Rioting in UK capital

[Limehouse]

What about the student riots? Ship that lot out as well. Sikhs and muslims? Any of them breaking the law should be shipped out as well.

Penal colony sounds good to me.

Will there be room on your penal colony (where will it be by the way?) for law-breaking MPs and members of the House of Lords? Will you want to 'ship out' corrupt policemen and dodgy share dealers who bankrupt their employers (not to mention the whole country)?

And what about more legal forms of robbery such as off-shore bank accounts and registering a company in some far off country where the tax is pennies thus depriving this country of valuable revenue?

You see - whilst I will always say that what the rioters have done is completely unaceptable and I am deeply ashamed - it's really just their version of what they see others doing - people who can afford to pay their way.

[Limehouse]

Really, you might bear in mind that the prime minister cut short his holiday in Tuscany because of this.

And I understand that, of his four holidays this Summer, that was the one he had been looking forward to the most.

I really hate it when toffs say they are 'holidaying in Tuscany'. Why can't they say 'Italy?' It's so bloody pretentious.

As for Cameron - in every situation - he has no public persona what-so-ever. He would do well to remember he is leader of virtually an unelected government. How dare he criticise the police when he has attacked their pensions and cut their numbers to the bone?

I bet if he was within fifty yards of the rioting yobs he's have filled his pants.

[Chris]

John Prescott was doing his best to make this arguement the other night on Question Time.

I just went to the trouble of listening to Prescott's contributions to Question Times on the iPlayer, and he said nothing like that.

Certainly he said - among a lot of tough talk about policing and being tough on criminality - that it was important that young people should feel they have opportunities, but that's no more than common sense. If we've got to the stage where a politician who states that view is going to be accused of saying "law abiding citizens are to blame for depriving people of a flat screen tele," we may as well forget about any sensible political debate.

[Penny_Dredfull]

Rioting in UK Capital

Sorry Fleetwood Mac- this is one spot of bother that can't be blamed on the Muslims. In fact, in many instances they have shown themselves to be outstanding defenders of their communities and admirable citizens,forming groups to protect local shops and businesses- what the three Muslim men in Birmingham were doing when they were tragically killed. And well done to the Turks in Dalston for setting on the looters and making them turn tail and run!
I lived in London for many years- for a time even on the notorious Broadwater Farm Estate in Tottenahm, and I've seen it all, and believe me- Muslims are not the problem!

[Robert]

"And what about more legal forms of robbery such as off-shore bank accounts and registering a company in some far off country where the tax is pennies thus depriving this country of valuable revenue?"

What you are calling robbery is the legal avoidance of tax. Legally, it isn't robbery but you're saying that morally, it is. You're saying that these people should voluntarily pay tax that they wouldn't otherwise have had to pay. Stripping the tax angle out of it, what you're saying is that rich people should make a charitable donation.

So far, there's no contradiction in what you have said, but you must be consistent. If rich people ought to make charitable donations on pain of being called robbers, what would be your attitude to, say, John Lennon? How many of his millions should he have given away?

[Sister Hyde]

What you are calling robbery is the legal avoidance of tax. Legally, it isn't robbery but you're saying that morally, it is. You're saying that these people should voluntarily pay tax that they wouldn't otherwise have had to pay. Stripping the tax angle out of it, what you're saying is that rich people should make a charitable donation.

So far, there's no contradiction in what you have said, but you must be consistent. If rich people ought to make charitable donations on pain of being called robbers, what would be your attitude to, say, John Lennon? How many of his millions should he have given away?

Actually a lot of stinking rich people make donations to lower their taxes, this way they look like do gooders at the eyes of the people, and pay much less taxes, it's disgusting, and morally... as for Lennon, he shouldn't have given his millions, he should have invested them in bullet proof windows lol

[Robert]

Hi Sister

No, he wasn't shot in his car.

[Sister Hyde]

Hi Sister

No, he wasn't shot in his car.

I know he wasn't, he was shot at home fter studio recording, but they make bullet proof windows for houses and flats too, beside I'm sure it must be ideal for temperature and sound isolation

[Limehouse]

"And what about more legal forms of robbery such as off-shore bank accounts and registering a company in some far off country where the tax is pennies thus depriving this country of valuable revenue?"

What you are calling robbery is the legal avoidance of tax. Legally, it isn't robbery but you're saying that morally, it is. You're saying that these people should voluntarily pay tax that they wouldn't otherwise have had to pay. Stripping the tax angle out of it, what you're saying is that rich people should make a charitable donation.

