PDA

View Full Version : Has chit chat turned too fluffy recently ?



stewart38
8th-November-2005, 11:42 AM
A dual thread for serious debate or for fluffyness


Thread 1

I thought by now with France in flames

5,000,000 muslims on the war path (according to the Daily Mail)

5000 cars burnt 1000 arrest made and it spreading to Germany etc

The forum would put forward the 'solutions'

Alas not to be :sad:

Thread 2

So maybe its better to discuss ones first love

Her name was Jane Lush. I was 10 she was 9, im sure she fancied me

I suppose with the internet i could see if i could look her up and see what happened to her (break up her happy marriage etc)

I dont obviously picture her as a 9yr old but as she would look now, im sure she hasnt changed much just like me :whistle:

cheeks
8th-November-2005, 11:49 AM
First love now thats scary :eek:

My first love's name was Stephen George. I was about 10 and he was 14. I remember going all giggly and embarassed every time he spoke to me. It wasn't the same to him as I was to young :tears: . I still see him to this day and its mad how the tables turn as for a while I met him out and about on various nights out and lets just say he was the one doing all the asking this time.....heehee :wink:

under par
8th-November-2005, 11:54 AM
Seerious debate then Stewart,

What are the rioters rioting for?

Why should someone burning anothers property being a car or a building be seen as anything else other than a criminal.

Why is the rioting spreading? Cos theres lots of criminals jumping on the bandwagon.

Are the rioters having a go at another group? political or religous or social? NO

they are just burning other peoples property irelevant to who owns it. TOTALLY MINDLESS WANTON DESTRUCTION!!!

What are the demands of the rioters?

Who is their spokesperson/ leader with whom police/politicians could negotiate. NO ONE!

I reckon they should set curfews in the towns cities where rioting exists and shoot any persons continuing the arson attacks.

DON'T LET THE CRIMINALS RULE THE DEMOCRACY.

Your thoughts !

stewart38
8th-November-2005, 12:01 PM
Seerious debate then Stewart,

What are the rioters rioting for?

Why should someone burning anothers property being a car or a building be seen as anything else other than a criminal.

Why is the rioting spreading? Cos theres lots of criminals jumping on the bandwagon.

Are the rioters having a go at another group? political or religous or social? NO

they are just burning other peoples property irelevant to who owns it. TOTALLY MINDLESS WANTON DESTRUCTION!!!

What are the demands of the rioters?

Who is their spokesperson/ leader with whom police/politicians could negotiate. NO ONE!

I reckon they should set curfews in the towns cities where rioting exists and shoot any persons continuing the arson attacks.

DON'T LET THE CRIMINALS RULE THE DEMOCRACY.

Your thoughts !

I think France is coming across as weak

It should be nipped in the bud now and if that means 10,000 arrests and calling in the Army and curfews so be it

The car burning is as you say totally indiscrimnate and apparently has been going on for months

Shoot to kill re continuing the arson attacks ? maybe a bit steep , just leg wounding should get them of the streets

The thing is the POINTS have been made (social deprevation etc) and the worlds attention has been bought to the table.

Now there is no more point to the wanted distuction, all though some Muslims are calling for segregated large autonomy type state

David Bailey
8th-November-2005, 12:07 PM
Why should someone burning anothers property being a car or a building be seen as anything else other than a criminal.
When one person does it, they're a criminal.

When 5,873 cars are torched, in dozens of cities, over 12 nights, it becomes something quite different.

Is this a racial / ethnic thing? Could be - the French have many more Muslims than the UK, but they're much less represented in the halls of power, and their cultural traditions are occasionally trampled on (from their point of view).

Is this a French thing? Again, could be - French society apparently does have an occasional collective"riot!" mentality, or more so than in the UK. And certainly the President, the Prime Minister and the Interior Minister haven't exactly covered themselves in glory recently.

Is this a bunch of crims jumping on the bandwagon? I don't think so - property is being destroyed, not stolen, so what's in it for them?

CJ
8th-November-2005, 12:09 PM
Seerious debate then Stewart,

What are the rioters rioting for?

Why should someone burning anothers property being a car or a building be seen as anything else other than a criminal.

Why is the rioting spreading? Cos theres lots of criminals jumping on the bandwagon.

Are the rioters having a go at another group? political or religous or social? NO

they are just burning other peoples property irelevant to who owns it. TOTALLY MINDLESS WANTON DESTRUCTION!!!

