Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

London riots / UK riots: verified areas

maps.google.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 144 posts

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#101

Post by [deleted] »

willyt wrote: post #98
Mz wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though I wouldn't call the 1970's "quite recently", similarly, the US had four deaths of protesters in 1970, known as The Kent State Shootings or Kent State Massacre: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

I suppose I meant 'quite recently' in that I would never have imagined that something like Bloody Sunday could happen in a modern 1st world democracy, until we studied it in Modern History at school. To put it in context, the next most recent military action against UK civilians was the Peterloo massacre in 1819. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre

[deleted]

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#102

Post by ratsbane »

ColinWright wrote: post #4
hugh3 wrote: post #3

If they'd taken my advice and killed off all the poor people, none of this would ever have happened. It's time to acknowledge that not all of mother nature's experiments in the combination of human DNA are worth keeping.

This kind of comment doesn't belong on HN and I think people should take the time not just to downvote it, but to flag it. Click on "link" and then on "flag"

I read the previous comment as a reference to Swift: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal and, as such, not intended to be offensive.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#103

Post by diogenescynic »

Mz wrote: post #86
diogenescynic wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that you're right in your example, however I think this was only accepted and allowed to occur because it was in largely black neighborhoods where they deployed the military. They were already an 'other' of sorts so the general population saw them as a foreign threat that they didn't identify with and thus used military force against a criminal threat. It's the same as Katrina/New Orleans. And to repeat my ot…

I suspect the real reason it was acceptable to call in the military is because fairly high numbers of people had already died (and thousands were injured and the property damage was very high). Killing a few more to actually stop it becomes more palatable in the face of something like that. Excerpt from the wikipedia article: Fifty-three people died during the riots[24] with as many as 2,000 people injured. Estimates…

I agree but if you watch the footage from back then it's a case study in media framing bias. A lot of the stories focused on blacks rioting/looting white small businesses. Similar to how Katrina was framed.

Now imagine any other ethnic riot in another city where this would be acceptable--it doesn't exist unless they are brown in a predominantly white city. The military would never be used against a majority of whites or even asians, but if you're brown or black it's accepted-- because they're constantly other-ed all the time and scapegoated.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#104

Post by jamesbritt »

hashbo wrote: post #90
jamesbritt wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't anybody there armed? Is it illegal to use a weapon to defend your home?

Hey James, no they aren’t thank God! Otherwise it would also mean the rioters would be armed. It’s bad enough they have makeshift weapons without giving them efficient ones. Once you have armed weapons you can’t make sure only the ‘good guys’ have them. I feel 30K of gun deaths a year illustrates that point fairly well :-( And the illegal to use a weapon to defend yourself is a legal situation in transition in the UK…

Otherwise it would also mean the rioters would be armed."

Aren't they? At least some of them? And those that aren't carrying guns, might it be that they're mostly opportunistic looters who generally wouldn't be carrying anyway?

"It’s bad enough they have makeshift weapons without giving them efficient ones. Once you have armed weapons you can’t make sure only the ‘good guys’ have them.

Well, but that's true of any weapon.

"I feel 30K of gun deaths a year illustrates that point fairly well :-("

Well, it shows that different cultures have different problems that are not easily equatable. Not to dismiss the obvious issues with gun violence in the USA, but are you sure that the right set of gun control laws allowing private ownership would lead to the same results in the UK as in the USA? Gun deaths per capita is not a universal ratio.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#105

Post by kgermino »

Mz wrote: post #91
hashbo wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends how old you are mate :-)

I'm 46. I was just shy of my fifth birthday when the Kent State Shootings occurred. Age surveys suggest that people on HN are predominantly in their 20's and 30's. Attitudes about time aren't necessarily age dependent. I find that people from older cultures tend to have a longer view of time than your typical American. I do happen to be American. "Mate" implies you are not. Peace.

