National Guard and riot control... "Four dead in Ohio" ring a bell?

Gunfighter. A lot of Brits would have an issue with the police using deadly force against looters. A lot wouldn't. Personally, I prefer a system where the police cannot be judge, jury and executioner for robbery (or any crime).

I do think tthe police should have been able to use water cannons etc, and they held off too much.

@Gunfighter: "Would you Brits have a problem with your cops shooting people for looting? I know your cops don't carry guns."

Firstly, we do have police that carry firearms.
Secondly, a lot of people would have reservations about police indiscriminately shooting at looters.

Whilst we have firearms officers, our police force are much more reserved about using them than American police and it has already been addressed in this thread why that is seen as a good thing here. This also stems somewhat from our policy on capital punishment - it has been abolished.

The British system isn't perfect but that doesn't mean we should look to the American system as a replacement. American police have a long bad history with controlling their police force and restraining their use of their firearms - but maybe American right-wing media don't like to report that too much? :)

Arming the British Police would not have stopped the rioting and looting. The Aremica police are armed yet they also have riots. We have seen around the world that it is possible to keep the population down with heavy handed police tactics and the use of military force, but it doesn't last forever and when the people rebel it is even more violent. The UK isn't perfect but I would sooner have our police force than many across the world. Also if there are social problems that need addressing then sometimes these outbreasks of violence can help re-focus politicians on that task. It is interesting to note that David Cameron gave a speach in 2007 about how to curb youth crime in particular. I don't agree with all his proposals but it is interesting to note that in 2011 not one of his ideas had come to fruition (I am aware that he was in opposition for most of that time). Maybe these riots will give him the spur he needed.

Like I said before, the 1992 Los Angeles riots ended shortly after the military was called in and looters were shot on sight.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/13/david-starkey-claims-whites-black

What do you guys make of this?

Methinks Starkey has a somewhat unique definition of white and black. Perhaps he's been studying the history of hat making a tad too closely...

For such a well-respected historian David Starkey comes out with a lot of trash. He is my least favourite gay person.

@gunfighter06 - the English riots seem to have ended without calling out the military or arming the police.

Okay, just to clarify a bit. Americans also have a big issue with the police shooting looters on sight.

Yeah Gunfighter, what a great idea. How dare people go against the system and show their outrage! They should just shut up and take the abuse. If you want to change anything, sign a petition or write to your representative, because so much has through those channels.
If you protest, you have to do it where we tell you, when we tell you in that little box out of the way after getting a permit, and then we might not call you a criminal.

I read this quote in another forum. It sums up how I feel a about the recent riots and looting in the UK.

"This wasn’t a poll tax protest, it wasn’t a show of solidarity with the coal miners or the sacked printers, it wasn’t a G20 riot. This was simply an act of mass theft, violence and vandalism by people who, almost to a man, said that they were doing it for fun. It was the first bludger uprising the world has ever seen." – David Penberthy

largeham do you really believe the recents acts of massing lawlessness in the UK were "protests", and if so do you think this is legitimate form of protest? Is it constructive? Is it effective? Could it really bring about positive change?

typo... *mass lawlessness

I do believe that these protests are legitimate and could bring about positive change. It was effective as in it finally got the world's attention. It may not be exactly constructive, but I hope it would be in the long run.

I completely condemn much of the random muggings and shop burnings, but call all (or even most) of the rioters apolitical is false. One rioter was seen walking off with a flat-screen TV, when asked what he was doing with it, he replied that it was his banker's bonus. This idea that all the rioters stole was luxuries is false, people were seen taking nappies, toilet paper and potatoes. And so what if they stole luxuries, we live in a society that tells us that our worth and dignity is based on what goods we own, on 'keeping up with the Joneses'.

These people have had their benefits, education and welfare cut. In some of these areas, the average number of applicants for a job is almost 60. Now with the recent austerity measures, the Con-Dems are cutting even more and now the rioters are going to have what little benefits they taken away (wow, Londoners want another riot almost straight away!). This idea that the rioters will now face the full weight of the police and the law is false, since 1998, over 330 people have died in police custody, yet not one officer has been charged. These people have had their education funding cut and now with a rise tuition fees, it will be almost impossible for people to get an education.

Put this up against the MP salary scandal (and numerous examples of British MPs cheating and defrauding tax payers), corruption within the Met, Scotland Yard and Parliament, the News International scandal and Cameron's friendships with Coulson, Brooks and Murdoch. See when the British government bailed out the banks who promptly gave themselves huge bonuses. So much news was made of the fact that David Cameron had to cut his holiday short (oh, poor him, how many Brits can afford a few weeks holiday in Tuscany? Also, shouldn't he be at work during the largest financial meltdown since 2008?).