What are the demands of the rioters?

Who is their spokesperson/ leader with whom police/politicians could negotiate. NO ONE!

I reckon they should set curfews in the towns cities where rioting exists and shoot any persons continuing the arson attacks.

DON'T LET THE CRIMINALS RULE THE DEMOCRACY.

Your thoughts !

That's not serious debate.

What the hell you up to, UP?!?!!? That's common sense: you cant go posting that stuff around here!!

Oh, and if we're going to shoot legs, it should be thigh and not shin: more chance of hitting muscle and not shattering bones...

TiggsTours
8th-November-2005, 12:21 PM
First love now thats scary :eek:

My first love's name was Stephen George. I was about 10 and he was 14. I remember going all giggly and embarassed every time he spoke to me. It wasn't the same to him as I was to young :tears: . I still see him to this day and its mad how the tables turn as for a while I met him out and about on various nights out and lets just say he was the one doing all the asking this time.....heehee :wink:
My first love was Darrell Dawes, we went to playschool together when I was 3 and he was 4, he used to pull all the girls hair, and drive his toy car into their legs to make them cry. I don't know why I fell for the bully! He left playschool, I thought I'd never see him again, I was devestated! :tears:

I met him again, by pure coincidence, when I was 15, and he became my first boyfriend, we went out for 2 years. Then 5 years ago (I was 27) I saw him again when my old school friend married his brother, he had 4 kids in tow, a wife who, lets just say didn't make the best of herself, and I thanked God for the lucky escape! He even asked me at one point if I ever thought of how my life would be now if we'd got married, in a very romantic way, and I could honestly say "yes, and I am thankful every day for the the fact I'm still single!":rofl:

under par
8th-November-2005, 12:35 PM
When one person does it, they're a criminal.

When 5,873 cars are torched, in dozens of cities, over 12 nights, it becomes something quite different.

Absolute total rubbish they are still criminals whether one or a million do it. There is still a victim and they are committing crimes.

By your argument a person who kills someone is a murderer but if lots of people go out on the rampage and kill indisciminately say the IRA or UDA then its different.





Is this a racial / ethnic thing? Could be - the French have many more Muslims than the UK, but they're much less represented in the halls of power, and their cultural traditions are occasionally trampled on (from their point of view).

Is this a French thing? Again, could be - French society apparently does have an occasional collective"riot!" mentality, or more so than in the UK. And certainly the President, the Prime Minister and the Interior Minister haven't exactly covered themselves in glory recently.


Such poor reasoning there sorry I have to challenge that!
So Tony Blair and co have a bad fortnight do we all go out and trash someone elses property? NO!


Is this a bunch of crims jumping on the bandwagon? I don't think so - property is being destroyed, not stolen, so what's in it for them?

Does there have to be personal gain to be a criminal. Absolutely not.

Does the person who smashes the head of another with a brick gain anything per se? NO!

Does the person who shouts racial abuse gain anything per se ? NO!

They are all criminals and law breakers gain or no gain.

DO NOT TRY JUSTIFY THEIR CRIMINALITY:angry:

CJ
8th-November-2005, 12:53 PM
I don't know about fluff, but there is too much fence sitting going on here.

Under Par, what do you think about all of this?!?:confused:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

under par
8th-November-2005, 12:55 PM
I don't know about fluff, but there is too much fence sitting going on here.

Under Par, what do you think about all of this?!?:confused:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Haven't got my head round it yet........let you know later:whistle:

cheeks
8th-November-2005, 12:57 PM
My first love was Darrell Dawes,
I thanked God for the lucky escape! He even asked me at one point if I ever thought of how my life would be now if we'd got married, in a very romantic way, and I could honestly say "yes, and I am thankful every day for the the fact I'm still single!":rofl:


:rofl: :rofl:Lucky escape :yeah: to being single.:hug:

Will
8th-November-2005, 01:11 PM
Absolute total rubbish they are still criminals whether one or a million do it. There is still a victim and they are committing crimes.

By your argument a person who kills someone is a murderer but if lots of people go out on the rampage and kill indisciminately say the IRA or UDA then its different.



Such poor reasoning there sorry I have to challenge that!
So Tony Blair and co have a bad fortnight do we all go out and trash someone elses property? NO!


Does there have to be personal gain to be a criminal. Absolutely not.

Does the person who smashes the head of another with a brick gain anything per se? NO!