I heard this somewhere (quite probably on HN actually)

"In America 100 years is a long time, in Europe 100 miles a long distance"

Your perceptions are shaped by your culture, and particularly in the US people rarely look at history before the revolutionary era (if they even know about that) so 100 years would be almost half of history. Whereas an older empire might trace some of it's roots as far back as the dark ages.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#106

Post by waitwhat »

parallel wrote: post #64
guelo wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had always been told that UK cops didn't carry guns, when/why did that change? Was it a reaction to 9/11 or 7/7?

The city of London has it's own police force called the Meltropolitan Police (the Met). This is a different organisation to the normal English police. I think the Met carry guns but the normal police don't. Rome has a similar thing with the Carabinieri, I understand these guys are part of the military.

The Met is just another regional police force, similar to (and on a level with) the Hampshire or Sussex police. It is only really special because of the size and importance of its area of operations.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#107

Post by waitwhat »

temphn wrote: post #61
SandB0x wrote: post #14

I'm in my flat in NW2 and I can hear police cars going down the Edgware Road. Fucking terrifying. The police can't keep up, according to the news they're showing up hours late to everything and they don't have any water cannons. Bad times. Edit: #riotcleanup tomorrow morning all over town: http://twitter.com/#!/search/riotcleanup

The fundamental problem is that the police are not free to use the force necessary to put down the riot. If rioters knew they would be shot on sight, they would stop rioting. As it is, police are afraid to crack down for fear that they'll be brought up on charges of "police brutality". Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms. EDIT: Amazed that someone downvoted this…

If rioters knew they would be shot on sight, they would stop rioting.

You do realise what "shot on sight" means, right? Dead. Forever. No takebacks.

If you really think that summary execution is a reasonable response to throwing a brick through a window, shouting at people in a scary way, or nicking a couple of packets of cigarettes then you are officially an Internet Crazy Person.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#108

Post by csomar »

temphn wrote: post #61
SandB0x wrote: post #14

I'm in my flat in NW2 and I can hear police cars going down the Edgware Road. Fucking terrifying. The police can't keep up, according to the news they're showing up hours late to everything and they don't have any water cannons. Bad times. Edit: #riotcleanup tomorrow morning all over town: http://twitter.com/#!/search/riotcleanup

The fundamental problem is that the police are not free to use the force necessary to put down the riot. If rioters knew they would be shot on sight, they would stop rioting. As it is, police are afraid to crack down for fear that they'll be brought up on charges of "police brutality". Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms. EDIT: Amazed that someone downvoted this…

>> The fundamental problem is that the police are not free to use the force necessary to put down the riot.

I think the riots were triggered by a man shot by police. So you want now to shot more people, and consequently trigger more riots. If there are people rioting then there is a reason. Go and talk to them. Understand what they want. If they are badly educated, that's probably your fault (your are the government).

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#109

Post by sigil »

bokonist wrote: post #79
techiferous wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the thrill of chaos and action, of the power of mindless destruction. I find that really hard to relate to, although I do see this in some people. I wonder if these people have ever had the thrill of creation--birthing something beautiful and unique into the world? That's quite a rush, too. Are riots ultimately a symptom of a failure to educate, to guide, to nurture?

I think the thrill of the riot is pretty widespread. I myself am a pretty staid, law abiding, non-violent fellow. But I definitely feel the urge - whether its wanting to destroy my tennis racket after losing a game or wanting to participate in post-victory riots that I've witnessed first hand. But the thing that holds me back are a) fear of getting in trouble and b) my conscience. My mom brought me up with a very str…

"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats." -- H.L. Mencken

We all have the urge. Unfortunately, in cases like this one, some also lack the restraint.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#110

Post by [deleted] »

csomar wrote: post #108
temphn wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental problem is that the police are not free to use the force necessary to put down the riot. If rioters knew they would be shot on sight, they would stop rioting. As it is, police are afraid to crack down for fear that they'll be brought up on charges of "police brutality". Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms. EDIT: Amazed that someone downvoted this…

>> The fundamental problem is that the police are not free to use the force necessary to put down the riot. I think the riots were triggered by a man shot by police. So you want now to shot more people, and consequently trigger more riots. If there are people rioting then there is a reason. Go and talk to them. Understand what they want. If they are badly educated, that's probably your fault (your are the government)…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN