For you, has mention of this programme brought back painful memories of Cameron cowering abroad when the riots were at their peak?
Many of the people were young and Labour had been in power for much of their lives, certainly the significant parts of their lives.
Some might say the general lack of respect for the police and light sentences given out by the courts got worse during the period Labour were in power.
How was Cameron "cowering" abroad during the disorder? I can't remember what he was doing but I presume he was at a conference or on a visit, should the Prime Minister drop all other activities just because a group of law breakers were stealing, destroying property and trying to kill people. There was little extra he could do by being in the UK. If he was on holiday then it would perhaps result in Rent-a-Mob trying to provoke further disorder during future holidays in order to get him to abandon his holiday.
have all to my mind done more than enough to earn the title scum.
I'm bloody aware of what happened no need to patronise me. I just like to take a less simplistic approach to things than you. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
No the people to blame are the ones who carried out the acts of robbery with violence, arson, aggravated arson ,manslaughter , murder etc we may not be pelased with the government but that is no excuse for what those people did.
And I note very few raided food shops it was mainly high end goods, and if people were so angry with government why did they not attack goverment offices or council buildings ? what did Pc World, Currys and Footlocker do wrong ? Or come to that ordinary people on transport that was attacked or had their homes set alight.
Someone commented at the time that one excuse was the changes in allowances for students but they had not seen any bookshops being robbed.
For you, has mention of this programme brought back painful memories of Cameron cowering abroad when the riots were at their peak?
It was Labour who abandoned the traditional working classes with their Islington elite liberal ideals from 1997 -2010.
The same kind of liberal ideals that gave scumbags the idea that they were taking part in some kind of social revolution,when really they were just thieving animals.
The BBC are supposed to be impartial,but that impartiality generally tends to be when it suits.
I'm bloody aware of what happened no need to patronise me. I just like to take a less simplistic approach to things than you. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
I stated a fact follwoed by my opinion , quite how is that patronising you ? and no need for sarcy smilies we can all use those
There is reasons behind what happened, and to stop things happening again we should at least attempt to explore the issue. Instead of being all lazy and using terms like scumbags.
The real problem is this country and the way Politicians & Media are brainwashing others (usually those at the bottom) into thinking that Businesses, jobs, profits, are all evil, and that every company is out to rip us off.
Absolutely not, can't people think for themselves these days, and is it really that hard to see what is right and what is wrong.
Interestingly enough some psycologists suggested that there were cases where rioters who joined in simply did so because they were in a situation they had never been in before and did not know how to deal with it - apparently the most common response is to do what everyone else is doing.
I can't imagine that at any age I would go ransacking shops and committing arson. I don't understand the presumption that everyone is inclined to break the law like they did, a significant proportion (perhaps majority) of the population are basically law-abiding and would not dream of committing crimes like that.
Terms like "scumbag" seem quite apt for people with no respect for other people's property and even other people's lives.
I strongly agree with this.
Just because your so called mates are on the rampage, doesn't mean you have to join in!
We are all individuals with free will and make our own choices in life. I never ran with the crowd like a brainless moron. I did what I wanted to do because I wanted to do it. I had many an argument with my peers when a teenager because I didn't always want to do what they were doing.
I lived in a very rough estate during my teens and I didn't turn out like the majority of the lemmins. I never swore and was always polite and curteous. I always had respect for others.
"I did it because my friends were doing it" is no excuse!
If I had my way, the police would have been shooting those who were rioting.
A riot followed by looting is not a protest, it is anarchy!
I suuport the right to protest but anarchy must be stopped dead in its tracks.
I think the work scumbag is extremely appropriate.
Absolutely not, can't people think for themselves these days, and is it really that hard to see what is right and what is wrong.
The real problem is this country and the way Politicians & Media are brainwashing others (usually those at the bottom) into thinking that Businesses, jobs, profits, are all evil, and that every company is out to rip us off.