Does the person who shouts racial abuse gain anything per se ? NO!

They are all criminals and law breakers gain or no gain.

DO NOT TRY JUSTIFY THEIR CRIMINALITY:angry:
:yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah: :yeah:
Ab-so-:yeah: -lut-ely

David Bailey
8th-November-2005, 04:37 PM
Absolute total rubbish they are still criminals whether one or a million do it. There is still a victim and they are committing crimes.
Without getting all softy-lefty, I think there's a bit more to it than that.

Riots are an extreme form of demonstration; they express the opinion of a significant minority of people. In a twisted sense, they're opinion polls, showing that a lot of people are unhappy with something.


By your argument a person who kills someone is a murderer but if lots of people go out on the rampage and kill indisciminately say the IRA or UDA then its different.
Exactly. It is different - IRA murderers get (and have gotten) different treatment to "normal" murderers, even before the start of the peace process. Again, these are extreme expressions of opinion, but the IRA would never have survived if they didn't have some measure of support from a significant minority of the NI community.

It doesn't make the wanton destruction nicer, or forgivable - but it means that there is an underlying problem, which isn't solvable by normal policing methods. Extra-normal policing methods (internment, tear gas, rubber bullets etc.) can of course suppress the symptoms to a degree - but they can also aggravate the underlying problem. If you disagree, ask anyone living in Northern Ireland if they think internment helped or hindered the IRA.


Such poor reasoning there sorry I have to challenge that!
So Tony Blair and co have a bad fortnight do we all go out and trash someone elses property? NO!
No - I merely advanced this as a possibility, given the supposed greater tolerance of French people - or the greater propensity of them - to take to the streets.

I don't know why it's happening - but I think it's important to treat the problem, and not just the symptoms.


They are all criminals and law breakers gain or no gain.

DO NOT TRY JUSTIFY THEIR CRIMINALITY:angry:
I'm not, I'm trying to understand why it's happening - it's clearly abnormal behaviour, and the police probably won't help solve the problem.

Like it or not, there's a reason for this, and if the authorities don't deal with it, or try to simply suppress the symptoms without solving a problem, it could get worse.

Stewart, is this unfluffy enough for you?

LMC
8th-November-2005, 04:43 PM
There is a difference between "justification" and "explanation". The behaviour isn't justifiable. But IMO, the Guardian's leader today supplies plausible reasoning as to why it's happening.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1636729,00.html

stewart38
8th-November-2005, 04:54 PM
I'm not, I'm trying to understand why it's happening - it's clearly abnormal behaviour, and the police probably won't help solve the problem.


Stewart, is this unfluffy enough for you?

Well APPEARS the Police are being too fluffy in this situation

Send in the Army I ASSUME they would be less fluffy with curfews and tanks etc

What i dont get is how they can allow 300 odd people to gather ??

Heather
8th-November-2005, 04:59 PM
Now there is no more point to the wanted distuction, all though some Muslims are calling for segregated large autonomy type state

What about Iran? Is that not a Muslim segregated large autonomy type state? Maybe they should all move out of France and go there?

:hug: :kiss:

Heather,
xx

stewart38
8th-November-2005, 05:03 PM
What about Iran? Is that not a Muslim segregated large autonomy type state? Maybe they should all move out of France and go there?

:hug: :kiss:

Heather,
xx


It’s an idea that has been put forward and is wanted my may Muslims that live in France

I don’t know enough about the practicalities ,only time will tell in the long run ie in the next 100yrs if segregation works or integration, the dynamics of world migration are changing

David Bailey
8th-November-2005, 05:08 PM
Well APPEARS the Police are being too fluffy in this situation

Send in the Army I ASSUME they would be less fluffy with curfews and tanks etc

What i dont get is how they can allow 300 odd people to gather ??
Amazingly enough, the French authorities are very much more relaxed about civil disobedience than in the UK - makes sense when you think of the stuff they let farmers get away with in their demonstrations, blockades, you name it. It's a different culture.

FWIW, the French are being quite draconian by their standards - actually arresting so 800 people, including 400 children. And no, it's not helping much, big surprise there...


But IMO, the Guardian's leader today supplies plausible reasoning as to why it's happening.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,1636729,00.html
You LEFTY you.

Actually, good article - very informative, albeit from a Grauniad point-of-view...

The Economist, not exactly a lefty-haven, has an article here (http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5132972) - more background, basically, and possibly some explanations.

