Posted on August 9, 2011

London Riots: Why Did the Police Lose Control?

David Green, Telegraph (London), August 8, 2011

What caused these riots and why did the police lose control? Some commentators think the disorder was understandable and justified; some say the police “had it coming”; others that the violence was only to be expected given the unemployment and poverty in the area.

Some local people told journalists of their resentment towards the police. One student said: “The police never talk to us, they ignore us, they don’t think we’re human in this area.” A youth worker claimed: “The way the police treat black people is like we’re nothing.” And a retired accountant who has lived locally for 30 years reported that some of the police “behave in an arrogant manner that puts people’s backs up”.

Other residents who witnessed people carrying off carpets, trainers and watches noticed that they included individuals of all “colours and creeds”, suggesting an outburst of sheer lawlessness rather than righteous retaliation for past racial slights.

Did the police inflame the initially peaceful crowd protesting about the shooting last Thursday of Mark Duggan? It will be impossible to answer that question until the independent inquiry is complete. But what should we make of another theory, that the police handled the rioters with kid gloves because they were paralysed by fear of being called racist?

Anyone in touch with police leaders will know that most are fully signed-up supporters of the doctrine that the police should use force only as a last resort. As one of the famous “nine principles of policing”, published in 1829 at the very founding of the Metropolitan Police, puts it, the police should “use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient… and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion”.

This was the policy of the Met during the recent protests against student fees. It had worked well enough a few days earlier when the trade unions held a march against the cuts, but the student protests turned violent. Reluctance to use force is right and we should be reluctant to reproach the police for it. However, a second attitude was at work in Tottenham. Since the Macpherson report of 1999 the police have been hyper-sensitive about race. This attitude has now become so paradoxical that they find themselves standing aside when members of ethnic minorities are being harmed. The people who ran shops, or who lived in the flats above, were not given the protection they deserved.

The police have been made to feel that they are the “white police”, and that they lack legitimacy in “black areas”. This unfortunate attitude began with the report by Lord Scarman on the Brixton riots of 1981. He said: “There is widespread agreement that the composition of our police forces must reflect the make-up of the society they serve.” He found that ethnic minorities were significantly under-represented. Soon after the Macpherson report made a similar observation in 1999, the Government set a recruitment target for ethnic minorities of 8 per cent.

Scarman’s remark that the police should reflect the make-up of society is profoundly wrong. The police have never been representative of the social or ethnic breakdown of society. Police officers are people who have been chosen because they deserve to wear the uniform, not because of their ethnic status. They are individuals who deserve to be part of a profession that upholds the law without favour or affection, malice or ill-will. So long as that remains true, then every officer is entitled to respect, whether black or white, male or female. The legitimacy of the police has nothing to do with the racial composition of the force. It has to do with impartial enforcement of the law.

Instead of upholding strict impartiality, in 2002 police leaders published a “hate-crime manual” via the Association of Chief Police Officers. It was a defining moment that undermined the highest traditions of policing. The ideal of impartial justice was dismissed with particular scorn. “Colour blind” (in quotation marks to signify its implausibility) policing was defined as “policing that purports to treat everyone in the same way. Such an approach is flawed and unjust. It fails to take account of the fact that different people have different reactions and different needs. Failure to recognise and understand these means failure to deliver services appropriate to needs and an inability to protect people irrespective of their background.” Impartial justice was now “unjust” and it’s not surprising that many rank and file officers have had difficulty accepting the new approach. But their concerns have been given short shrift. They were to be “retrained” or disciplined. And yet it was not easy for officers to be sure how they could stay out of trouble. In another section of the manual they were told: “Anyone who is unable to behave in a non-discriminatory and unprejudiced manner must expect disciplinary action. There is no place in the police service for those who will not uphold and protect the human rights of others.”

In this kind of atmosphere, it’s not surprising that officers in charge of a riot think it safer to wait for orders from the top rather than use their discretion to protect the public without fear or favour.

