will be able to pay their electric bills to use their stolen televisions.........
 
In fact in the commons live now Cameron being begged by MP's on both sides to rethink policing cuts and his replies:

1. I refuse to see the correlation between low policing levels and increased criminal activity.
2. There are 32,000 officers in the MET and not enough of them are free to police the streets.

Which I guess begs the question what does he know that we dont. Why bother to have a police force at all then. Seeing as there is no correlation between low policing levels and increased crime (WTF). And his cuts are planned to be around 16,000 officers which unfortunately is the same number he had to increase to in London in order to reduce, not stop, the levels of crime during the last few nights.

Why no one has yelled "are you a F****ing moron, with no common sense" is beyond me. What a plank. Bye Bye Mr Cameron. The fury and disbelief among the commons is apparent.

Channel 82 on freeview for those with a strong stomach.
 
Storm™;162344 said:
And get your voting pens out because if I'm right, which history shows I am, we won't be looking to Clegg and Cameron for very much longer.

Actually I think history very much shows that you are wrong. Loss of law and order on the streets CAN damage governments, but it is by no means certain.
Thatcher endured St Pauls, Toxteth, Brixton, Miners Strike and Poll tax and still went on to maintain power for over a decade.
As far as I can see, Cameron's firm response has a lot of public support. I'd be willing to bet there are more people supporting a crackdown than there are those hand-wringing about the "poor oppressed looters".

It seems to me that there are many people with a left-wing ideology falling over themselves to blame this on the current government and revel in difficulty it may cause them. What they should be doing is letting the dust settle, examining the facts then making a judgement rather than trying to make the current situation fit their own narrow political agenda.
And, most importantly, let's not forget that we had 13 years of "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" - obviously didn't work did it?

Edit: Oh, and one more thing - the petition is fairly pointless as anyone convicted of looting will be going to prison and will automatically lose their benefits.
 
Last edited:
I think your mistaken in the respect that Thatcher endured but only because she was first of class. Blair departed much more quickly after increased negative exposure and Brown... yes well Brown who. Camerons firm response will I will bet you £10.00 cause more problems than it appears it is fixing. It has fixed nothing yet has it because it is only words atm. It has garnered support but only because of pack mentality. How his endeavours are implemented will impact on us all - so far and for starters...

Social networks should at the very least be governed by the police and allow the police to take action against those using them, to enable prosecutions in the future. (He specified Twitter and Facebook and Blackberry social messaging network).

Specifically when cornered about it he only mentioned Blackberry Messaging Service being a closed network which the police do not have access to unless they hack it. Which they cannot do (lawfully). But the intention is clear. To police these social networks and prosecute as they see fit. Ludicrous. How many businesses and media organisations use these very networks to promote their business. What will become unlawful. How many will be prosecuted in the future.

A waste of resources and time.

As for left wing *rolls eyes* - its called common sense. If I criticise a local council for the lack of shops in a town because shop rents are too high and too many Tesco stores are in the vicinity. This having caused the town to decline and shops to be shut everywhere, does this then make me Left Wing? Nope this is common sense.

If the PM wont listen to members of his own government that just shows bloody minded idiocy. At the very least he should listen to them. If he wont listen to them, people in these effected communities have no hope of being heard. Left wing pffff, hand wringing pffff. Hardly.
 
The cuts are far too fast far too deep - as stated by all his financial peers - I will not back down I will not listen these cuts are sustainable.
.


Some sensible economists would say - and do say - the exact opposite.

We will still be spending too much in 4 years'time and the deficit reduction plan is unachievable because the world economy will not grow fast enough..

Paying people to be unemployed all their lives is wasteful of money and people. Spending money on an education system which clearly is dysfunctional is a waste of money and people's futures.

And an immigration system which allows 75% of all new jobs created go to immigrants because the UK workforce is incapable or unwilling to work shows the result of those failed policies..
 
Let them keep their benefits .
It's their liberty I wish to see them lose ;)

VM
 
I think your mistaken in the respect that Thatcher endured but only because she was first of class.
Sorry, I have no idea what this means

Camerons firm response will I will bet you £10.00 cause more problems than it appears it is fixing.
I never said it would fix anything - just that it would not necessarily lead to such a dip in government popularity as to cuase a general election.

Specifically when cornered about it he only mentioned Blackberry Messaging Service being a closed network which the police do not have access to unless they hack it. Which they cannot do (lawfully).
Actually they can. There is a judicial process to allow them to do this. It's used in counter-terrorism all the time. It's just that it can't be used as evidence in court.