Labour are encouraging it, every time they come up with some "new" idea they say they will fund it by taxing the banks and bankers. If they did that for all the things they have claimed then the banks would all be out of pocket. It is just good old fashioned rabble rousing.
Interestingly enough some psycologists suggested that there were cases where rioters who joined in simply did so because they were in a situation they had never been in before and did not know how to deal with it - apparently the most common response is to do what everyone else is doing.
Personally, I would have ran.
The sort of garbage that you might expect from psychologists but I suppose they have to justify their existence somehow.
.... If I had my way, the police would have been shooting those who were rioting.
A riot followed by looting is not a protest, it is anarchy!
I suuport the right to protest but anarchy must be stopped dead in its tracks.
I think the work scumbag is extremely appropriate.
In many other countries, like the USA, many of them would have been shot by the police. Other countries don't think throwing rocks and firebombs as well as shooting guns at the police is just a bit of fun. Their police respond by getting out their guns. Many of the rioters would also find themselves getting the proverbial stripey suntan for many years (i.e tens of years) and not released after a few months without even completing their lenient sentence.
If the rioters ransack BBC property and destroy vital equipment, would the BBC maintain its legendary impartiality? If a few employees were killed in the same way as those young men in the last riots, would the BBC feel the need to wet-nurse the poor little dears? That would make an interesting documentary. The courts would not pull that off the schedules.
If the rioters ransack BBC property and destroy vital equipment, would the BBC maintain its legendary impartiality? If a few employees were killed in the same way as those young men in the last riots, would the BBC feel the need to wet-nurse the poor little dears? That would make an interesting documentary. The courts would not pull that off the schedules.
Could I perchance just watch the prog and be allowed to make up my own mind, instead of being told what yours is?
lots of posts need removing in this thread, you've all missed the point
WHO wanted this removed
WHO was the judge
WHY was the decision made
DISGUSTING none of this information has been made public, are we living in North Korea ffs?
What follows is purely hyperthetical.....
If someone were stupid and made false claims they'd done this or that at a riot and then found themselves on a charge and in court....I'd say that's good reason not to broadcast a programme during the trial as the programme may detail an incident which a possible innocent person may have found themselves charged with and on trial.
By naming the Judge it would identify the case and wild speculation could prejudice the trial.
Here's a recent example that doesn't cover the media with glory.
lots of posts need removing in this thread, you've all missed the point
WHO wanted this removed
WHO was the judge
WHY was the decision made
DISGUSTING none of this information has been made public, are we living in North Korea ffs?
Agree the point of the thread has been missed entirely. It's a very interesting subject from the point of view of free speech versus the legal responsibilities to ensure people receive a fair trial etc.
However - you won't get an answer to your questions (yet). Unless anybody fancies going to prison pretty quickly - naming the judge, the court, the name of the case and the parties involved are all subject to an injunction order currently and ignoring this would result in contempt of court. It's a very restrictive order - almost a Superinjunction but not quite:
For legal reasons, the Guardian cannot name the judge who made the ruling, the court in which he is sitting or the case he is presiding over.
This injunction has now been lifted. The decision was made by a Crown Court judge (highly unusual) as he was sitting on a trial of eight men accused of murder during last summer's riots in Birmingham. The trial has now concluded and the programme is free to be shown. Details of the reporting restrictions in this area have also now been lifted.
He used an unusual power under section 45 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which in some circumstances grants crown court judges the same powers as those used by the high court, to prevent the film from being broadcast.
....the judge rejected the appeal, saying the films touched on issues related to his case, and if he were to allow the films to be broadcast, jurors could potentially have "social contact" with others who watched the programmes.
Flaux's ruling initially meant media were unable to report details such as his name, his court, or the case he was presiding over, although it considered possible to report that an order had been made preventing the BBC films from being broadcast.
Later, the media was effectively barred from reporting the issue altogether.
