I'm more interested in pursuing the Leave campaigns for their spending in the election as there is plenty of evidence they used public money illegally.
- a hard right party in power - an ideological war being waged against the poor, homeless and disabled - rise in xenophobia and Islamophobia - leaving the EU and the EEA - anti-migrant sentiments - refugees being scapegoated and international obligations on asylum seekers being flouted - withdrawing from international human rights jurisdiction - the party in power allied in the European Parliament with far-right parties - water cannons purchased to be used against own citizens - civil liberties being withdrawn - threats against other EU nations regarding defence and security - Government going to court to subvert democratic procedure - widespread corruption amongst officials in power - international environmental commitments being ignored or flouted - backtracking on women's rights - healthcare provision being withdrawn
Then it would be a serious cause for concern.
I couldn't help but spot your water canon point: the ones bought off another European country, and explicitly forbidden from being used by our Prime Minister?
Or do you mean the ones that PSNI have had for years prior to the current government?
Don't let the circumstances get in the way though...
- keep putting off lower pollution - wait until everyone dies
Christ, what's happened? You sound like me on speed!
I think he's either been got at or on a monumental wind-up.
Come the day before the election he'll post something like 'Only joking - now get out there and vote for the only party to make us great again - the Conservatives'.
I was wondering if it was a 'Diceman' type scenario.
- keep putting off lower pollution - wait until everyone dies
Christ, what's happened? You sound like me on speed!
I think he's either been got at or on a monumental wind-up.
Come the day before the election he'll post something like 'Only joking - now get out there and vote for the only party to make us great again - the Conservatives'.
I was wondering if it was a 'Diceman' type scenario.
You could be right. Even number I stand up for everything blue - odd number I castigate every tory for just breathing.
- a hard right party in power - an ideological war being waged against the poor, homeless and disabled - rise in xenophobia and Islamophobia - leaving the EU and the EEA - anti-migrant sentiments - refugees being scapegoated and international obligations on asylum seekers being flouted - withdrawing from international human rights jurisdiction - the party in power allied in the European Parliament with far-right parties - water cannons purchased to be used against own citizens - civil liberties being withdrawn - threats against other EU nations regarding defence and security - Government going to court to subvert democratic procedure - widespread corruption amongst officials in power - international environmental commitments being ignored or flouted - backtracking on women's rights - healthcare provision being withdrawn
Then it would be a serious cause for concern.
I couldn't help but spot your water canon point: the ones bought off another European country, and explicitly forbidden from being used by our Prime Minister?
Or do you mean the ones that PSNI have had for years prior to the current government?
Don't let the circumstances get in the way though...
Context, my friend.
Boris bought them because the Tories fully know that as a direct result of their economic policy social unrest will be on the rise. May did not forbid their use out of the goodness of her heart but it was a purely cynical move to embarrass Boris. The PSNI has them, yes, but the region does have some history with violent civilian action and so it is merited.
Khan is apparently selling them but chilling to think that the Tories' apparent mindset is that instead of healing social divides they would rather assault their own population.
- keep putting off lower pollution - wait until everyone dies
Christ, what's happened? You sound like me on speed!
I think he's either been got at or on a monumental wind-up.
Come the day before the election he'll post something like 'Only joking - now get out there and vote for the only party to make us great again - the Conservatives'. UKIP
- keep putting off lower pollution - wait until everyone dies
Christ, what's happened? You sound like me on speed!
I think he's either been got at or on a monumental wind-up.
Come the day before the election he'll post something like 'Only joking - now get out there and vote for the only party to make us great again - the Conservatives'.
I was wondering if it was a 'Diceman' type scenario.
You could be right. Even number I stand up for everything blue - odd number I castigate every tory for just breathing.
I am loathed to say to much as s/he is a formidable adversary, I would rather have him on our side.
- keep putting off lower pollution - wait until everyone dies
Christ, what's happened? You sound like me on speed!
I think he's either been got at or on a monumental wind-up.
Come the day before the election he'll post something like 'Only joking - now get out there and vote for the only party to make us great again - the Conservatives'.
I was wondering if it was a 'Diceman' type scenario.
You could be right. Even number I stand up for everything blue - odd number I castigate every tory for just breathing.
I am loathed to say to much as s/he is a formidable adversary, I would rather have him on our side.
