London riots: Violence erupts for third day

Was he actually condoning that, or was he posting an example of propaganda that condoned that?

Well, his post was titled "A Public Service Announcement for the British in Sciforums". Sounds like condoning to me. He even added a "/snicker" at the end of the post, to laugh at how naughty he thought he was being by posting advice for criminals.

According to a very good source, quoting someone on sciforums is equivalent to expounding your own opinion. [citation provided on request]

How often, SAM, do you quote sources that do not support your own opinions on sciforums? I'll wager that the majority of sources you quote push a particular line that agrees totally with your opinions.
 
Well, his post was titled "A Public Service Announcement for the British in Sciforums". Sounds like condoning to me. He even added a "/snicker" at the end of the post, to laugh at how naughty he thought he was being by posting advice for criminals.

Ascribing motive to members prevented from speaking for themselves (due to a ban you yourself issued), on the basis of descriptions of material that nobody else has seen (due to its removal by yourself), now?

That has "respect," "good-faith" and "on-topic" written all over it, to be sure.

And anyway, wouldn't the subsequent official reaction to said post (by yourself, again) elevate the supposed conception of naughtiness to clear-cut fact?

How often, SAM, do you quote sources that do not support your own opinions on sciforums? I'll wager that the majority of sources you quote push a particular line that agrees totally with your opinions.

To be accurate, S.A.M. seems to fail in discerning how various sources do or do not relate to whatever opinions she's pushing at any given time, with a certain regularity. Which wouldn't necessarily present a problem to the "majority" qualifier, but I have some suspicion that S.A.M. would actually rate lower than average, in this sense, although not as a result of any conscious effort on her part to present conflicting views holistically.

There's also the related question of how posting a particular source (or set thereof) works to advance someone's opinion in a discussion forum. There is a certain tactic that does not much depend on the actual contents of the sources, but instead relies primarily on the fact of citing them: it adds up to a certain assertion of self-righteousness, along with the assignment of a bunch of diversionary homework to those who'd challenge such. Note that said sourcing is typically provided in (tactical) response to a challenge, and not pre-emptively (as they would be in a good-faith debate setting where participants all did their homework ahead of time).
 
quadraphonics:

Ascribing motive to members prevented from speaking for themselves (due to a ban you yourself issued), on the basis of descriptions of material that nobody else has seen (due to its removal by yourself), now?

The material I quoted hasn't been removed. Read back if you need confirmation. Before you go off half cocked, check your facts.

And anyway, wouldn't the subsequent official reaction to said post (by yourself, again) elevate the supposed conception of naughtiness to clear-cut fact?

I don't actually care whether yourself or others think that posting advice for criminals is acceptable or not. As an administrator here, I can tell you that I will not accept it, and in this instance that's the only thing that counts. You're free to decide that I'm an unreasonable and vindictive bastard if that floats your boat.

There's also the related question of how posting a particular source (or set thereof) works to advance someone's opinion in a discussion forum. There is a certain tactic that does not much depend on the actual contents of the sources, but instead relies primarily on the fact of citing them: it adds up to a certain assertion of self-righteousness, along with the assignment of a bunch of diversionary homework to those who'd challenge such. Note that said sourcing is typically provided in (tactical) response to a challenge, and not pre-emptively (as they would be in a good-faith debate setting where participants all did their homework ahead of time).

That's a perceptive comment.
 
The material I quoted hasn't been removed.

You removed the crucial core of the material in question. Your characterizations of the surrounding stuff that you left behind remain unsupportable and prejudicial, absent the excised material.

Read back if you need confirmation. Before you go off half cocked, check your facts.

And before you expect a weak defense to impress anyone, check whether you're splitting irrelevant hairs.

I don't actually care whether yourself or others think that posting advice for criminals is acceptable or not. As an administrator here, I can tell you that I will not accept it, and in this instance that's the only thing that counts.

Did I say anything about that question?

Before you go off half-cocked, maybe figure out what I am and am not saying to you. This way I won't have to expound on it at length, in the face of basic misconstrual:

You're free to decide that I'm an unreasonable and vindictive bastard if that floats your boat.

You're an unreasonable and vindictive bastard because you are apparently not content to simply remove problematic material and issue corresponding violations for such (none of which I have voiced any complaint about, other than to suggest that policy towards such be made more clear in the forum rules and guidelines), but instead choose to go and publicly insult the member in question, while he is prevented from defending himself exactly by the ban you issued. And on the basis of characterizations of material that you have prevented anyone else from assessing. That is petty, vindictive behavior and does nothing to advance your prerogative to deal with legally-questionable material, or instill respect for your authority more generally. You could have left this as a vanilla exercise of moderator discretion, but for some reason you decided to come back here days later and shit all over the carpet.