Final word from me for now - whilst the reporting restrictions make me slightly uneasy, the rationale looks quite sensible. The headache for the BBC is obvious but it isn't the legal system's fault that they now have to find a broadcast slot around their Olympics coverage.
Unless anybody fancies going to prison pretty quickly - naming the judge, the court, the name of the case and the parties involved are all subject to an injunction order currently and ignoring this would result in contempt of court.
Only if you had been given notice of the existence of the injunction, surely?
This is one of the problems with injunctions - in order to keep something quiet, you need to serve papers on all press outlets telling them exactly what they're not allowed to publish. Which of course they might find handy if it's a story they didn't already know about...
This injunction has now been lifted. The decision was made by a Crown Court judge (highly unusual) as he was sitting on a trial of eight men accused of murder during last summer's riots in Birmingham. The trial has now concluded and the programme is free to be shown. Details of the reporting restrictions in this area have also now been lifted.
Judge in trial of eight men over Birmingham riot deaths said films raised issues that 'echoed' arguments put before jury.
A defence barrister alerted the judge to the films, suggesting that although they may not contain any references to Birmingham, the judge may want to take action out of "an abundance of caution".
Granted the Judge didn't watch the programmes but as the trial was coming to an end why jepordise a fair trial for the sake of a TV programme?
Many of the people were young and Labour had been in power for much of their lives, certainly the significant parts of their lives.
Some might say the general lack of respect for the police and light sentences given out by the courts got worse during the period Labour were in power.
How was Cameron "cowering" abroad during the disorder? I can't remember what he was doing but I presume he was at a conference or on a visit, should the Prime Minister drop all other activities just because a group of law breakers were stealing, destroying property and trying to kill people. There was little extra he could do by being in the UK. If he was on holiday then it would perhaps result in Rent-a-Mob trying to provoke further disorder during future holidays in order to get him to abandon his holiday.
No the people to blame are the ones who carried out the acts of robbery with violence, arson, aggravated arson ,manslaughter , murder etc we may not be pelased with the government but that is no excuse for what those people did.
And I note very few raided food shops it was mainly high end goods, and if people were so angry with government why did they not attack goverment offices or council buildings ? what did Pc World, Currys and Footlocker do wrong ? Or come to that ordinary people on transport that was attacked or had their homes set alight.
The Tories are to blame because they let the situation get out of control. Night after night of "Oh, let's see if it stops on its own."
And, yes, the glorious leader was cowering abroad. Fear? Bewilderment at what to? Considering his holiday to be more important? Whatever the reason, it was pathetic, and was a symptom of a wider attitude which allowed the situation to escalate.
The Tories are to blame because they let the situation get out of control. Night after night of "Oh, let's see if it stops on its own."
And, yes, the glorious leader was cowering abroad. Fear? Bewilderment at what to? Considering his holiday to be more important? Whatever the reason, it was pathetic, and was a symptom of a wider attitude which allowed the situation to escalate.
The police let the situation get out of control. And it's a Coalition government, not a Conservative one.
Comments
Many of the people were young and Labour had been in power for much of their lives, certainly the significant parts of their lives.
Some might say the general lack of respect for the police and light sentences given out by the courts got worse during the period Labour were in power.
How was Cameron "cowering" abroad during the disorder? I can't remember what he was doing but I presume he was at a conference or on a visit, should the Prime Minister drop all other activities just because a group of law breakers were stealing, destroying property and trying to kill people. There was little extra he could do by being in the UK. If he was on holiday then it would perhaps result in Rent-a-Mob trying to provoke further disorder during future holidays in order to get him to abandon his holiday.
Someone commented at the time that one excuse was the changes in allowances for students but they had not seen any bookshops being robbed.
It was Labour who abandoned the traditional working classes with their Islington elite liberal ideals from 1997 -2010.
The same kind of liberal ideals that gave scumbags the idea that they were taking part in some kind of social revolution,when really they were just thieving animals.