Another element of police practice contributed to their failure. The police do not have deep roots in most localities and especially areas such as Tottenham. Few, if any, officers live locally. In earlier times, policing was seen as primary prevention, based on a visible uniformed presence. Gradually, under pressure to appear more “efficient”, policing became more a matter of reaction and detection. Officers waited for calls and responded as fast as possible, while teams of investigators tried to solve past crimes. Only in the past couple of years has it begun to be accepted that primary prevention has its merits, and the Government is supposed to be moving towards neighbourhood policing with named officers covering particular areas and charged with getting to know everyone. An officer who knows the law-abiding locals as well as the miscreants is in a much stronger position when things go wrong than the officer whose “response unit” has been called in to deal with some trouble every now and then.

Coalition cutbacks in the number of police officers have also been blamed for the riots. It goes too far to blame the Government, when the immediate perpetrators were unequivocally at fault, but cutting police numbers doesn’t help. The Coalition plans to cut spending on the police by 20 per cent. In the 12 months to the end of March 2011, the number of officers fell by 4,625 to 139,110. The number of community support officers also fell by 1,098 to 15,820. At the same time the number of police volunteers, or special constables, increased by 2,916.

So much for the underlying factors, but even after they have been taken into account, there has been an inexcusable failure of police leadership in the first few days of these riots. CCTV pictures of looting are now available and it seems likely that the police would have been watching from their control rooms. If they could see the window of a carpet shop or a jewellers being smashed and looters taking their pick of the goods, why didn’t they immediately dispatch a dozen officers to arrest every culprit? There are always people who are willing to become criminals for a day if they calculate that there is little chance of being caught. It seems likely that televising the fact that the police would just stand there while mass looting took place led to its spread to other localities the next night.

Being reluctant to use force can be admirable. But when events have got out of control, the fullest use of police powers is justified. The present generation of police leaders gained promotion by mastering the art of talking about “issues around” racism or bearing down on hate crime “going forward”. Learning the management buzz words of the last few years has not produced leaders able to command men in a riot. The injuries sustained by officers show that we have plenty of men and women prepared to be brave when needed, but they are lions led by donkeys who listened a bit too intently to the sociology lectures about “hate crime” at Bramshill police college.

49 responses to “London Riots: Why Did the Police Lose Control?”

  1. lanc says:

    Joke going the rounds in the UK. The Police have put some chemical in their water cannons to stop the colours from running.

  2. Shrewsbury says:

    Why doesn’t David Cameron just get down on his knees and apologize for being white? Wouldn’t that solve all the problems?

  3. Question Diversity says:

    I consider myself a fairly frequent reader of a number of British media outlets. The reason the police lost control is because they never had control to begin with. The only people British police are allowed to control are white people who express opinions on racial and cultural matters that are outside the Overton window.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Chanting, marching, and even menacing motions are one thing. Yet I saw one lad on the screen lean in to a car and set it alight with his matches. There is no reason he shouldn’t have been shot in the act. Arson with intent to destroy is a criminal act endangering numerous lives in a large city, and you forfeit any rights or privileges the moment you engage in it.

  5. Wayne Engle says:

    If there is any segment of a society we DO NOT want fretting lest it commit a so-called “hate crime,” it’s the police. The writer is absolutely correct: Such “sensitivity” training is entirely counter-productive to effective peace officer performance.

    No, obviously we don’t want police to be beating people’s heads in at every drop of a hat. But a police force that is not capable of using whatever force proves necessary to keep, or restore, the peace, is an ineffective, useless police force. Personally, I believe that after three nights of rioting, if it goes into a fourth, it’s time to start shooting arsonists and looters down and leaving them lie. Do that a few times and, as soon as word spreads, the riots will be over.

  6. BO_Bill says:

    Groups start wars when they think they can win. These events amount to a two-pronged asymmetrical warfare action against traditional Western society. The first prong is a countermeasure that targets anyone who dares to tell the uncomfortable truth about what is happening. This person is called a ‘racist’, and then is expected, through the force of law, to shut up.

