Symbol Owner Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 30 years on and the reaction to riots is still: heavier police weaponry,criminalising rioters without recognising the high unemployment/recession breeds discontent and no new funding to try to address the situation. See here:- http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/30/thatcher-government-liverpool-riots-1981 The release of cabinet papers does at least reveal Heseltine as that rare beast -- a compassionate and thoughtful Tory.(!) What do the rest of you think? If you don't like the Guardian try the Telegraph website -- it says much the same thing -- as does the BBC website -- Thatcher and her minions just didn't 'get it' -- just as Cameron and his ministers (particularly Theresa May) are similarly clueless and unlikely to take the 'long view' Cheers, Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Boll.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted December 30, 2011 Author Share Posted December 30, 2011 So, Mr. Northern caveman, you think that it was right that Mrs. T should consider 'writing off' Liverpool (and other Northern cities like Manchester, I might add) and pouring money into more Southerly regions, just because her destructive policies impacted upon the working classes so much that, when over-zealous policing was used on peaceful demonstrators a 'riot' resulted? And you also seem to believe that it is 'bo**ocks' to say that much could be learned today from this fiasco? What an old dinosaur you are :D Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Do you truly believe that the recent riots were anything other than out and out thuggery and opportunist robbing of innocent shop keepers ? As for the early 80's that was my era . I knew people who attended riots in Leeds and Huddersfield and believe me there attendance was nothing to do with Thatcher , unemployment or anything else you may wish to throw at me . It was for a laugh , to have a go at the cops . To get away with things you'd normally get banged up for . The only thing to learn from this years rioting is , Stronger policing , guns if required to deal with the scum and then maybe innocent folk wont get killed or there lives destroyed . As for Northern Caveman , boll.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted December 30, 2011 Author Share Posted December 30, 2011 Yes Anthony, I do truly believe that deprived areas with large numbers of people (not neccessarily 'youth')affected by police over-use of the 'sus' laws and one incendiary incident (as this year in London)was the 'trigger'for the riots -- if the police had just reacted more quickly and with more insight to the family of the man (likely to have been committing a criminal act, I admit) that they shot, then it just might not have escalated as it did. More force, IMO, is only likely to cause more trouble. Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Colin , I'm sorry but my original comment springs to mind . Obviously your wet behind the ears . Dry up . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted December 30, 2011 Author Share Posted December 30, 2011 What a shame -- I had hoped for some sensible and interesting comments :'( C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Braykewynde Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 To stop the riots and to appease the likes of Symbol why don't the stores, just one afternoon per week, open their doors and let all the scrotes have a free for all. It would have to be an afternoon because they don't rise until midday. Such a simple solution and the end of all that burning and looting risking peoples lives. No injuries from shards of glass when smashing in windows hence a reduction in costs to the NHS. No injuries to the police. Nice one Symbol, why not have a word with your mate Clegglet (lol) BTW, the same comment as Antony, bo******s :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted December 30, 2011 Author Share Posted December 30, 2011 Where is F.G. when I need him? :-) I might have known that he egregious Lord Fart would oblige with his usual meretricious codswallop (!) C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Symbol Owner - 2011-12-30 6:30 PM Yes Anthony, I do truly believe that deprived areas with large numbers of people (not neccessarily 'youth')affected by police over-use of the 'sus' laws and one incendiary incident (as this year in London)was the 'trigger'for the riots -- if the police had just reacted more quickly and with more insight to the family of the man (likely to have been committing a criminal act, I admit) that they shot, then it just might not have escalated as it did. More force, IMO, is only likely to cause more trouble. Colin. Colin, You probably dont know but the man shot dead in London was a relative of Dominic Noonan a high ranking gangster in Manchester, in this age of facebook and the mobile phone, news was soon spread to Manchester and Noonan was the main instigator of the riots in Manchester, lots of the youths involved in the Manchester riots were not gang members but silly young guys who went downtown on the rampage for a giggle and on the offchance of picking up a bit of swag into the bargain, unfortunately for them they got hammered by the courts, some of them jailed for up to 3 years and the long arm of the law is still picking them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 To all those people who say "more force is wrong when dealing with a riot" I would ask a simple question - what would you do? - allow the rioters to have a free reign? If you take the law into your own hands - do not be surprised if the law then has something to say about it. Let more innocent people lose their homes, lose their livelihood, - and as that dramatic picture of a woman jumping from an upstairs window into the arms of rescuers shows - having their lives put at risk? Yes - look at the background to the "riots" and as these latest ones show - the reason seems to be gun and knife crime so rife that when the police tackle a thug with a gun and history of violence the subcultures see this as a reason to spit their dummies out. As for Thatcher pumping more money into where the Tories get votes - this was a tactic initialised