And if someone in your position is going to behave in that way, what expectation can anyone else here have, in terms of mature, respectful interaction?
 
quadraphonics:

You removed the crucial core of the material in question.

Er... duh!

That was the what the moderation action was about in the first place: to remove the inappropriate material and to send a message to the person who posted it not to do that kind of thing again.

Your characterizations of the surrounding stuff that you left behind remain unsupportable and prejudicial, absent the excised material.

I guess you'll just have to live with that.

And before you expect a weak defense to impress anyone, check whether you're splitting irrelevant hairs.

Says the man who with every post is splitting irrelevant hairs.

You're an unreasonable and vindictive bastard because you are apparently not content to simply remove problematic material and issue corresponding violations for such (none of which I have voiced any complaint about, other than to suggest that policy towards such be made more clear in the forum rules and guidelines), but instead choose to go and publicly insult the member in question, while he is prevented from defending himself exactly by the ban you issued.

Oh, I wouldn't be too concerned about that. He'll be back in less than 24 hours, at which time he will be free and happy to correct the record to your satisfaction, I'm sure.

And on the basis of characterizations of material that you have prevented anyone else from assessing.

As it happens, in this instance several other moderators also assessed the offending material prior to its deletion.

That is petty, vindictive behavior and does nothing to advance your prerogative to deal with legally-questionable material, or instill respect for your authority more generally. You could have left this as a vanilla exercise of moderator discretion, but for some reason you decided to come back here days later and shit all over the carpet.

I think you'll find that direct questions were raised regarding this moderator action. As the person who carried out those actions, I felt it was polite to respond.

And if someone in your position is going to behave in that way, what expectation can anyone else here have, in terms of mature, respectful interaction?

About the same expectation that you won't nit-pick and second-guess every moderator decision, I guess.
 
You removed the crucial core of the material in question.

If you are referring to this post:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2795839&postcount=150

I reported that, and I may not have been alone.

Let's get a few things straight about these riots. They are NOT politically motivated. They are simply an excuse to steal items. People have been killed. One guy was kicked to death for trying to extinguish a fire lit by rioters. Gustav posted information that may help murderers escape justice. That is not acceptable behaviour. He got a ban. Just like the rioters, "if he can't do the time, don't do the crime".
 
How often, SAM, do you quote sources that do not support your own opinions on sciforums? I'll wager that the majority of sources you quote push a particular line that agrees totally with your opinions.

Depends on the argument. I distinguish between supporting and rebutting an argument and expressing my opinion. Are we to assume from this that you support all that is stated in every single source you quote?

Just a question - noting that I did not see what Gustav posted - but a lot of rich people who kill millions get away by using lawyers who point out how they can escape the legal consequences of their actions.

Is it illegal to point out resources indicating how poor people can use the law in a similar way? Has anyone ever been arrested for showing someone a loophole in the legal process?
 
Last edited:
The leaflet is being discussed in many places.

Heres the same leaflet in the Metro, a large circulation newspaper
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/871844-...ded-out-giving-criminals-advice-on-being-calm

and here it is on London Broadcasting's radio site
http://www.lbc.co.uk/leaflets-handed-out-telling-rioters-how-not-to-be-caught-43352

I can't see any objection to showing the item on here for discussion.
But if Gustav wants riots then he should be encouraging them where he lives, not where we live.

We've had the deaths of innocent people over this and it's not a joke.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure that Gustav at least is consistent in his political views - it is the Progressive Except [insert personal bias] that need to reexamine their values

edit: I just read the leaflet. Seriously? Don't panic, be calm, don't give in to pressure, the photos are not conclusive evidence - is accessory to criminal behaviour? I am 100% certain I could say that to a person arrested and in police custody and before the cops and they would not arrest me. Almost everything written is what any good attorney would suggest to these teens, if they could afford one.

Especially considering what they have to lose - parents of these teens have been threatened with eviction from council housing by Cameron's government - I think it is very sage advice.

We've had the deaths of innocent people over this and it's not a joke.