    This countermeasure paves the way for prong number two which is burning, looting, raping, and forcing men to strip down and give their tennis shoes to their would be masters. So far, things are going pretty well for the aggressors. But then again there is that old Churchill line when the lady heckled him for being drunk:

    “And you, madam, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the morning.”

  7. Anonymous says:

    The end result figures to be more ‘sensitivity’ training. More white girls mothering bi-racial babies. More black mothers in public housing. More riots. More blaming white men, until finally no more whites. Free at last.

  8. Paul Jones says:

    When I saw the film of the police trying to deal with the rioters and couldn’t believe it. There were cases where a policeman would be hitting an attacker with a billy club, and then he would back off and the person would brazenly accost the policeman again. Why wasn’t the person immediately handcuffed when he was down and put into a waiting police van to be hauled off? It’s criminal how poor the police reactions were in London during these riots!

  9. Anonymous says:

    Enoch Powell 20/04/1968 “Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad.. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre.”

  10. statefair4h says:

    NO HATE CRIMES OCCURED at WI state fair.. article…well this rachets it up a notch!!

  11. O'malley says:

    Enoch Powell was right, but no one cares until it is too late.

  12. Anonymous says:

    This all started when a black guy was shot dead by the police. Locals protested and it turned into a riot, which has turned into a city wide looting and arson spree. The initial rioters were mainly black, but before long, it became a multicultural free for all.

    Last year, a White was cornered by armed police, and ended up dead. Many people were upset and angry about it, but it didn’t degenerate into looting and arson.

    Ask a black person how many people have been shot dead by police in England in the last year, and you will probably be treated to stories about black youths being gunned down daily on the streets of London. The truth is, eight people have been shot by police in England in the last year. Seven of them were White. One was black. Seven White guys shot dead by police, no descent into chaos. One black guy shot dead by police, at least four nights of looting and arson.

    Google the racial make up of the areas where the riots are. Compare and contrast to areas where there are no riots. Draw conclusions.

  13. Jeddermann. says:

    This is the same sort of thing we hear all the time. The POLICE are to blame for the lawlessness. Nonsense. These are just plain old ordinary bad persons behaving badly. Looking for an opportunity to behave bad and are doing so with relish. Unemployment, austerity measures, all that stuff has not one whit to do with what is going on. It is just a bunch of bad people behaving badly and always looking for an excuse to do so. NOT one reason justifies any of what is occurring and never will.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Racial insensitivity?

    Police where shot at by a crack-dealing Jamaica gang member and returned fire. This caused the riots in the black neighborhoods which then spread to other areas.

    More recently, YouTube has many videos showing Pakistanis and Indians looting stores.

  15. Anonymous says:

    English politicians are debating whether or not to use water cannons and rubber bullets on the rioters. Funny, they didn’t have this problem employing these metods in Northern Ireland. I wonder why?

  16. Deirdre says:

    “White police” lacking “legitimacy” in black areas? The cops would be pretty legitimate if they pulled out their billyclubs and started knocking in some thick, bony skulls. But the police everywhere have become as handicapped as the rest of our society. This just shows how ridiculous the racial appeasement and pandering have become. If the police are afraid to act because they are almost sure that enforcing the law will be met with charges of racism, the society simply cannot and will notfunction. And these riots really represent a turning point. I believe it will only get worse, and attacks on whites will become even more commonplace.

    These black people are cursed with a chip on their shoulder. Or should I say a giant rock? Apparently they suffer from “resentment” against the police, something that seems to go hand-in-hand with being a victim and being owed something. One “youth” says “The police never talk to us, they ignore us, they don’t think we’re human in this area.” Perhaps they don’t act human. Does he expect the police to stop during patrol for a chat to show they are “down” with the locals? Heaven forbid – familiarity breeds contempt and the police are not there to make friends but to enforce the law. That’s something these simpletons cannot grasp. We have these mental problems in these multiculturalist societies because the folks have absolutely no intention of obeying the law like everyone else. They’re special and they want special treatment. They go on and on about wanting “respect”, and shoot people who “disrespect” them. And on and on with their baloney. It’s good that this author has written this small, careful article that attempts to plant a little seed of truth or at least raise some questions. The kid-gloves approach does not work and only emboldens them further. The only way to have an orderly society again is to segregate. I feel sorry for our race as we are really in trouble. Most of my peers and fellow whites are so in thrall to political correctness, so I don’t see much hope for us. I worry for my children.