- a hard right party in power - an ideological war being waged against the poor, homeless and disabled - rise in xenophobia and Islamophobia - leaving the EU and the EEA - anti-migrant sentiments - refugees being scapegoated and international obligations on asylum seekers being flouted - withdrawing from international human rights jurisdiction - the party in power allied in the European Parliament with far-right parties - water cannons purchased to be used against own citizens - civil liberties being withdrawn - threats against other EU nations regarding defence and security - Government going to court to subvert democratic procedure - widespread corruption amongst officials in power - international environmental commitments being ignored or flouted - backtracking on women's rights - healthcare provision being withdrawn
Then it would be a serious cause for concern.
I couldn't help but spot your water canon point: the ones bought off another European country, and explicitly forbidden from being used by our Prime Minister?
Or do you mean the ones that PSNI have had for years prior to the current government?
Don't let the circumstances get in the way though...
Context, my friend.
Boris bought them because the Tories fully know that as a direct result of their economic policy social unrest will be on the rise. May did not forbid their use out of the goodness of her heart but it was a purely cynical move to embarrass Boris. The PSNI has them, yes, but the region does have some history with violent civilian action and so it is merited.
Khan is apparently selling them but chilling to think that the Tories' apparent mindset is that instead of healing social divides they would rather assault their own population.
They were bought in response to the London Riots - which had nothing to do with civil unrest as a result of Conservative economic policy - as the Met Commissioner had stated it was a tactic he would like to have had access to. (Hence why David Cameron actually approved the usage during the riots.)
It's bit rich to ask me to take your full post in to context when you're not prepared to look at the context of your own points IMO.
Yes, I think it is there to see if you research it. The exact amount varies depending on when - but all studies will show EU immigrants make a positive net contribution and a higher one than non EU ones - overall that is. I'm not making an argument against non EU immigration by the way. That is for small minded people to do! Of course there are going to be negative and postive contributors and my point is an overall one.
A recent study from University College London estimated the benefits of EU immigration to the country of being £2b per anum. I have quickly googled below to illustrate the point. There are probably better examples but you get the idea.
I think the numbers are currently pretty even but historically non EU immigration has been higher numbers wise.
I think if you do some more research you will find that no one contributes taxes sufficient to cover what they take out in pubic services and welfare.
I'm not sure that can be right, someone on £1m a year paying over £400k in tax?
I'd hazard a guess that my P60 sum in Tax and NI was more than enough last tax year to cover my use of public services (I get no welfare) and more than likely my wife and two daughters.
I guess it depends what's being taken into the calculation. So over and above things like the NHS there's the police, the armed forces (both of which are working to protect you all the time), fire brigade, schools etc, then there's the basic infrastructure of the country - roads, bridges etc.
No idea how much tax you pay but I'd hazard a guess that when you take into account all the things that our taxes cover most get back more than they pay in.
Agree but the comment was no one pays enough in to cover what they take out which can't be true or we may as well all give up now.
I get a lovely report each year as to where my tax goes, from memory it doesn't show armed forces but I do pay a 5 figure sum for each of benefits and NHS....
Not complaining but to say no one pays enough is clearly wrong (but it may be the majority)
Your assumption is that personal tax is what pays for public services. You ignore VAT, Corporation Tax, fuel duty, business rates, council tax etc etc. I will reword my comment - if you take total public services expenditure and divide by UK population a minuscule number of individuals might pay their share of the cost of public services through personal tax. The only way the books are balanced year to year is through borrowing or a budget surplus. Borrowing has increased because public spending has increased as a faster rate than revenues, depressed as a result of depressed wages. The failure of government has been to find a policy that will boost wages.
On average our annual spending has exceeded annual revenue by 4% over the last 20 years. Last year it was a 3% hole to be filled. When Tony Blair took over in 2007 the Tories were running a budget surplus of a positive 6% of GDP. It then increased rapidly to a negative 6% culminating in a negative 10%. The Tories turned this back to a 10% positive surplus in 2009.
The inability to turn the current 3% gap into a positive budget surplus is because public spending has continued to increase, not fall, and wages and tax revenues have not increased as every Chancellor would expect in a period of economic growth.
Using national debt figures as party political ammunition is playground stuff. I don't necessarily disagree with increasing borrowing to invest in services, if it's invested wisely. Either you don't borrow and have to raise more in taxes today, or you borrow and the next generation pays for it tomorrow out of the resulting increase in GDP, or the enjoyment of better services. If politics wan't such a game, the debate would be around proving the benefits from the borrowing, not how big is it.