I completely agree. I've walked through riots like these in Mumbai and no one deserves them. But it is better to direct your rage at ensuring that the experience is not repeated rather than taking emotionally charged actions which resolve nothing and only create more criminals the society has to support, I read an excellent article which underlines the issue

What happened last week? The government was compelled to notice the urgency of a situation that has been developing for a very long time, and became incensed. In parenting terms, it is as though Dad – who sat slumped on the sofa, occasionally muttering “don’t do that”, while his numerous offspring tortured the cat and threw rubbish on the floor – finally witnessed them smashing up the television, and went nuts. The courts are suddenly handing out heavy custodial sentences for petty thefts committed in the heat of a riot, where in ordinary times such an act might only have occasioned a reprimand. Mr Cameron is talking of evicting rioters’ families from their homes and barring benefits, strengthening policing and intensifying punishments.

Yet many of the most headline-grabbing prison sentences will, no doubt, be substantially reduced upon appeal. The government remains on course substantially to cut prison places and police numbers. How many of Cameron’s declared objectives can be achieved under these circumstances?

Tony Blair had a penchant for making public order policy on the hoof, on the back of public outrage, with predictably laughable consequences: remember the abandoned plan for frog-marching anti-social youths to cash machines and extracting instant fines?

The first rule of parenting is never to make a threat that you cannot follow through. There is evidence that Mr Cameron has already done precisely that. In the long-term, he is perfectly free to consider what is socially desirable, and to shape policy on the back of it. But in the short-term, he needs to cut back on the rhetoric, reflect on what is strictly doable, and stick to enforcing that alone. The risk otherwise is to appear before the country with all the bogus roar of the cowardly lion in the Wizard of Oz. The youths who rioted last week might be out of control, but they are not stupid. They have a nose for inconsistency: they’ve been dealing with it all their lives.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/j...nd-brave-but-the-rioters-will-smell-his-fear/
 
Last edited:
Regarding the sentencing. Glad you brought that up.
I am surprised by the judiciary, who normally pay no attention to Government pressure. Their independence is one of the few things I thought we could still rely on.

The rioters must be tried fairly, and if found guilty should get punishments based on the aggravated circumstances. That is, somewhat heavier than usual.

But that should not mean that crimes which would normally be punished with a Police Warning should end in prison.
Some of the examples I have seen are quite ludicrous, and it will waste the court's time later when they come to appeal.

It is summary justice. And poor justice.

Take for example the two idiots who called on people to join in a riot. They posted it on Facebook, but no-one turned up. Despite the bungling, it was a serious crime, and the rumour caused some shops to close early. But the sentence was Four Years. No proper social reports. Just bang down with the gavel. Four Years.
And our lickspittle press support it.
This is from a supposedly left wing newspaper.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...air-s-jail-sentence-is-right-115875-23352209/

Compare the sentence with this crime, reported on the Metropolitan Police site, 5 months ago. I think the gravity is very similar.
The sentence here is also heavy, because bomb hoaxing is always an aggravated offence, given that the country is on high alert.

Bomb Hoaxer Jailed.
A 46-year old man, who forced the closure of Oxford Street for almost five hours after breaking into a shop and claiming he had an explosive device, was sentenced to two years imprisonment at Southwark Crown Court today, Friday 18 March.


http://content.met.police.uk/News/Bomb-hoaxer-jailed/1260268718271/1257246745756
 
Last edited:
Regarding the sentencing. Glad you brought that up.
I am surprised by the judiciary, who normally pay no attention to Government pressure. Their independence is one of the few things I thought we could still rely on.

The rioters must be tried fairly, and if found guilty should get punishments based on the aggravated circumstances. That is, somewhat heavier than usual.

But that should not mean that crimes which would normally be punished with a Police Warning should end in prison.
Some of the examples I have seen are quite ludicrous, and it will waste the court's time later when they come to appeal.

It is summary justice. And poor justice.

Take for example the two idiots who called on people to join in a riot. They posted it on Facebook, but no-one turned up. Despite the bungling, it was a serious crime, and the rumour caused some shops to close early. But the sentence was Four Years. No proper social reports. Just bang down with the gavel. Four Years.

Compare the sentence with this crime, reported on the Metropolitan Police site, 5 months ago. I think the gravity is very similar.
The sentence here is also heavy, because bomb hoaxing is always an aggravated offence, given that the country is on high alert.

Bomb Hoaxer Jailed.
A 46-year old man, who forced the closure of Oxford Street for almost five hours after breaking into a shop and claiming he had an explosive device, was sentenced to two years imprisonment at Southwark Crown Court today, Friday 18 March.


http://content.met.police.uk/News/Bomb-hoaxer-jailed/1260268718271/1257246745756

As long as the peasants are poor and miserable they will revolt. This is history.
 
he is naughty isnt he, and a little [ENC]cheeky[/ENC].