  17. ATBOTL says:

    The real problem is the presence of non-whites in white societies.

  18. rockman says:

    While in college taking Police Science courses I had a political awakening watching a movie where the hero shot the perp who came our with a shotgun. My first reaction was that the hero would lose his job as he did not give him a chance to surrender. Then I realized I would have hesitated to shot and would have been killed being PC. I did not go into law enforcement. the London cops have been emasculated and are afraid of colored folk.

  19. Anon says:

    The sociopaths in the crowd can read law enforcement’s timidity and reluctance very clearly. They’ll just keep looting and burning until they’re forced to quit. If the cops must consider the ‘feelings’ of sociopaths instead of the law–thou shalt not loot or commit arson, and all that–or the welfare of decent people, that’s when political correctness destroys the laws and the bonds of society.

    There needs to be absolute clearness in the law–if you riot, the law has to clearly state that the police are automatically given permission to shoot to kill. If the English police would capture, line up, and shoot all the rioters they could get their hands on, they’d take a lot of parasites off their welfare rolls. They’d also save having to pay for their upkeep in prison.

    Confiscate assets of the rioters to pay for damages, and if they are minors, make their parents pay for the damages as well. That will teach some parental discipline where it’s obviously lacking.

  20. Ted Wansley says:

    They lost control for the same reason White Americans lost their Constiutional rights, regarding race — White guilt ridden cowardice.

    The 14th Amendment “guarantees” equal treatment under the law, making Affirmitive Action laws illegal.

    The 9th Amendment — one of the ‘Inalienable Rights’ — protects our right to segregate by race.

    I don’t recall the 9th Amendment being cited by segregationalists during the ‘Civil Rights’ era. Does anyone?

  21. neanderthalDNA says:

    Nice Story here. Brits wake up to nightmare their leftist utopian tormenters have wrought. Good to see the British lion still has some roar.

    Keep rioting, UK blacks. Your come-uppance is upon you. Need something like this on this side of the pond. Here’s hoping our black flash mobs get “flashier”.

    Anybody White but Obama ’12

  22. cpascal says:

    It seems as though white people are slowly, but finally, waking up. Only a few years ago, a mainstream paper wouldn’t have prined an article stating that the constant preaching about racism and hate crimes could be preventing the police from doing their jobs effectively. And it seems to be happening more since Obama was elected. That may have been the event to finally convince people that they’re not racist, and that it’s not hateful to honestly discuss the problems that the multicultural mythology has caused.

  23. olewhitelady says:

    There is only one reason for the recent British riots and lootings, and that is the fact that low-IQ blacks always behave in this manner if white control is absent. It happens in Africa, Europe, and America. Blacks, with their higher testosterone, are more volatile than whites and Asians and, in the absence of moderate intelligence, will become violent at the slightest provocation. It happens on an individual basis every day in black areas throughout the world.

    Throughout history, it has been observed that blacks are controlled by only one method: force or the imminent threat of it. This is true in African tribes and in Western cities. Nothing else works.

  24. Pat says:

    From what I am picking up here the rioting appears to be nothing more than an opportunity for out and out thieving. The Police are hamstrung by political correctness from dealing effectively with a rampaging mob and the mob know it.

    There is a campaign on Facebook, started this week – ‘Support The Met Police’. When I last looked it had 898,097 signatories. Most of these would be young people.

  25. Bill Harzia says:

    This sounds exactly like what happened on Los Angeles in 1992. In his book L.A. Secret Police, Mike Rothman describes the exact same mismanagement of resources and unwillingness of police management to make decisions lest their chances for promotion be derailed.

