Cable Forum
Page 69 of 98 « First 195965666768 69 7071727379 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Riots (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33680220)

nomadking 13-08-2011 22:13
Re: Riots
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35287626)
politicians have been fiddling and abusing the system for their own gain long before the riots happened :rolleyes:

they are as bad as each other .The point being is what right do the government ministers who have been fiddling expenses and flipping houses have to preach morality to anybody
When was(and who) introduced the more fluid definition of first and second homes that allowed 'flipping'. The expenses scandal is relatively recent, so how does that relate to decades of behaviour?:rolleyes:

Sirius 13-08-2011 22:20
Re: Riots
 
First eviction for rioting !

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16049238

Quote:
A council flat tenant is facing eviction after her 18-year-old son appeared in court in connection with riots in Clapham Junction.

The woman was served with an eviction notice by Wandsworth Council on Friday afternoon.

She is believed to be the first council tenant in the country to face losing her home over rioting and looting which blighted the nation this week.

Council leader Ravi Govindia said: "In Wandsworth we are determined to take the strongest possible action against any tenant or member of their household responsible for the truly shocking behaviour perpetrated on local homes and businesses earlier this week."

Damien 13-08-2011 22:27
Re: Riots
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35287676)
I fail to see how making someone homeless helps, especially when it includes other people in the family.

---------- Post added at 23:27 ---------- Previous post was at 23:26 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35287672)
When was(and who) introduced the more fluid definition of first and second homes that allowed 'flipping'. The expenses scandal is relatively recent, so how does that relate to decades of behaviour?:rolleyes:
It relates because they are both examples of a lack of morality and a sense on entitlement was the point.

martyh 13-08-2011 22:32
Re: Riots
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35287672)
When was(and who) introduced the more fluid definition of first and second homes that allowed 'flipping'. The expenses scandal is relatively recent, so how does that relate to decades of behaviour?:rolleyes:
and you can go back further ,decades even to find more examples of government corruption or excess .Like i said before if the government is going to preach about morals to anyone they have to make sure they are in a position to do so because if they aren't then no-one is going to listen .Yes the rioters did wrong and should be punished but they aren't going to listen to a politician caught fiddling expenses

nomadking 13-08-2011 22:37
Re: Riots
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh (Post 35287682)
and you can go back further ,decades even to find more examples of government corruption or excess .Like i said before if the government is going to preach about morals to anyone they have to make sure they are in a position to do so because if they aren't then no-one is going to listen .Yes the rioters did wrong and should be punished but they aren't going to listen to a politician caught fiddling expenses
And the people who started the rioting knew about these events is past decades?:rolleyes: They are not going to listen to anybody no matter what.

Damien 13-08-2011 22:40
Re: Riots
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35287643)
Aww, bless... Asyraf Haziq is the guy who got mugged during the riots. You know, that video that was posted 5 or more time. He's a Malayasian student who's been in the UK for one month. He was cycling along with a mate, when he encountered a group of youths. One of them punched him, breaking his jaw, then they stole his bike, and we've all seen what happens afterwards.
Almost as amazing the father of one of the men in Birmingham taking to the streets each night to defuse the situation and get the other Muslims/Asians in the community not to march or protest against the black community. Such an impressive character.

---------- Post added at 23:40 ---------- Previous post was at 23:38 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35287686)
And the people who started the rioting knew about these events is past decades?:rolleyes: They are not going to listen to anybody no matter what.
No one is saying that these rioters are using the expenses row as an excuse. Read the article, it was that the same culture that existed among the rioters also exist in the expenses scandals and the rich moving to tax havens. The prioritisation of one's greed at the expense of society.

danielf 13-08-2011 22:49
Re: Riots
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35287676)
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this is good news? It may appeal to your feeling that vengeance is required, but what does it actually achieve?

Sirius 13-08-2011 23:00
Re: Riots
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35287692)
I'm sorry, but I fail to see how this is good news? It may appeal to your feeling that vengeance is required, but what does it actually achieve?
Excuse me where have i said its good news, All i did was post what has just been reported. Instead you do a knee jerk reaction aimed at what you ASSUMED was my reason for posting it. I had noticed that no one on here had picked up on it so i posted it.

danielf 13-08-2011 23:11
Re: Riots
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35287699)
Excuse me where have i said its good news, All i did was post what has just been reported. Instead of knee jerk reactions aimed at a posters think about what you post in reply to others.
Fair enough. You never said it was a good thing. For some reason, I took the exclamation mark as meaning you approved.

What do you think about this eviction then? Is it right or wrong (or somewhere in the middle)?