Heather
8th-November-2005, 05:08 PM
Is what you are saying that Muslims want to turn a part of France into a seperate Muslim state? If France is so bad, why not move to one of the many already Muslim states which already exist? Or is that too logical?
(Probably because they'd all be clapped in irons and executed for their behaviour!!!!)

:hug: :kiss:
Heather,
xx

under par
8th-November-2005, 05:19 PM
What i dont get is how they can allow 300 odd people to gather ??


Exactly!! any more than 5 people together then a shoot to kill policy should be used to disperse the crowd into smaller groups of 4 or less.

Try and riot when you are not part of a big crowd bet they won't have the b@lls for it then.


U.P.(slightly right of Attilla the Hun.)

David Bailey
8th-November-2005, 05:19 PM
Is what you are saying that Muslims want to turn a part of France into a seperate Muslim state?
I'm pretty sure I'm not saying that - dunno what Stewart is saying, but then I rarely know what Stewart is saying...


If France is so bad, why not move to one of the many already Muslim states which already exist? Or is that too logical?
I know, let's move them to Madagascar, or maybe we should put nice labels on them for easy identification, how's that sound?

As for:

I don’t know enough about the practicalities ,only time will tell in the long run ie in the next 100yrs if segregation works or integration, the dynamics of world migration are changing
The British Isles have been an integrated society for, ooh, about 1,900 years, I think that's long enough to say it's been reasonably successful.

Integration (and immigration / emigration) is an expression of free trade - therefore anyone who's solidly rightwing economically should logically support it as an engine of economic growth. :innocent:

LMC
8th-November-2005, 05:21 PM
You LEFTY you.
I refer the honourable gentleman to my signature...

The Economist article is better and IMO hits the nail on the head exactly.


... France's integration model differs from the multiculturalism promoted in other countries, notably Britain. In France, people can follow whatever way of life they choose in private, within reason, but the state will not sponsor them doing so. One result of this is that there are no programmes to promote ethnic minorities out of their ghettos.

Let's leave out the argument of which country the ethnic minorities should be in - as we have seen, it's circular (and Daily Mail exaggeration that implies that ALL the 5 million Muslims in France are rioting does not help). The fact is that the 'ethnic minorities' are where they are - and the authorities in whichever country they happen to be in have to find a way of engaging with them so that they are included in society - with all the benefits and responsibilities of "natives" (i.e. it's a two way street - the ethnic minorities themselves have to accept a certain amount of "When in Rome... ")

In an ideal world, the French model of equality would/should work. Unfortunately, through background, experience and language, ethnic minorities may not be equal and "special treatment" - free and accessible education in the language would be a start - may be necessary to get them included and productive.

JonD
8th-November-2005, 05:41 PM
Riots are fun!

That's part of the problem. Torching cars, chucking petrol bombs, the occasional nail bomb for a bit of spice . Firing plastic bullets, snatch squads to arrest a few of the mob, clearing streets. Yup, it's a real adrenaline fix for everyone! And, given the numbers involved, there's not that much real risk of getting badly damaged or arrested .

Not so funny if it's your car/shop/body that does get damaged of course. Once people discover that rioting is a blast it can be difficult to get them to stop - it can even become a sort of Saturday night ritual. How do you stop it? Well I guess, in the first instance, you increase the risk for the participants and do everything you can to get them tired. More snatch squads, more plastic bullets (they hurt) and dominate the area - make it difficult for crowds to reach critical mass. Well trained and disciplined anti-riot teams help (don't form baselines with big shields as they give the crowd something to throw things at - lurk in doorways as much out of sight as possible and use plastic bullets to keep the crowd contained in the area where they live. Rioting isn't so much fun if you've got no clear target to throw things at). You've got to be good though - if a small team gets isolated they are in trouble. Coppers who stand around in the middle of the road and throw things back at the crowd are a bloody nuisance. Don't fight the rioters - bore them!

Having the troops make lots of noise during the day helps - rioting is exhausting and if you can't sleep during the day you're less likely to go out and play at night. Perhaps playing "Road to Amarillo" at max volume all day would do the trick?

The long term solution? Let them eat cake.


Exactly!! any more than 5 people together then a shoot to kill policy should be used to disperse the crowd into smaller groups of 4 or less. I knew somebody who'd used that technique in Germany in 1945. He said it worked really, really well - and they only had to shoot 3 people before everyone got the idea.