    The reactions of the line officers in London are not given a voice here. I bet that if they were interviewed anonymously, without the threat of being fired as retribution for their honesty, those officers could say exactly who did not do their jobs. Who is motivated by a sense of duty and honor, and who is merely trying to get promoted and should have been fired for incompetence years ago.

  26. Russ in the South says:

    England imported blacks so that London and other cities could be turned into burned-out Detroits.

    British historian Arnold Toynbee observed, “Civilizations are not murdered–they commit suicide!”

    The British will have to renounce multi-culturalism and throw the non-British non-white population out of their country. Until then, they deserve to have their a—s kicked.

  27. Whiteman says:

    So, the black community is learning it is the police (and perhaps what they represent) who are the problem. Wonder how that’s going to work out for them? Things must be dire indeed.

  28. Urban Teacher says:

    In riots, people do things with the belief (often correct) that they will not be held responsible for their actions. Thus, riots reveal the true nature of people.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Here’s some inside info from an anti-PC blogger in England:

    “While some opportunist whites and Asians have joined the looting and general mayhem, these riots have been driven by black youth. Bradford, Oldham, Blackburn, Burnley, Tower Hamlets are the dogs that haven’t barked, if I can use what’s probably an inappropriate phrase. Instead Muslims of varying ethnicity have defended ‘their’ turf in Bethnal Green, Finsbury Park and Stoke Newington. Sikhs in Southall did likewise – I’m pretty sure a white crowd with those weapons would find the police after them, riot or no. Even whites in Enfield and Eltham have done the same (and the pro-riot left blogs as one cry “EDL!”).

  30. Anonymous says:

    MSM journalist admits the riots were about race:

    “At school I remember watching a presentation given to the kids by Trident, the Metropolitan Police Service unit set up to investigate and inform communities of gun crime in London’s black community. I didn’t know what Trident was then, and it struck me that all of the photos of people shot (the idea was to scare the kids) were black. So at the end, I approached one of the policemen and asked him what percentage of those involved in gun crime were black. I kid you not, but my question made this thirty-something white man who was, after all, trained to deal with the black community and its issues, turn pink.

    He explained that about 80 per cent of gun crime took place in the black community. I smiled uncomfortably. But no, he said, it was worse than that. Then he told me that 80 per cent was black on black gun crime, and that of the remaining 20 per cent about 75 per cent involved at least one black person: black shooting white, or white shooting black. I pushed to know more. While he kept saying his stats were crude and he didn’t have scientific numbers, on the whole the whites who were involved in these shootings tended to be from Eastern Europe.

    Was any of this ever mentioned in their presentation? Of course not. Just like the news about the Tottenham riots doesn’t mention race either.”

  31. Anonymous says:

    Perhaps it is foreign agents of Libya or Syria that saw this riot as a means of attack and made it worse. France could also be attacked in the same way so watch out.

  32. Bull Market says:

    “The real problem is the presence of non-whites in white societies.”….ATBOTL

    True enough. But the real, REAL problem — the underlying problem — is the encouragement and sponsorship of non-whites in white societies… by other non-Europeans (white or not) in high positions of power who are eager to bring them in, to dilute the host country’s population.

    Those rioting non-whites would not be there without the sponsorship and protection of other non-Europeans who hate/mistrust the host population and culture and seek to replace it.

  33. The Rat Race says:


    The real problem is the presence of non-whites in white societies./i>

    The real problem is those who allowed non-whites to join white societies.

    PS: They knew EXACTLY what they were doing as they allowed in non-whites to not only race-replace whites but to attack us as well. IOW, to destroy white homelands and the white people that live there.

    This was PLANNED.

  34. Japheth says:

    This morning on Fox News I listened to a British academic try to “explain” (read: excuse) the four days and counting of Black caused mayhem, looting and violence. They were the usual ones we hear in North America: breakup of the Black family, poor educational system- and of course “systemic racism” in the greater society…bla bla… It seems rather odd that these “causes” are remarkable similar to the ones ALWAYS cited by out own deluded and mad intelligentsia, yet the U.K didn’t have large numbers of Blacks (or other races) until quite recently, and didn’t have any of our own so-called history of (yawn)Slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, ext. that Whites had to develop to control the natural inclinations of a large population of African descended people.

