do riots ever achieve anything?
- Thread starter Pickman's model
- Start date
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
galloway? nah, he's better things to do with his time, like serve his constituents.mattkidd12 said:
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
i don't know why, i'm not even looking for him.mattkidd12 said:
perhaps he is suffering from paranoid delusions?
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
what was galloway restrained from doing?mattkidd12 said:
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
In Bloom said:
in retrospect, i see what you mean.
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
there's no way yr coming in here with those papers.mattkidd12 said:
and that's final.
As far as rioting goes,I think it depends on a number of factors.
For instance, is the issue at hand something that a large and broad cross-section of people feel strongly about? If it is, then maybe rioting might be seen as justifiable or at least understandable in the wider community. Put simply, whether or not the issue has mass popular support.
And rioting can be a double-edged sword, in that it can backfire and frighten people into a reactionary position. For instance, the Oldham riots, or the way in which they were presented by the media at the time, might just have provoked people to vote for the BNP, who were swift to make as much capital as possible from the riots. Not a good result.
On the other hand, the Poll Tax riots and the campaign of non-payment seem to have had public support, or at least a willingness to look the other way on the part of the public at large. I don't doubt for a minute that the non-payment campaign was vital, but I reckon the international coverage of a all out riot in the UK's capital city must have scared the powers-that-be just as much if not more.
I don't think it is a matter of whether or not to use rioting as a tactic, so much as when. The conditions for rioting might be right at times and wrong at others. So the question of whether or not rioting per se is an effective and justifiable tactic needs a little refining, IMHO.
For instance, is the issue at hand something that a large and broad cross-section of people feel strongly about? If it is, then maybe rioting might be seen as justifiable or at least understandable in the wider community. Put simply, whether or not the issue has mass popular support.
And rioting can be a double-edged sword, in that it can backfire and frighten people into a reactionary position. For instance, the Oldham riots, or the way in which they were presented by the media at the time, might just have provoked people to vote for the BNP, who were swift to make as much capital as possible from the riots. Not a good result.
On the other hand, the Poll Tax riots and the campaign of non-payment seem to have had public support, or at least a willingness to look the other way on the part of the public at large. I don't doubt for a minute that the non-payment campaign was vital, but I reckon the international coverage of a all out riot in the UK's capital city must have scared the powers-that-be just as much if not more.
I don't think it is a matter of whether or not to use rioting as a tactic, so much as when. The conditions for rioting might be right at times and wrong at others. So the question of whether or not rioting per se is an effective and justifiable tactic needs a little refining, IMHO.
Pickman's model said:
sectarian
Riots also got rid of the old style Ford Transits for Riot Police. Now they have much more headroom and are seated in better comfort. 
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Does anybody think the definition of a riot has got a bit sloppy nowadays? As a bottom line, in the past, you needed blood curdling oaths, mounted hussars and a bloody aftermath that was celebrated in folk song. Now, handbags outside a Wetherspoons gets called a riot.
At the very least we need a panel to arbitrate on whether something can be called a riot - and then allocate a score to it - something like the Beafort Scale? (perhaps a Molotov scale?)
As a bottom line, in the past, you needed blood curdling oaths, mounted hussars and a bloody aftermath that was celebrated in folk song. Now, handbags outside a Wetherspoons gets called a riot.At the very least we need a panel to arbitrate on whether something can be called a riot - and then allocate a score to it - something like the Beafort Scale? (perhaps a Molotov scale?)
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
well i think when riot cops are called then it is officially a riot. I don't think riot cops are allowed to just hang around waiting for something to happen, you have to have some scuffle with normal cops first.4thwrite said:Does anybody think the definition of a riot has got a bit sloppy nowadays?
Oh and it wasn't totally handbags...
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
what about when riot cops are there from the start, well before a proper riot situation develops (eg welling)?Taxamo Welf said:
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
Well then i was wrong.
Didn't think that was allowed.
What was welling?
Didn't think that was allowed.
What was welling?
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
japeries? Rambunctions?In Bloom said:
In Bloom said:
PACE? No. 12. Sections 1 Public Order Act 1986? yes
j.w. Gilmore
New Member
Riots
Riots are usually a measure of last resort. The poor neighborhood gets upset and then, most of the time, they burn down the shops of and destroy the cars of the people in the suburbs who are coming into the city and extracting the resources from said city. When the property gets destroyed the government does something abou the injustice. It is very sad that things have to escalate so much before people will listen. They do have an effect, but everyone is hurt by them and the create long lasting bad feelings between all involved.Taxamo Welf said:
Taxamo Welf
kebagels pls
No i disagree; what your describing aree riots like france or brixton in the 80's. You can have politicially motivate riots, even well organised and deliberate riots 
And i'm sure you know that...?
And i'm sure you know that...?
Phototropic said:It was a she and..er...she was rather sensitive to any questions. She called me "small and petty" for a "criticising a march that 2,000,000 people went on" and that I should go away and live in my "sad, deluded world".
I was rather hurt
No, honest, I really was.
wish the SWP types were vocal enough for me have that kind of argument in my uni. the only political party i'm likely to see on campus is 'young conservatives' and even they can't be arsed because they know everyone agrees with them. everyone just carries on worrying about which pashmina to wear...
ah well, out of here by june
Chuck Wilson said:
Surely this:- a) 12 or more persons (including the accused) who are present together use or threaten violence for a common purpose, and
b) their conduct taken together is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness to fear for their personal safety and
c) the accused’s use of violence was for the common purpose.
could be used to cover any repeat of the idiots who could not tell the difference between a paediatrician and a paedophile and some activities by some animal rights activists.
Similar threads