by Wilson and Callaghan before Thatcher and exemplified by New Labour pumping money and Public Sector jobs into their "voting homelands" . Politicians like to bend the rules to make sure they win - so what is new and does it make a difference as to what colour they are?? - No - they are all the same. The only thing that differs is the supporters of one faction crowing about how bad the other side is without admitting (of course !) that their side is as bad as the other. And please do not think I am a Maggie supporter - I am most certainly not. She was arrogant and far to full of her own sense of self worth to be a good leader. The fact that she was warned about the Falklands debacle well before it actually kicked off and did nothing about it tells us that she certainly was not one for having a finger on the pulse. Sadly this governments Defence review is again another bit of history repeating itself. But is that as bad as New Labour cocking up so many Defence Procurement debacles that lives were lost? Snatch Land Rovers designed for the streets of Belfast used in Libya and Afghanistan? Then acting as a poodle that that idiot "W" Bush? Those that point the finger re documents 30 years old should probably be a little fearful of what is released in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antony1969 Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Symbol Owner - 2011-12-30 7:46 PM What a shame -- I had hoped for some sensible and interesting comments :'( C. This from someone who called me a Northern Caveman ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Braykewynde Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Symbol Owner - 2011-12-30 6:30 PM More force, IMO, is only likely to cause more trouble. Colin. More force??????? If more force is the police standing back and letting it happen I can't begin to imagine how you would have dealt with the situation by using LESS force. Oh wait, yes I do. I've already posted how above (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I dont know much about Liverpool apart from the maritime museum and the fact that every major building site I ever worked on was was disrupted by militant Scousers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted December 30, 2011 Author Share Posted December 30, 2011 That's better Clive (and Macolm) I might not totally agree with you, but at least the replies are worth answering! I hoped that people had at least read the news articles -- the Guardian one just happens to be fuller than any of the others -- because the point that I am trying to make -- not a particularly partisan one -- is that it seems to me that Governments, and politicians in general, operate in such a short-term environment that they lose sight of the lessons of history. Mrs. T. was told, when she visited Toxteth, that Kenneth Oxford's policing was at the bottom of the riots -- she got the facts 'straight from the 'horses mouths', and was horrified by it -- but issued the police with baton rounds and water cannon! The late (great) Derek Warlock ( and his opposite number, David Sheppard) made it quite clear to her that the police had attacked the very community leaders who had tried to bring the violence to an and -- which was almost exactly repeated at Brixton, for the same general reasons. It is a pity,Clive, that you find difficulty sticking to the subject, other politicians made other cock-ups, but that does not really have anything to do with the striking comparison, as I see it, between the events of 1981, as highlighted by the release of the Cabinet papers and the events of earlier this year -- hence my title for this thread. Cheers, Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Braykewynde Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Symbol Owner - 2011-12-30 7:56 PM Where is F.G. when I need him? :-) He's probably got his scrawny neck in NotePad at the moment running a spell check (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted December 30, 2011 Author Share Posted December 30, 2011 Lord F, I think that it is more likely that he is having a 'spat' with Clive on another thread :D Our loss! C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 Symbol Owner - 2011-12-30 8:40 PM It is a pity,Clive, that you find difficulty sticking to the subject, other politicians made other cock-ups, but that does not really have anything to do with the striking comparison, as I see it, between the events of 1981, as highlighted by the release of the Cabinet papers and the events of earlier this year -- hence my title for this thread. Cheers, Colin. Colin - I would suggest that the only reason why you do not like thye subject broadened into other examples of politicians cock-ups is because you wish to focus on a very narrow, and dare i say somewhat irrelevent point of reference because in isolation, the fact that one set of politicans repeated the mistakes of those some 30 years ago does mean you have a minor point, but when a more reasonable overview of politicians actions are looked at from a holistic viewpoint - the point you make hardly seems relevent. You have to look at context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted December 30, 2011 Author Share Posted December 30, 2011 Sorry, Clive, the 'context', is exactly what it is all about -- and a 'holistic' view is what enables me to highlight the stupid short-sightedness of both the 1981 government and today's. Neither appears/appeared to be able to look beyond their noses and see the social consequences of 'pouring more petrol on the flames'. Other governments have not been faced with such a serious challenge to their authority in modern times, so there is no real history there to take heed of. The problems with what Mrs. T. called "The inner cities" are endemic, and not easily solved. the newspaper that I quoted from was born in the wake of the 'Peterloo Massacre' -- which goes to show how much all governments have learned about the misuse of state force in the intervening years! It was a policeman, with intimate knowledge of the 'upping' of the stakes, ( in Nothern Ireland) Sir Hugh Orde, who very wisely pointed out the fallacy of using baton rounds, water cannon, C.S. gas and tasers against a mobile group of protesters/rioters -- but is he being listened to? I very much doubt it. Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 I ain't very bright coz my bright teachers told me so :D But if I know anyfink then letting people get away with murder they will......15 years is a p*sstake *-) Build More Prisons and lock them up for longer..........it will save us a fortune in lawyer fee's :D Signed still p*ssed in Biarritz with a Kindle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Braykewynde Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 pelmetman - 2011-12-30 10:03 PM .........it will save us a fortune in lawyer fee's :D Signed still p*ssed in Biarritz with a Kindle The lawyers will only milk the system somewhere else although human rights lawyers have their corrupt grubby fingers in many pies ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted December 30, 2011 Author Share Posted December 30, 2011 Trust you two to go off topic (I can fogive Dave because he owns up to being pi$$ed :-D) But you, Lord Fart, ought to know, that except for the very famous ones, human rights lawyers usually make bu55er all, often taking on cases on a Pro Bono basis because they believe in the cause being espoused -- and the client is probably completely without resources. F.G. may'pipe up' to tell me I'm mistaken, but I think that that is usually right. Back to the case in hand folks! Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syd Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Sorry for taking this thread off topic yet again but I have to say that the biggest laugh I had was a couple of years or so back when Liverpool was selected as the "CITY OF CULTURE" (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 Symbol Owner - 2011-12-30 10:44 PM Trust you two to go off topic (I can fogive Dave because he owns up to being pi$$ed :-D) But you, Lord Fart, ought to know, that except for the very famous ones, human rights lawyers usually make bu55er all, often taking on cases on a Pro Bono basis because they believe in the cause being espoused -- and the client is probably completely without resources. F.G. may'pipe up' to tell me I'm mistaken, but I think that that is usually right. Back to the case in hand folks! Colin. To the question, then, and the answer is clearly no. Two reasons, IMO. First, politicians live in the present, the here and now. They more or less have to, because we, the electorate, expect them to be on top of the here and now. Fickle beasts that we are, we think politicians who take the long view, or who take a more thoughtful approach to policy, have lost the plot, are hand-wringing wets etc etc. The public, that great rabid mass of unthinking, uncaring, self-interested ingrates, like politicians who lay about them a bit, make a lot of noise about issues of the day, rush a new law through parliament every time someone breaks wind in the street (Nobility included!), turn up on telly saying it has all been settled and rush off to the next crisis. Move on, don't analyse, move on! Yesterday has no lesson for today, today no lesson for tomorrow: just look busy and keep you finger on the pulse of public opinion. Next issue, next issue! At least that is how it seems to me, and it pretty well explains why we are where we are. It impresses the easily impressed, and most of the electorate are the easily impressed, so the politicians who follow that path get re-elected which, or course, is what such shallow politicians think politicians are for. Second, any of these problems are going to be costly to resolve. Oh! Yes, that means higher taxes to pay for the solution. Build more prisons chimes Dave. Er, Dave doesn't like paying tax. Contradiction? No, of course not, the nice politician will tell us how that can build more prisons, to hold more prisoners, for less than we pay now. Some will believe this convenient tale, others will think it too good to be true. Still, probably true on PFI, but wait till you see the final bill! No problem, that's 30 years into the future, why bother with that now? Next issue, next issue! Antony says give them guns. Good idea. Crowded street. Riot. The innocent caught up among the rioters. Onlookers in background, including children. People at windows watching. Fast moving targets, flames, bad light, high velocity rounds impeccably aimed. Some pass through the target and hit others in the line of fire, some miss the target because the target changed course and hit others in the line of fire. Alternative, can't actually use guns, because can't get clear bead on target with unobstructed line of fire for range of weapon. Still, great idea. Next issue, next issue. It's all so simple really isn't it? Shoot them, never mind the collateral damage, it was only someone's granny, then bang up the survivors in the free prisons forever. But, whatever you do, don't, even with your dying breath, stop to think. Fatal! Causes complications. Politically insane. Oh yes, and keep telling the silly sods they can have all this at no extra cost to themselves. Well, it may mean borrowing a bit, but the repayments will come way after I'm out of the firing-line. Financial crisis? What financial crisis? Next issue, next issue! Simply, democracy requires very wise, morally sound, far sighted, people to be elected to hold office. They need to be prepared to ignore public opinion when public opinion is not itself wise, morally sound, and far sighted, and to put the true, long term, interests of the whole country before the interests of themselves or their parties. To get such people elected into office, requires a very wise, morally sound, and far sighted electorate. See the snag? :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nightrider Posted December 31, 2011 Share Posted December 31, 2011 One thing I can thank Mrs Thatcher for is when the building trade in the UK went down the pan on her watch, it gave me the opportunity to go and work in Germany as one of the original "Auf viedersehen pet" boys. It only took half an eye to see that Germany was far prosperous than us in the UK with a much better standard and quality of life I doubled my wages at a stroke and it was the sorriest day of my life when I had to ship out back home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.