As for left wing *rolls eyes*
Ken Livingstone, Yvette Cooper and Harriet Harmon would all describe themselves as left-wing I would imagine (apart from in the run up to a general election). Find me someone blaming this on "cuts" who doesn't also have an anti-conservative agenda.

If I criticise a local council for the lack of shops in a town because shop rents are too high and too many Tesco stores are in the vicinity. This having caused the town to decline and shops to be shut everywhere, does this then make me Left Wing? Nope this is common sense.
Don't be coy Storm, there is no shame in being left-wing. It is a simple fact that those currently focussing on cuts etc as being the "cause" of the riots have a socialist agenda. Not necessarily anything wrong with that as long as they are not duplicitous about it.

If the PM wont listen to members of his own government that just shows bloody minded idiocy. At the very least he should listen to them. If he wont listen to them, people in these effected communities have no hope of being heard. Left wing pffff, hand wringing pffff. Hardly.
Let's get real - neither you nor I know anything about what the Prime Minister is thinking or who he is listening to. All we've got is his statements to the media saying exactly what you'd expect any PM to say in this situation.
When the dust settles there will, no doubt, be a serious debate about such things as cuts to police numbers etc and I wouldn't be surprised if we see a small U turn.
As for hand-wringing, yes, I apologise for that. I just get sick of the usual political suspects popping up and blaming everything on deprivation.
 
Ok

First of class - I mean that no one had really used the media or been able be sooooo single minded and unyielding before. She was the first in her class of PM to be able to do this. Yes I know there were others but not on her scale.

As for a general election I think it will. As (please forgive this reference I didnt catch her name) the black female MP for part of London said - this may cause far worse problems than it will sort out and is the wrong response. This was in reference to the suggested militarisation of these districts of London. Which has been a popular statement but she being at the coal face knows best. She did during the week suggest curfews of these areas though as an intermediate step. But the PM was adamant that any course of hard action would be taken. It will inflame the situation. Brixton. Come in hard and remove everyones rites hurt everyone because of the actions of a minority and you will indeed see a response that will send shudders through Britain. And that will result in a reduced confidence in the PM to understand the community. Which as he has already shown will not back down from and so it will escalate. Brown all over again.

Agreed the Terrorist Act allows this but this is not technically terrorism. It is social unrest but is not technically concern for the now defunct/incorporated Special Branch. Oh dont get me wrong I am sure, in fact I would stake my life on the fact that they already monitor these networks under some dubious legal guise. But as you say legally they cannot prosecute. But they can or could, if it breached the terrorism laws. And this situation doesnt it breaches public order laws.

Left wing is a catch all phrase. You used it to imply perhaps that my comments were in some way in this vein. Not true. I speak from hopefully common sense. If you bully people you get resistance. If you push harder still, you risk them pushing back. This is not a political reaction and therefore should not be referred to as such. This is a reaction to a perceived injustice, whether it is or not. It matters not what you think nor I, but what these rioters thought when they did it. If they feel injustice, greed, or low moral values it is as a result of how they feel in their gut, not their political bent.

As for your last point a cynic may say that this all happened because it was cheaper to let it happen rather than deal with it. Costs of policing in high levels versus sending the police in hard and fast and risking lots of them getting injured. Later to sue the government for being injured at work. In one year the Royal Navy paid out 50 million in sexual harassment cases alone. This was across 10 cases. In one year. Think what a copper injured in the line of duty could acquire. Let alone hundreds of them.

Now the PM has stepped forward and said all those shopkeepers who were not insured can still claim under my brand new shiny policy under the rioters act. What he did not say was that they have to claim. In that claim the criteria for payout by the government is that the Police were present, but that they did not intervene at a particular time. And the business was damaged as a consequence. LOL Unless someone was stood there with a camera and can actually beyond doubt say that the police were neglectful in their duty there will be no payouts.

Thats what a cynic would say. When politics became a business instead of leading is when it became about counting beans and not about peoples rights.

My prediction will be that the poo will hit the fan when insurance companies turn on the government and sue them using their rioter policy. So instead of the insurance paying out, they will legally engage the government to pay out using their policy against them. Why wouldnt they. And then the PM will wriggle. And then you will see a U turn on helpful policy. Or at the very least claim capping. Thats getting real. No doubt time and the press will tell if I am a loony lefty or aware of just how ruthlessly tactical this lot can be. I hope I am wrong. I get your point about deprivation but it does exist. And there is a slight wrinkle to it too. Perceived deprivation on the part of the sufferer. Meaning that they feel deprived but have two holidays a year and plasmas in every room. And then there is real deprivation. Both types of people may riot. Only one is understandable to a degree. So until you educate people as to what is deprived, and by people I mean government and people in general, your going to get no where.
 