Sirius 13-08-2011 23:32
Re: Riots
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf (Post 35287700)
Fair enough. You never said it was a good thing. For some reason, I took the exclamation mark as meaning you approved.

What do you think about this eviction then? Is it right or wrong (or somewhere in the middle)?
I personally feel its wrong, why punish the mother for what the son did and additional what happens if the mother is disabled or out of work ???

He did the deed he should be the one punished

the_neurotic_cat 14-08-2011 00:04
Re: Riots
 
Any actions taken to increase the poverty of those involved will encourage further crime.

Impoverishing those simply associated with those involved in the rioting is even more destructive, especially if it's done to the point of destitution.

watzizname 14-08-2011 02:11
Re: Riots
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35287702)
I personally feel its wrong, why punish the mother for what the son did and additional what happens if the mother is disabled or out of work ???

He did the deed he should be the one punished
Absolutely..

Not only that, he's 18 and therefore an adult, so how exactly can she be held responsible for his actions?

I am of course assuming the flat is solely in his mothers name, and that the official age one becomes an adult in this country is still 18..

This stinks :td:

martyh 14-08-2011 07:20
Re: Riots
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 35287686)
And the people who started the rioting knew about these events is past decades?:rolleyes: They are not going to listen to anybody no matter what.
some will, some won't .I'm not denying that there are *******s ,there will always be *******s .The point i and others are making is that it is a bit rich when mp's convicted of fraud or stealing from the tax payer are preaching to these people about law and order .Would you listen to David Chaytor ,Elliot Morley,Jim Devine if they started preaching on about law and order .

---------- Post added at 08:20 ---------- Previous post was at 08:10 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirius (Post 35287702)
I personally feel its wrong, why punish the mother for what the son did and additional what happens if the mother is disabled or out of work ???

He did the deed he should be the one punished
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_neurotic_cat (Post 35287710)
Any actions taken to increase the poverty of those involved will encourage further crime.

Impoverishing those simply associated with those involved in the rioting is even more destructive, especially if it's done to the point of destitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by watzizname (Post 35287720)
Absolutely..

Not only that, he's 18 and therefore an adult, so how exactly can she be held responsible for his actions?

I am of course assuming the flat is solely in his mothers name, and that the official age one becomes an adult in this country is still 18..

This stinks :td:
I agree with the above .We do not know if the Mother/parents have been trying to keep their children on the straight and narrow .It may prove to be otherwise of course, the family may be the bigget load of **** bags out there ,but Cameron needs to be carefull about backing this kind of kneejerk reaction as it could bite him right up the jacksy .Things need to be thought through properly and calmly ,if new powers are going to be introduced then they have to be fair and workable not just lip service to the general public and media

denphone 14-08-2011 07:45
Re: Riots
 
And thats is the problem as there are too many politicians who pander to politically aligned newspapers and to certain sections of the public without properly thinking through the next move

Sirius 14-08-2011 08:05
Re: Riots
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by denphone (Post 35287753)
And thats is the problem as there are too many politicians who pander to politically aligned newspapers and to certain sections of the public without properly thinking through the next move
Its been happening for years. Just read here to see in what year which party was happy to have one of the Murdoch papers support it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sun...ted_Kingdom%29

Quote:
The Sun switched support to Labour on 18 March 1997, six weeks before the General Election victory which saw Labour leader Tony Blair become Prime Minister with a large parliamentary majority, despite the paper having attacked Blair and New Labour up to a month earlier. Its front page headline read THE SUN BACKS BLAIR and its front page editorial made clear that while it still opposed some New Labour policies, such as the Minimum Wage and Devolution, it believed Blair to be "the breath of fresh air this great country needs."[54] John Major's Conservatives, it said, were "tired, divided and rudderless".[54] Blair, who had radically altered his party's image and policies, noting the influence the paper could have over its readers' political thinking, had courted it (and Murdoch) for some time by granting exclusive interviews and writing columns.
Quote:
2009: The Sun returns to the Conservatives Politically, the paper's stance was less clear under Prime Minister Gordon Brown who had succeeded Blair in June 2007. Its editorials were critical of many of Brown's policies and often more supportive of those of Conservative leader David Cameron. Rupert Murdoch, head of The Sun's parent company News Corporation, speaking at a 2007 meeting with the House of Lords Select Committee on Communications, which was investigating media ownership and the news, said that he acts as a "traditional proprietor". This means he exercises editorial control on major issues such as which political party to back in a general election or which policy to adopt on Europe.[67]
So as you can see they all wanted the support of the numpty Murdoch.


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:55.
Page 69 of 98 « First 195965666768 69 7071727379 Last »
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum