Rioting in UK capital

[Sister Hyde]

Some people think that the police should be more proactive when hundreds of workshy, useless scumbags converge on one place by prior arrangement. I would remind them that it simply would not be lawful for the police to enter the Commons chamber to disperse these people.

you mean there is a law like with the Senat? that the Police is not authorized there unless they are called?

[Chris]

... workshy, useless scumbags ...

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.

[Robert]

Some people think that the police should be more proactive when hundreds of workshy, useless scumbags converge on one place by prior arrangement. I would remind them that it simply would not be lawful for the police to enter the Commons chamber to disperse these people.

[Sister Hyde]

Entirely predictable that politicians having sat on their backsides in complete safety should seek to claim to have calmed the riots single handedly. Predictable but still sickening though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14501236

Crawl back into your office Theresa May and start writing a resignation letter if you really want to help.

that is just a classical attempt to restore their reputation, it's pathetic to see them denying the facts they have right under their eyes and vain and still they do it, but it's not going to change people mind, the whole world has seen it, and the whole world has seen hundreds of Londoners cleaning the streets themselves.

[brummie]

Entirely predictable that politicians having sat on their backsides in complete safety should seek to claim to have calmed the riots single handedly. Predictable but still sickening though.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14501236

Crawl back into your office Theresa May and start writing a resignation letter if you really want to help.

[Sister Hyde]

But probably not without the help of research assistants (who would be excluded from the jury room).

ok, but that would mean the reporting of the researches would have to be fully controled, the words employed do influence as well.

[Chris]

and still... even those [MPs] could access informations somehow...

But probably not without the help of research assistants (who would be excluded from the jury room).

[Sister Hyde]

and still... even those could access informations somehow... I guess the justice has never really been blind. The scale will always be influenced.

[Robert]

Yes that's true. There is no vacuum that you can wrap a jury in. The best chance for a defendant to get a totally ignorant jury, would be to be tried by 12 MPs.

[Sister Hyde]

Yes, and a jury should be impartial, it's it's purpose. but still nowadays, considering how media and communication works, you can't avoid it. even if your country tries to keep it a bit down with laws and such, people can access foreigner press and medias so easily.

[Robert]

I think it's just the idea of anyone discussing it in a way that might influence the jury.

[Sister Hyde]

Well the fact that jury members or even anyone involved in the trial is not allowed to talk about it even to family is just normal, and I can definitely I understand the whole point behind it, I mean, the DSK scandal in France taught us a lot about it, and the wave of women imitating her just keeps digging it more. but still I think people should be able to discuss the facts, as long as these are established facts.

[Robert]

Hi Sister

It's once someone has been charged. Once that happens, the case is sub judice and it's best for people not to discuss it in newspapers etc, in the interests of the defendant getting a fair trial. I think (though I'm not sure) that it may actually be a contempt of court to discuss a case in progress, short of journalists reporting the bare facts of the testimony. Certainly juries are told not to discuss the case with anyone while they are trying the case. The idea is that the only thing swaying the jury should be the evidence given in court.

[Limehouse]

Can anyone justify this teaching assistant looting? There are a number of these looters who have decent enough jobs. Poverty my arse.

There is no justification.

[Limehouse]

No, actually poverty isn't relative. Whiny people's emotional feelings about being impovershed is relative, but if you have energy and sufficient food to fuel a four day riot, you are not, by any means deprived. When you are smashing stores to get computers and TVs ..not food, or water or medicine, you aren't impoverished.



Oh I am sorry, I didn't realize England was a dictatorship and the people lacked the voting power. My mistake. Who knew you were living under draconian rule at the mercy of your cruel overlords, powerless to change! As for what message it sends out: go to school, get and education and become a person in a position of power, so you aren't subjected to the whim of those in power.

I never implied those who were rioting are impoverished and I have most certainly condemmed their behaviour very strongly in my earlier posts. However - what I have said is - don't expect these people to have better morals than the example set by greedy MPs or corrupt company directors when they so much less.

If you think that all poverty is caused by fecklessness and failure on the part of all of the poor then you are no better than the Victorian rich and powerful who maintained that poverty was the fault of the poor themselves.