The BBC are supposed to be impartial,but that impartiality generally tends to be when it suits.
I stated a fact follwoed by my opinion , quite how is that patronising you ? and no need for sarcy smilies we can all use those
The real problem is this country and the way Politicians & Media are brainwashing others (usually those at the bottom) into thinking that Businesses, jobs, profits, are all evil, and that every company is out to rip us off.
Interestingly enough some psycologists suggested that there were cases where rioters who joined in simply did so because they were in a situation they had never been in before and did not know how to deal with it - apparently the most common response is to do what everyone else is doing.
Personally, I would have ran.
I strongly agree with this.
Just because your so called mates are on the rampage, doesn't mean you have to join in!
We are all individuals with free will and make our own choices in life. I never ran with the crowd like a brainless moron. I did what I wanted to do because I wanted to do it. I had many an argument with my peers when a teenager because I didn't always want to do what they were doing.
I lived in a very rough estate during my teens and I didn't turn out like the majority of the lemmins. I never swore and was always polite and curteous. I always had respect for others.
"I did it because my friends were doing it" is no excuse!
If I had my way, the police would have been shooting those who were rioting.
A riot followed by looting is not a protest, it is anarchy!
I suuport the right to protest but anarchy must be stopped dead in its tracks.
I think the work scumbag is extremely appropriate.
Labour are encouraging it, every time they come up with some "new" idea they say they will fund it by taxing the banks and bankers. If they did that for all the things they have claimed then the banks would all be out of pocket. It is just good old fashioned rabble rousing.
The sort of garbage that you might expect from psychologists but I suppose they have to justify their existence somehow.
In many other countries, like the USA, many of them would have been shot by the police. Other countries don't think throwing rocks and firebombs as well as shooting guns at the police is just a bit of fun. Their police respond by getting out their guns. Many of the rioters would also find themselves getting the proverbial stripey suntan for many years (i.e tens of years) and not released after a few months without even completing their lenient sentence.
WHO wanted this removed
WHO was the judge
WHY was the decision made
DISGUSTING none of this information has been made public, are we living in North Korea ffs?
Could I perchance just watch the prog and be allowed to make up my own mind, instead of being told what yours is?
What follows is purely hyperthetical.....
If someone were stupid and made false claims they'd done this or that at a riot and then found themselves on a charge and in court....I'd say that's good reason not to broadcast a programme during the trial as the programme may detail an incident which a possible innocent person may have found themselves charged with and on trial.
By naming the Judge it would identify the case and wild speculation could prejudice the trial.
Here's a recent example that doesn't cover the media with glory.
Agree the point of the thread has been missed entirely. It's a very interesting subject from the point of view of free speech versus the legal responsibilities to ensure people receive a fair trial etc.
However - you won't get an answer to your questions (yet). Unless anybody fancies going to prison pretty quickly - naming the judge, the court, the name of the case and the parties involved are all subject to an injunction order currently and ignoring this would result in contempt of court. It's a very restrictive order - almost a Superinjunction but not quite:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jul/19/riot-murder-judge-bbc-broadcast-documentaries
Of interest:
No great loss if some whitewashing propaganda cobbled up by three left wing organisations doesn't get shown.
Only if you had been given notice of the existence of the injunction, surely?
This is one of the problems with injunctions - in order to keep something quiet, you need to serve papers on all press outlets telling them exactly what they're not allowed to publish. Which of course they might find handy if it's a story they didn't already know about...
Granted the Judge didn't watch the programmes but as the trial was coming to an end why jepordise a fair trial for the sake of a TV programme?
The 8 men were acquitted of the charges.
And, yes, the glorious leader was cowering abroad. Fear? Bewilderment at what to? Considering his holiday to be more important? Whatever the reason, it was pathetic, and was a symptom of a wider attitude which allowed the situation to escalate.
The police let the situation get out of control. And it's a Coalition government, not a Conservative one.