So far, there's no contradiction in what you have said, but you must be consistent. If rich people ought to make charitable donations on pain of being called robbers, what would be your attitude to, say, John Lennon? How many of his millions should he have given away?

Well - I did say 'legal' forms of robbery which means they can avoid paying their 'fair share' - in proportion to what they earn - compared with people who PAYE. Morally - they should not avoid paying their share. The same with companies - there should not be legal loop holes wityh allow them to avoid paying tax.

I don't have any great admiration for the late John Lennon. He seemed to preach one thing and pretty much do the opposite. For example he was an alleged wife beater and an adulterer - he neglected his first son shamefully and I doubt that he gave very much of his fortune away to charities. He was also living the the US possibly to avoid paying tax here.

[Sister Hyde]

I don't have any great admiration for the late John Lennon. He seemed to preach one thing and pretty much do the opposite. For example he was an alleged wife beater and an adulterer - he neglected his first son shamefully and I doubt that he gave very much of his fortune away to charities. He was also living the the US possibly to avoid paying tax here.

Hi Missus J.!
AMEN! he was, a proper...male (sorry I'm trying to remain polite).... AND a sound polluter!!! but as I said, rich celebrities donating to charity are not "charitable" people, they just wanna be able to declare a million less as income to the taxes.

[jason_c]

I just went to the trouble of listening to Prescott's contributions to Question Times on the iPlayer, and he said nothing like that.

Certainly he said - among a lot of tough talk about policing and being tough on criminality - that it was important that young people should feel they have opportunities, but that's no more than common sense. If we've got to the stage where a politician who states that view is going to be accused of saying "law abiding citizens are to blame for depriving people of a flat screen tele," we may as well forget about any sensible political debate.

Sorry, but he did mention rich bankers etc(not just the criminal bankers). He played the class warfare card, using it as an explanation for societies ill's. It was a lame attempt to explain the behaviour of the "disaffected youth" and remove the concept of personal responsibility..

[Chris]

Sorry, but he did mention rich bankers etc(not just the criminal bankers). He played the class warfare card, using it as an explanation for societies ill's. It was a lame attempt to explain the behaviour of the "disaffected youth" and remove the concept of personal responsibility..

That isn't what he actually said about bankers, though.

There was a discussion about the shortcomings of the state education system, and Prescott pointed out that people who'd been privately educated - such as the bankers - had also caused the country enormous problems. He said nothing about that being an explanation or an excuse for the riots.

If anything, the person who appeared to be excusing the riots was Fraser Nelson, when he pointed to poor education and poor job prospects as the cause:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...e_Riot_Special at 35.45

[Limehouse]

Sorry, but he did mention rich bankers etc(not just the criminal bankers). He played the class warfare card, using it as an explanation for societies ill's. It was a lame attempt to explain the behaviour of the "disaffected youth" and remove the concept of personal responsibility..

I don't actually see the greedy bankers taking personal responsibility for the havoc they caused.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Well, your "clarification" is at least something of an improvement on the original version about the "black sections of this country" ****ing off back to Africa and Jamaica.

But really I don't think I've heard anyone expressing the view you're trying to stuff into the mouth of liberal intellectuals. The only person I've heard come anywhere near saying that is Colonel Gaddafi, and he's never struck me particularly as either a liberal or an intellectual...

Then you aren't listening. We have BBC journalists pontificating about how it's not their fault, no doubt retiring to liberal middle-class surburbia forthwith. Want the names of these journalists?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Will there be room on your penal colony (where will it be by the way?) for law-breaking MPs and members of the House of Lords? Will you want to 'ship out' corrupt policemen and dodgy share dealers who bankrupt their employers (not to mention the whole country)?

And what about more legal forms of robbery such as off-shore bank accounts and registering a company in some far off country where the tax is pennies thus depriving this country of valuable revenue?

You see - whilst I will always say that what the rioters have done is completely unaceptable and I am deeply ashamed - it's really just their version of what they see others doing - people who can afford to pay their way.

Oh dear god. There's always an excuse isn't there. Always someone else to blame. When is this country going to wake up. Probably never. We're so far gone with this 'society is to blame' bollocks that it's become second nature. What an absolute shambles of a situation and what an insult to those of us who abide by the law of the land and do not go round smashing things up because 'we see someone else doing something'.

Are you so idiotic that you watch what other people do and copy their actions? Are you really saying that? And, out of curiosity, why are you not out there smashing the place up?