750,000 people workers and students protested earlier this year against the austerity measures yet nothing happened. I wish the violence was better directed against banks, police and Parliament, but at the very least, the riots have shown that a large section of society is disillusioned and annoyed at the way their country is run. I'm sure fiedler and Gunfighter will talk about how I'm living in some fairytale land full of unicorns and rainbows, completely ignoring their own fairytale land of centaur's, von Mises, elves and the invisible hand of the market.

A few videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=biJgILxGK0o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G18EmYGGpYI

I think the riots will have the opposite effect of what you think they were intended to achieve. I think they will push the country to the right. People will become more cynical about the benefits of welfare and demand tougher measures if anything like this ever happens again.

There are many competing views about what sort of society we should have. Western democracies work well because we respect each others rights to think differently. But when one group believes that their opinion is so right and that their opinions matter so much that that they then have the right to disrespect the law and to act violently against society this undermines the very thing that makes our society work.

People who bomb abortin clinics believe that they have a special right. Looters who steal plasma TVs from a shop believes he has a special right. That Norweigen nutcase murderer believed he has a special right. Who gets to decide who has special rights to act violently against ones own society?

What else are these people going to do? Petitions and letter-writing campaigns don't do anything; 750,000 coming out in protest did nothing. Just because these people have to break windows to get something, they should suffer more than the hordes of MPs who have used taxpayers money for their own gain? Just because they didn't have to break a window to get a flat-screen TV? Many of these people suffer daily abuse every day and it has been getting worse. Society has disillusioned these people and condemned them to be dregs of the nation, if I were in their position, I wouldn't feel like I was part of society.

However, I unfortunately have to agree that these riots might have the opposite effects. Already Cameron is talking about taking away what little benefits they have and people are going to jail for minor infractions (stealing a bottle of water? WTF).

What are these people going to do? What are libertarians going to do? What are religious fundamentalists going to do? What are anti-abortionists going to do? What are neo-nazis going to do? What are environmentalists going to do? What are people who oppose the carbon tax going to do? Where does it end?

"Society has disillusioned these people and condemned them to be dregs of the nation, if I were in their position, I wouldn't feel like I was part of society."

Society had condemned these people? "These people" have plenty of opportunities that most of the world could only dream of. Work hard, save your money, educate yourself (there are many ways if doing this apart from expensive university courses). Sure things might have been easier before the GFC but there are still plenty of ways to make a good life. But this victim mentality is one of the main issues, and is a greater threat than any austerity measure.

Libertarians, religious fundamentalists, anti-abortionists and environmentalists haven't been as marginalised and abused as most of the rioters. How many libertarians or religious fundamentalists have died in custody? How many of them barely survive on meager unemployment benefits? Indeed, libertarians, religious fundamentalists and anti-abortionists have a lot of control over society, both Labour and Liberal governments have been cutting taxes for years; both have strong ties with the Religious Right (see Rudd and Gillard giving to money school proselytizers yet taking money from the disabled); abortion is damn hard to get in many countries. Most people are environmentalist to an extent, they don't suffer daily abuse from the police to high unemployment.
As for neo-nazis, these rioters aren't calling for genocide, war and the slaughter of anyone deemed inferior.

Plenty of opportunities? 20% of 16-24 year olds are unemployed. Unemployment in general is around 7.6-8%. Unemployment in Hackney and Tottenham is over 10%. In some places, the average number of applicants for each job is almost 60. How does one work hard if there is no work? Everyone nowadays wants university educated kids, without a degree it is hard to get a job. Even if that weren't true, many of these areas have had their public funding for youth services and libraries. How is this 'victim mentality' a problem, or more of a problem than austerity measures, wherever they've been put in place unemployment has skyrocketed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eNPAH46oI8

The point I am making is that just because the country is not run the way someone thinks it should be doesn't mean they have the right to start burning buildings down and looting shops.

There are problems in the UK - sure. But what is the solution the rioters are offering? For that matter who knows for sure what the best solution is? How do you know if austerity measures aren't the best thing for the country - in the long run. If the country keeps spending money it doesn't have this might just make things worse - in the long run.
For my part, I don't really know enough about economics, to answer that question. 

All we know is that people are dissatisfied. We don't know that they all agree on what the solution is. If it were a legitimate protest, what exactly were their demands? And I mean actionable demands, not just that things should be better. It all started as a protest about a police issue, which, whether the police were right or wrong, is not related to decisions that have led to the country's economic mess.

