Rioting in UK capital

[Fleetwood Mac]

What questions am I suppose to be answering?

I have certainly not swerved the issues. My posts have strongly condemned the behaviour of the rioters and I have never said 'it's not their fault'. What I have said is that in recent times the highest in the land have been caught breaking the law and dodging their responsibilities and whilst this does not excuse the behaviour of the rioters it certainly does not set them a good example.

And so you're linking the two. And espousing the idea that political elites govern our behaviour through their 'example'. Do they really? Seriously? Do these people not have a choice? What exactly is the point in democracy in the event the best we can do is, out of no choice of our own, imitate the actions of our masters? May as well concede that we are like lemmings better suited to a benevolent dictator than a democratic system. Do you see the absurdity of your position?

[Limehouse]

'It's really their version of what they see others doing'.

Your words.

Do you want to reply to my questions? I'd imagine not, prefering to swerve the issues instead, and pop up in post number 1,150 repeating the 'it's not their fault' mantra.

How did we ever come to this? How did the left gain such a foothold within the sphere of political thought, preaching everything from 'equality' and 'fairness' for the 'disenfranchised' breaking the law. Well, I know how I suppose.....it's a more a matter of shaking one's head than a question begging an answer.....

What questions am I suppose to be answering?

I have certainly not swerved the issues. My posts have strongly condemned the behaviour of the rioters and I have never said 'it's not their fault'. What I have said is that in recent times the highest in the land have been caught breaking the law and dodging their responsibilities and whilst this does not excuse the behaviour of the rioters it certainly does not set them a good example.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Are you such an idiot that you can't read my whole post?

'It's really their version of what they see others doing'.

Your words.

Do you want to reply to my questions? I'd imagine not, prefering to swerve the issues instead, and pop up in post number 1,150 repeating the 'it's not their fault' mantra.

How did we ever come to this? How did the left gain such a foothold within the sphere of political thought, preaching everything from 'equality' and 'fairness' for the 'disenfranchised' breaking the law. Well, I know how I suppose.....it's a more a matter of shaking one's head than a question begging an answer.....

[Limehouse]

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?

Are you such an idiot that you can't read my whole post?

[Fleetwood Mac]

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!

What are you talking about? When did I say muslims are the problem?

If you want to know what I think I'd take a wild stab in the dark that as a % of the population more whites break the law than muslims; and I'd be surprised in the event this theory proved to be wide of the mark.

This is about idiots breaking the law and other idiots excusing their behaviour.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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

[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..

[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.

[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]

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

[Robert]

Hi Sister

No, he wasn't shot in his car.

[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