Aaah, those poor souls who are so deprived that they have to riot and loot !

That was the general mantra, but the truth is coming out now.
75% already had criminal records - they were nothing more than the usual thieving scum.

No wonder the Courts were imposing harsh sentences - they KNEW the truth about their backgrounds.

"75% already had criminal records"

it really is a disgrace. Fancy allowing people like that to join the Bullingham Club.

In The Know wrote:
Aaah, those poor souls who are so deprived that they have to riot and loot !

That was the general mantra, but the truth is coming out now.
75% already had criminal records - they were nothing more than the usual thieving scum.

No wonder the Courts were imposing harsh sentences - they KNEW the truth about their backgrounds.

I'm actually surprised the figure of 75% was so low!

It does go to indicate the theory that the police/cps spend far too much resources on 'easy' cases like false allegations,but failed miserably when dealing with the kind of common thug that should have been dealt with before hand.

In The Know wrote:

75% already had criminal records - they were nothing more than the usual thieving scum.

No wonder the Courts were imposing harsh sentences - they KNEW the truth about their backgrounds.

So simply having a criminal record makes one "thieving scum"? Geoffrey Archer {once a leading Tory} has a criminal record. Thieving scum? Jonathan Aitken {once a leading Tory} has a criminal record.Thieving scum?, Nick Clegg, it turns out, has at least, a hint of a criminal record, which I guess makes him a bit thieving scum but not as much as Archer or Aitken, neither of whom, as far as I know, have ever been accused of pinching anything. Oscar Wilde had a criminal record. Thieving scum? Even Cheryl Cole has a criminal record. Thieving scum?

JK has a criminal record and I have a criminal record too. Are we thieving scum? Those I have named are but a speck of freezing dust on the tip of an awfully big iceberg, the whole of which you appear in your usual "broadest-brush-available" way to assert consists of 100 percent thieving scum. If you have no appreciation - or awareness - of the many crimes which earn their perpetrator a record that fall beyond the remit of depriving someone unlawfully of their possessions then perhaps you are less qualified as a social commentator than you believe yourself to be.

Not like a criminal record is a rare thing to have in the UK. But anyway, this wouldn't disprove that they were "deprived souls." Not exactly sure what that even means. I guess it means people who are deprived of material goods comparable to those around them? Generally that would fit the description of a common thieve. They steal for a reason, you know?

And I would be careful about demonizing those with criminal records since our very own Johnathan King has one.

Locked Out wrote:
In The Know wrote:

75% already had criminal records - they were nothing more than the usual thieving scum.

No wonder the Courts were imposing harsh sentences - they KNEW the truth about their backgrounds.

So simply having a criminal record makes one "thieving scum"? Geoffrey Archer {once a leading Tory} has a criminal record. Thieving scum? Jonathan Aitken {once a leading Tory} has a criminal record.Thieving scum?, Nick Clegg, it turns out, has at least, a hint of a criminal record, which I guess makes him a bit thieving scum but not as much as Archer or Aitken, neither of whom, as far as I know, have ever been accused of pinching anything. Oscar Wilde had a criminal record. Thieving scum? Even Cheryl Cole has a criminal record. Thieving scum?

JK has a criminal record and I have a criminal record too. Are we thieving scum? Those I have named are but a speck of freezing dust on the tip of an awfully big iceberg, the whole of which you appear in your usual "broadest-brush-available" way to assert consists of 100 percent thieving scum. If you have no appreciation - or awareness - of the many crimes which earn their perpetrator a record that fall beyond the remit of depriving someone unlawfully of their possessions then perhaps you are less qualified as a social commentator than you believe yourself to be.

I think it's reasonable to assume that the previous convictions of those looters were largely related to thieving, and that would also be a justification for imposing the high sentances that they recieved.

Locked Out wrote:
And while we're about it...
You wish to place an embargo on mention of the late antisocial behaviour of some because of who they are while placing the past misdemeanors of others at the very forefront of your arguments.

Possibly because those that were once thieving are STILL thieving (as the riots show)

Willing wrote:
I think it's reasonable to assume that the previous convictions of those looters were largely related to thieving, and that would also be a justification for imposing the high sentances that they recieved.

Quite correct, Willing

Locked Out wrote:
JK has a criminal record and I have a criminal record too. Are we thieving scum?

JK's record wasn't for thieving ... what was yours for ?

Willing wrote:

I think it's reasonable to assume that the previous convictions of those looters were largely related to thieving, and that would also be a justification for imposing the high sentances that they recieved.

That would be the same "assumption" which wise men view as "the mother of all fuckups"?

If you are simply going to "assume" things, then surely it would be more "reasonable" to "assume" that the prior convictions were for riotous assembly.

In The Know wrote:
Locked Out wrote:
JK has a criminal record and I have a criminal record too. Are we thieving scum?

JK's record wasn't for thieving ... what was yours for ?

Mine wasn't for "thieving" either. More than that, given that you have chosen to ignore my previous and usual transparency on this issue, I'm not prepared to tell you.

Since the dawn of time people have used violence to take things from others.
My only query here is that we don't use this as an excuse for the police to get false convictions.The courts are under pressure,and must surely be short of time.Mistakes are easily made,people easily 'stitched up'.

For once I'm siding with ITK here! But only in the fact that this was far more about taking the easy option to destroy and steal,than a cry for help from the underclass.

Rioting - easily understood I think; there will always be some (crooks, anarchists - though I rather like anarchists, thugs) and the vast majority just think "oh this is fun mindless violence - I'll have some of that please" (don't we all?).

However, in the past that's just stopped at the odd group, gang or club.

Now, with this marvellous communications tool "the internet", dozens can become hundreds or thousands... thus Arab Spring or Tottenham or whatever else.

It is the new world we've built which will end, mark my words, with the end of the species. Spontaneous combustion.

Innocent Accused wrote:
Since the dawn of time people have used violence to take things from others.
My only query here is that we don't use this as an excuse for the police to get false convictions.The courts are under pressure,and must surely be short of time.Mistakes are easily made,people easily 'stitched up'.

For once I'm siding with ITK here! But only in the fact that this was far more about taking the easy option to destroy and steal,than a cry for help from the underclass.

I did warn - when first posting about the riots - that the police would use the opportunity to -

a/ demand more powers, and

b/ insist that cuts to the force staff levels are not needed.

Locked Out wrote:
I also, however, condemn simplistic and gloating statements which do little to explore the causes {there must have been some} and betray a mind that does even less to understand what is happening.

making "excuses" again ?

there are NO excuses for theft, violence and anarchy.

there is nothing to "understand" - they are simply thieves who take what they can (if they can).
We - as a society - must make sure they can't.

Agreed on both points ITK