    Hmm…of course anyone who is in touch with the reality of the causes of Black mayhem violence knows why this happens. Nature can’t and won’t conform to the sick standards and lies of our liberal paradigm.

  35. Angry Bird says:

    O’malley @5:

    Enoch Powell was right, but no one cares until it is too late.

    Yes, it’s Enoch Powell’s ITYS (I told you so) moment!

    The media vilified Enoch Powell. I wonder how many in the masses knew he was spot on only to watch helplessly as everything he stated in his “Rivers of Blood” speech has come to pass?

    In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.

    Enoch Powell, Rivers of Blood Speech.

  36. Duran Dahl says:

    Never in history has a country deserved to die more than England! Never in history has an entire country, regardless of class and with the complicity of virtually all of its institutions, stood as one to heap fuel onto its own funeral pyre! Never in history have so few voices been raised in protest, only to be drowned out by the suicide-bound! That being said, there is one overarching difference between them and us…guns! We have ’em, they do not. Our English cousins allowed themselves to be disarmed without a fight and now they are helpless before tyrants and the onslaught that has been unleashed upon them. Draw what lessons you may from the bitter fate of England!

  37. Californian says:

    Perhaps it is foreign agents of Libya or Syria that saw this riot as a means of attack and made it worse. France could also be attacked in the same way so watch out.

    Interesting, and perhaps something which ought to be investigated. It is not unheard of for foreign powers to exploit insurrectionary violence as a means of intervention. And given the NATO war with Libya, not entirely out of the question.

  38. Shawn (the female) says:

    A police force that isn’t armed with guns is a pure waste of money, and an affront to the safety of its citizens.

  39. Anonymous says:

    2 — Shrewsbury wrote at 6:29 PM on August 9:

    Why doesn’t David Cameron just get down on his knees and apologize for being white? Wouldn’t that solve all the problems?


    And apologize for all his family history.

  40. Michael C. Scott says:

    I don’t know that this level of destruction was planned at all, Rat Race. The situation is very similar to that of an “animal hoarder” – typically a crazy woman who takes in stray cats. Eventually she has about 200 cats in her home, mostly diseased, her house is an unhealthy, unliveable shambles with carpets and flooring destroyed by cat waste, and she’s eventually taken off to the loony bin and the cats euthanized by the Humane Society.

    These crazy women don’t actually set out to wreck their own homes this way, but they are unable to see the likeliest course of events.

    Instead of hoarding cats, our liberal elites are hoarding two-legged pets of an even more destructive variety.

  41. (AWG) Average White Guy says: wonders if black flash mobs are racially motivated. Seriously.

  42. hugo says:

    Nobody “lost” control. The rioters were in complete control of their actions. The police were in control of their superiors who told them not to use force. All it would have taken was a half a dozen urban police snipers to stop the little punks in their tracks.

  43. Orion Blue says:

    Instead of hoarding cats, our liberal elites are hoarding two-legged pets of an even more destructive variety

    This is entirely true. What is interesting however, is the way that underclass whites are manipulated into emulating the bully boys who are held up as role models.

    The chattering liberal classes, degenerates that they are, also have their role models; most usually the “two-legged pets” that they artfully shimmy up the social ladder through “affirmative” (read: anti-White) action that seems designed to marginalise and undermine their natural competitors.

    It is right and proper that the only intelligent right-wing journal (the English Daily Telegraph), should raise issues around the orthodoxy of racial accommodation, but unfortunately, they are really only dipping their toes in the waves lapping on the shore.

    The reprehensible BBC, however, continue to host the Diane Abbots, and even the author of the above article on Newsnight (I kid you not), all vying to make the correct racial orthodoxy noises. There is also one ‘Madix’, a former gang member (one of the white female liberal’s “two legged pets”), who is given a platform to convey his contrived, though still semi-articulate ruminations onthe subject.

    Nobody following the mainstream media can have any real insight as to what is going on. Having said that though, I hear from enough White people who object to the BBC’s portrayal of the looters as “protesters”.

    I wonder what it is about these white female liberals that draws them to these two-legged pets?

    Nobody ever told me in so many words that I do not have the Whip, though I suspect this is something that was uppermost in what passes for their “minds”.

  44. Anonymous says:

    You can tell exactly what the idiots mean when they say they police are rude to them. All they want is to be “respected,” to be talked to quietly and calmly, and never to be asked to do anything. If they do and are told no, they are to apologized to for asking. The same type of “being friendly” is expected from teachers, store clerks, and every one else who has any engagement with blacks.

    Oh, yes, Whites are also to show they’re impressed when a black does something stupid like break into a rap or come pimp-walking out with a tee-shirt hanging down below his knees or shows you a picture of “Li’l (whatever his name is),” his son that he takes diapers to once in awhile when he remembers.

    All you teachers out there know about nervous administrators coming to you and asking you to be “nicer” because you sharply told someone not to get up and amble out the door at will. All it really means is, you show displeasure (!) when a black student is rude, instead of shrugging it off and saying, “That’s just how the black kids are” and giving them a big smile when they come back in.

    Here’s an excellent blog by a non PC cop in England.

  45. Frederic says:

    I keep reading that it’s because they don’t have jobs — which they’re obviously anxious to hold. Or someone looked at them the wrong way. Or their social services have been reduced. Or their Blackberries made them do it. Or they disapprove of a referee’s call in a Manchester United game.

    A few well-placed rifle rounds, and the rioting would end in an instant. A more sustained attack on the rampaging mob might save England from itself, finally removing shaved-head, drunken parasites from the benefits rolls that Britain can’t find the will to abolish on moral or utilitarian grounds. We can be sure there’s no danger of killing off the next Winston Churchill or Edmund Burke in these crowds.

    Read more:

  46. Anonymous says:

    28 — Urban Teacher wrote at 9:58 AM on August 10:

    “In riots, people do things with the belief (often correct) that they will not be held responsible for their actions. Thus, riots reveal the true nature of people.”

    No, the nature of SOME people. Not all of London was rioting and looting.

    Anyone here ever heard English singer songwriter Richard Thompson’s song, “House of Cards?”

    “They’re washing the streets, with the blood of your kind’… Go blow down this house of cards…”

  47. The Rat Race says:

    Michael C. Scott:

    I don’t know that this level of destruction was planned at all, Rat Race. The situation is very similar to that of an “animal hoarder” – typically a crazy woman who takes in stray cats.

    Very Good Analogy.

    I still firmly believe NO black or Asian, not one, should be allowed to set foot in England, let alone settle there or any other white homeland. There was NO reason to permit them to colonise England except to destroy the English people and the culture they had built up over 1,000 years.

    I will never believe that overlords such as Jack Straw thought for one second that blacks and pakistanis from the most backwards places on earth would ever become civilised and honor Anglo-Saxon laws and traditions.

    The only motive left was to destroy the English people (maybe so they would never ‘rise’ again). The plan is playing out beautifully, that’s why I believe destruction of the English and their society was the ulterior motive.

  48. Rara Avis says:

    Did anyone predict that there would be riots if the police officers were acquitted?

    Yes; Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates. Just before the verdict, he set aside $1 million in extra overtime pay in case of an acquittal. The public reaction? He was a racist to think that blacks might riot.

  49. Money Money says:

    So now with the introduction of Clive Goodman’s revealing letter the phone hacking enquiry begins to take on all the hallmarks of a major scandal, one maybe big enough to bring down not just News International (as it certainly should) but the Coalition government also (as cross-fingers it might). It appears when Cameron said “We’re all in this together”, he really wasn’t kidding, was he? They’re ALL of them crooked!