It is true that the world is unequal and not everyone has the same opportunities. That is an unfortunate fact of life. But the difference between being a victim and not being a victim is the victim gives up and places the responsibility entirely over to someone else, such as the government. The non-victim makes the most of the opportunities presented, no matter how few. They don't start smashing up the streets, for the sake of it - so they can nick a plasma TV.

It's late, so I'll check out your YouTube links tomorrow.

@spyman - why do you want to know what the rioters 'demands' are? If their only demand was to say put 1 extra bus service on each Saturday in summer would you grant them their demand? I think not, and the reason is that you will have more riots and not less.

One thing which I have definately come more and more to appreciate over time is that any organisation takes its cue from the person at the top. Immoral and wrong behaviour at the top easily becomes immoral and wrong behaviour at the bottom and points in between.

@ Maniac

There was a lot of unnecessary destruction because they didn't call in the cavalry.

@ largeham

It's called peaceful protest. It tends to work better than going around smashing things. How is that constructive? If anything, you are only turning people against your cause. The rioting is/was not a legitimate protest. Suggesting that it is a legitimate protest is laughable. Brits riot whenever they win a soccer game, lose a soccer game, or are bored. This is an example of the latter.

spyman + 1

Sure the long run matters, but that is no help to the people who are starving or suffering now. In the long run, Spain will come out of debt, but that is no help to the large numbers of unemployed people. In the long run, Syria will get a new government, but that is no help to the people being shot up now.

The shooting by the police was the straw that broke the camel's back. These areas have suffered for years, the GFC made it worse and now the shooting pushed them over the edge.

Just because these people have to smash a window to get a TV, that makes them worse then all the MPs who have wasted money, stolen and defrauded the taxpayers over the years.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jul/21/mp-jailed-expenses-fraud-claims
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8653889/MPs-expenses-Eric-Illsley-claimed-150000.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8651018/Lords-claiming-more-on-expenses-despite-reforms.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/8628582/MoD-spends-100m-on-hotels.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8560512/Civil-servants-fight-to-keep-Whitehall-expenses-secret.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/8552734/MPs-expenses-nearly-1million-spent-on-taxpayer-funded-credit-cards-in-first-two-months.html

By and large, these rioters haven't started smashing windows for the hell of it (though obviously some have, unfortunately there always will be a small criminal element). They aren't rioting because they are bored. As a police officer Gunfighter, you should know how hard it is to stage a protest (though laws maybe different in the US than Australia). It is damn hard to get a protest permit, then they stick you in a box or the police direct where you should go, away from anywhere where it will gain attention or stop business. Earlier, 750,000 people on strike and protest in the UK yet nothing was done by the Tory government. An amazing example success by protesting peacefully. However, I must agree that the riots will unfortunately turn people away from their cause.

HA! Those "protests before were far from peaceful. Honestly, take a look at the USA Tea Party protests for peaceful.

"By and large, these rioters haven't started smashing windows for the hell of it (though obviously some have, unfortunately there always will be a small criminal element)"

Largeham I think that it is admirable that you are so understanding and empathetic. But I have to disagree with you on a core point: *all the people* who smashed windows and looted etc are criminals. Those actions make them criminals. And I strongly suspect that once the riots reach a certain tipping point - anyone who was a professional criminal was looting. It was the perfect opportunity. So a good portion of those involved were criminals and had been for sometime.

Smashing someone shopfront window is a criminal act. It is that simple. That shopkeeper is not responsible for the fact the rioters were pissed off (or thoroughly enjoying themselves).

What I am saying doesn't mean I think the government is excused from taking a look at its policies. A smart government will do what it can to try and reduce the likelihood of this happens again. Exactly what should be done I am not sure. Better social programs - maybe. But I suspect though that if this sort of thing become a regular occurrence, the government will introduce some stronger disincentives.

Looking closer to home (both of being Melburnians) - if I were a government worker who had been recently laid off - what would you think if I started smashing Northcote Plaza. Would that be excusable? If run into K-Mart a nick a TV - would I be a criminal, or would I be justified? After all would I not be a victim of austerity measures?

Talk about GRABATELLY how about Gerald Kaufmann MP?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/5330816/Sir-Gerald-Kaufmans-1800-rug-and-an-8865-claim-for-a-television-MPs-expenses.html

Between 2001 and 2008 the Manchester Gorton MP, one of the Labour party’s longest-serving members, claimed a total of £115,109 in additional costs allowances on his London flat, which he owns outright. In June 2006, he submitted a claim for three months’ expenses totalling £14,301.60, which included £8,865 for a Bang & Olufsen Beovision 40in LCD television. The maximum amount MPs are allowed to claim for TVs is £750.

I believe that he paid the money back and no charges were laid, so that's alright then?