Seriously, it's time someone gave some serious thought to the underlying causes. The French need to be really careful that they don't start using lethal force / brutal methods to stamp out the rioting or they'll find themselves facing a much more violent conflict. If there's one thing I'd hope we'd all learnt, it's that shooting people is very rarely the solution.

First love? Ann Waterhouse, when we were both 7 - I admired her from afar.

David Bailey
8th-November-2005, 08:32 PM
I'm assuming most of JonD's comments are tongue-in-cheek, but I'll point out the obvious rebuttals....


How do you stop it?
{ snip suggestions }
Sounds like a reasonable set of tactics - but of course, that does little or nothing to help the underlying problem; in fact, heavy-handedness can and does make things worse. A liberating / protective military presence can turn into an invading / occupying enemy army very quickly - look at Northern Ireland again.

Oh, and rubber bullets do indeed hurt, and can kill - and the publicity for the extremists when military things "go wrong" is a gift from heaven. See Bloody Sunday...


Having the troops make lots of noise during the day helps - rioting is exhausting and if you can't sleep during the day you're less likely to go out and play at night.
Again, I'm guessing this is tongue-in-cheek. But if not - the next day, you see video footage of terrorised little kids, too exhausted and traumatised to leave their homes which just happen to be in bandit country. Again, great pro-extremist publicity, and you're creating a ready-made group of new extremists, when the kids grow up.


Perhaps playing "Road to Amarillo" at max volume all day would do the trick?
Now that's just silly. "Call on me", that'd do it.


Seriously, it's time someone gave some serious thought to the underlying causes. The French need to be really careful that they don't start using lethal force / brutal methods to stamp out the rioting or they'll find themselves facing a much more violent conflict. If there's one thing I'd hope we'd all learnt, it's that shooting people is very rarely the solution.
:yeah: Although I suspect your hope is a bit optimistic...

JonD
8th-November-2005, 09:30 PM
I'm assuming most of JonD's comments are tongue-in-cheek ....
OK, you got me!

I guess my point is that the aim must be to contain, not to crush. Most of the people on the street will be there because of a combination of the desire to vent frustration, act in a totally uncontrolled manner and the pure fun of being part of an adrenaline fuelled mob. Sure, they should go home - walk away from the really violent folk - but a lot of them are kids who think they are immortal and shooting them is not an option. Taking away the "fun factor" really does work - if there are no flash points and the risk of arrest increases the mob will melt away - mind you, it helps if it's cold and wet.

So, contain the riots, find out the motivation and address the real grievances as a matter of urgency - don't leave the military & police with the job of keeping the lid on a simmering pot.


Oh, and rubber bullets do indeed hurt, and can kill - and the publicity for the extremists when military things "go wrong" is a gift from heaven. See Bloody Sunday...

Funny you should mention Bloody Sunday - it was very much in my mind. Ill considered violence is a fast way to create people who are prepared to die shooting and bombing you in revenge. We won't dwell on the tragedy of the lives lost.

By the way, rubber bullets haven't been used for years. Plastic bullets did the same job with less risk of missing as they weren't bounced off the road. Sure, a few people get killed by baton rounds but then a few people get killed by petrol bombs thrown from close up. Baton rounds aren't perfect but, if the alternative is a rifle bullet, they're a rioters friend.


Now that's just silly. "Call on me", that'd do it.
Agreed!

David Bailey
8th-November-2005, 09:34 PM
So, contain the riots, find out the motivation and address the real grievances as a matter of urgency - don't leave the military & police with the job of keeping the lid on a simmering pot.
Have you read "Night Watch" by Terry Pratchett?

Samuel Vimes - now there's a man who knows how to stop a riot in its tracks.

under par
8th-November-2005, 10:31 PM
From the BBC news here are the emergency powers deemed the remedy by the French government.

I think if I was president they would be a bit more lethal.




Cabinet can declare state of emergency in all or part of the country
Regional leaders given exceptional powers to apply curfew and restrict movements
Breach of curfew could mean a fine or two-month jail sentence
Police can carry out raids on suspected weapons stockpiles
Interior minister can issue house-arrest warrants for persons considered dangerous to public safety
Public meeting places can be closed down
House searches possible day or night
Authorities can control press or broadcast media, film and theatre performances
State of emergency can only be extended beyond 12 days if approved by parliament