If Gustav looked like that, I could forgive him anything.
Not that he's done anything to me anyway.
But I would enjoy forgiving him.

@SAM
If it was the will of the whole people, it would be the politicians who would be in prison, not the rioters.

I have great hope in the internet to keep educating people.
Perhaps eventually we can change things by peaceful means.
What has occurred in English cities, though mitigated by deprivation, is criminal.

We must have law and order.
 
Last edited:
Regarding the sentencing. Glad you brought that up.
I am surprised by the judiciary, who normally pay no attention to Government pressure. Their independence is one of the few things I thought we could still rely on.

The rioters must be tried fairly, and if found guilty should get punishments based on the aggravated circumstances. That is, somewhat heavier than usual.

But that should not mean that crimes which would normally be punished with a Police Warning should end in prison.
Some of the examples I have seen are quite ludicrous, and it will waste the court's time later when they come to appeal.

It is summary justice. And poor justice.

Take for example the two idiots who called on people to join in a riot. They posted it on Facebook, but no-one turned up. Despite the bungling, it was a serious crime, and the rumour caused some shops to close early. But the sentence was Four Years. No proper social reports. Just bang down with the gavel. Four Years.
And our lickspittle press support it.
This is from a supposedly left wing newspaper.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politi...air-s-jail-sentence-is-right-115875-23352209/

Compare the sentence with this crime, reported on the Metropolitan Police site, 5 months ago. I think the gravity is very similar.
The sentence here is also heavy, because bomb hoaxing is always an aggravated offence, given that the country is on high alert.

Bomb Hoaxer Jailed.
A 46-year old man, who forced the closure of Oxford Street for almost five hours after breaking into a shop and claiming he had an explosive device, was sentenced to two years imprisonment at Southwark Crown Court today, Friday 18 March.


http://content.met.police.uk/News/Bomb-hoaxer-jailed/1260268718271/1257246745756

Agree with you on this 100%

I've spent plenty of time trying to highlight this to your average person in the UK, to me it seems as though no one cares. 'They are scum, rioters, more people could have died etc.'

Really frustrating. The Government are just trying to cover their own arses, and the media aren't helping matters.

I think the powers that be are setting out a marker for everyone, the whole country, not just the youth in ghettos or deprived areas.
 
ukrioter.jpg




A great deal has been made over the past few days of the greed of the rioters for consumer goods, not least by Rotherham MP Denis MacShane who accurately remarked, “What the looters wanted was for a few minutes to enter the world of Sloane Street consumption.” This from a man who notoriously claimed £5,900 for eight laptops. Of course, as an MP he obtained these laptops legally through his expenses.

Yesterday, the veteran Labour MP Gerald Kaufman asked the Prime Minister to consider how these rioters can be “reclaimed” by society. Yes, this is indeed the same Gerald Kaufman who submitted a claim for three months’ expenses totalling £14,301.60, which included £8,865 for a Bang & Olufsen television.

Or take the Salford MP Hazel Blears, who has been loudly calling for draconian action against the looters. I find it very hard to make any kind of ethical distinction between Blears’s expense cheating and tax avoidance, and the straight robbery carried out by the looters.

The tragic truth is that Mr Cameron is himself guilty of failing this test. It is scarcely six weeks since he jauntily turned up at the News International summer party, even though the media group was at the time subject to not one but two police investigations. Even more notoriously, he awarded a senior Downing Street job to the former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, even though he knew at the time that Coulson had resigned after criminal acts were committed under his editorship. The Prime Minister excused his wretched judgment by proclaiming that “everybody deserves a second chance”. It was very telling yesterday that he did not talk of second chances as he pledged exemplary punishment for the rioters and looters.(link)​

 
These riots were all bullshit. Where's the outrage about this death?

A Taser was discharged a number of times at a man who later died.

So, let's contrast the two deaths at the hands of the Police. First guy is a drug dealer gangsta with an illegal loaded firearm in a public place, shot by armed Police as he posed a danger to other citizens.

Second guy is a Taxi driver, who might have been having a tantrum in his own flat, was seemingly alone, and was killed by Police who were supposedly concerned for his safety.

The second seems like a tragedy, the first justice. Yet where are the demonstrations about the latter?

Why does nobody care about the death of an employed guy, but are prepared to riot and kill over the death of a drug dealer?
 
Back
Top