Last edited:
Deprived means having no home, nowhere to live and no food..

No-one in the UK is by definition deprived on that basis - except those who deliberately make themselves homeless..
 
Deprived means having no home, nowhere to live and no food..

No-one in the UK is by definition deprived on that basis - except those who deliberately make themselves homeless..

Thats a broad sweeping statement and you have no way of proving you are correct about that.

I have a friend who reached 18. As such he was no longer permitted to stay in the shelter he had been in since he was 15 following being beaten by his father. At 18 he became an adult. And was removed by force from the shelter. With no job and a lack of council housing in the area he was left homeless and without benefit. So at least in one circumstance your wrong. And this is by no means a remote case. As I know of two this has happened to. He slept in hedges. Hedges mind you, and ate out of restaurant dustbins.

My best friends son was also made homeless by a council in Kent. He slept rough through lack of local housing. They had two bedroom houses but he did not qualify as a single person. Now the government are having to pay for his dentistry care which is several thousand, due to the fact that he was left homeless for so long. So sorry your misinformed.
 
i agree some people need benefits but the people who genuinely need help never get it there are too many people that have been claiming for over 10 years in my area and i know for a fact they don't want to work because of all the money they get sat on their arses and they have better houses and can afford to run fancy cars while the rest of us have to give up our cars because we can't afford the petrol and other charges associated with running a car, and this is nothing like the minors strike, up here in south yorkshire they were fighting to keep the jobs so they could feed their families not stealing hi tech equipment to feed their greed, 1 woman said the riots were for the kid who got shot, now if i didn't want to be shot he shouldn't wave an illegal weapon around in the streets the rest of us manage this on a daily basis, and another man said the rioting was because all the polish and other immigrants were taking our jobs(he looked like he'd been claiming on the sausage roll all his life) so which reason is it?
 
sausage role - lol love it. Yeah he looked quite tanked up on drink or whatever didnt he. Of the people I know on benefits they have learnt to live without. But their choices are eat or smoke or buy some new shoes. Not all of the above. Then there is the guy who is legally insane. Who's mother died and left her house to him. So he lived in that, but kept the council house on because the authorities were not sure he could actually manage to look after himself. Fitter than me but he is honestly barking mad. Bathes in his own urine to protect him from government spy copters.

I think in answer to your question, from my experience its all of the above rolled into one and stuff we dont even know about. I heard, "because this will teach the police they cannot keep bothering us for no reason" - after seeing the footage of a two coppers hitting with a baton a person laying on the ground many many times I have to say that is not helpful.The subject of Polish and immigrants is always a common argument. In fact I dont object to anyone working here. What is wrong is them qualifying for our benefits and claiming for children at home in their country of origin. Which was and still may be going on. Claiming for 10 years is something that my best friend actually did. 5 Years though. Diagnosed with fibromialgia and cancer (past away a couple of weeks ago) she had not worked for some time. She wanted to but they could not find her employment. In fact when she was diagnosed with cancer she was not able to claim because she had not been assessed. So her daughter could not claim carer allowance. So her daughter had to leave work to nurse her. Because she was terminal she was not entitled to stay in hospital. SO home she went. It took 3 months for her daughter to get her assessed for home care and to get the paperwork signed. Then next week she died. Not a penny received. So claiming even legitimately is not an easy process.

Then again I have a friend who works in Plymouth claim centre. A family coming in and claiming for a new born baby filled out the paperwork and later that day a different family came in with the same baby. Didnt even bother to change the clothes of the baby. So there are those that abuse the system and those that are deprived of its proper use due to the greed of others. Why do THEY do it? Because our councils and governments fail in their duty, push too much work on too few people within the councils and have given rise to a society that are afraid to confront anyone in case we infringe their rights. So its easier to just go with the flow.

So the riots are a hotch potch of all of these types of people I would imagine, though cannot say for sure obviously. Those fed up with the abusers of the system and those that are abused by the system and the abusers themselves.
 
good article madasafish, and its right on the money parents and teachers are scared but not in my house my daughter will be disciplined properly with a clip round ear or threatened with removal of luxuries etc i was brought up with the fear of what my mum what do if we were naughty and that was enough for me n mi brother
 
Deprived means having no home, nowhere to live and no food..

No-one in the UK is by definition deprived on that basis - except those who deliberately make themselves homeless..

Deprived means travelling 1 hour home after an afternoon shift down a coal mine( at the age of sixteen) to be greeted by ones elder sister having been on afternoons in a cotton factory but being home earlier as mill nearer than colliery , then being fed a bowl of boiled onions with a little butter and pepper!Nowt else! Yes ,real butter !

VM
 

Latest posts

Back
Top