Remind me which party donated ££££££££££££££££££ to construction firms and banks to become landlords of schools and hospitals passing on to the taxpayer the mortgage interest costs at credit card levels of interest - why - because they were already embarrassed by the rate of increase in national debt and needed to hide the massive increase in national debt they were passing on to the next generation. An example of Labour's poor record on making economic decisions and needing to use creative accounting to try and hide government spending from the electorate.
Given Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were able to do such a good job on the economy and management of debt, we should all get behind Jezza who has far more support from Labour members than Blair and Brown could ever dream of, they can't all be wrong, so let's all vote Labour, no more Tory bullshit.
I know these figures are all rubbish, @MuttleyCAFC is going to provide the alternative ones to prove it.
I provided the figures which proved that EU immigrants benefit the economy - you went off on a tangent disagreeing with all considered studies.
You quoted a newspaper article giving a figure and mis-stated what the figure represented.
The figure was absolutely 100% correct, it came from HMRC published statistics, not a considered study, I didn't disagree with the figure.
I corrected your misunderstanding of what the figure represented, I apologise if you find correcting your misstatements is tangential or suggests your research is flawed.
You are going to rather extreme lengths to defend a conclusion that is, for all intents and purposes, wrong.
Not a conclusion, just a fact. The figure of £2bn confirms that migrants benefit least from in-work welfare because there are fewer migrants than non-migrants and a larger percentage are working compared to residents.
There is no consensus on how to calculate the contribution to the countries finances, positive or negative, as a result of migration. It will change from year to year depending on whether the country is running a budget surplus or deficit, where migration is from, and how far you project generational impact . The estimates from research from many different quarters allowing for margins of error suggest the impact is +/- 1% of GDP say £22bn either way.
Not really useful in supporting a political position either for or against immigration, so the indisputable figure of £2bn was rolled out and dressed up as proving the case against immigration controls and it's then left to lazy journalism and confirmation bias to do the work of the politicians.
I will modify my comment about a minuscule proportion of the population being self supporting in terms of paying for public services, reckon a single person without dependants paying more than £50k a year in taxes is paying, on average, more than he consumes in services.
- a hard right party in power - an ideological war being waged against the poor, homeless and disabled - rise in xenophobia and Islamophobia - leaving the EU and the EEA - anti-migrant sentiments - refugees being scapegoated and international obligations on asylum seekers being flouted - withdrawing from international human rights jurisdiction - the party in power allied in the European Parliament with far-right parties - water cannons purchased to be used against own citizens - civil liberties being withdrawn - threats against other EU nations regarding defence and security - Government going to court to subvert democratic procedure - widespread corruption amongst officials in power - international environmental commitments being ignored or flouted - backtracking on women's rights - healthcare provision being withdrawn
Then it would be a serious cause for concern.
I couldn't help but spot your water canon point: the ones bought off another European country, and explicitly forbidden from being used by our Prime Minister?
Or do you mean the ones that PSNI have had for years prior to the current government?
Don't let the circumstances get in the way though...
Context, my friend.
Boris bought them because the Tories fully know that as a direct result of their economic policy social unrest will be on the rise. May did not forbid their use out of the goodness of her heart but it was a purely cynical move to embarrass Boris. The PSNI has them, yes, but the region does have some history with violent civilian action and so it is merited.
Khan is apparently selling them but chilling to think that the Tories' apparent mindset is that instead of healing social divides they would rather assault their own population.
They were bought in response to the London Riots - which had nothing to do with civil unrest as a result of Conservative economic policy - as the Met Commissioner had stated it was a tactic he would like to have had access to. (Hence why David Cameron actually approved the usage during the riots.)
It's bit rich to ask me to take your full post in to context when you're not prepared to look at the context of your own points IMO.
There have been 3 instances since the Tories took power in 2010 of violent disorder in the UK. 2 were in direct response to the Tories' cuts, whereas whilst the England Riots in 2011 may have been sparked by the shooting of Mark Duggan, it has been widely suggested that the riots spread due to the reaction towards the government of the day. The Tories clearly know that more riots in opposition of their destructive policies are on the way, which is why they are readying themselves to weaponise any response to further social disorder.
That is the context. Even if your opinion differs to mine as to the legitimacy of a Tory buying water cannons in order to attack the people he was elected to protect, the other dozen or so points I made still stand that this government bears all the hallmarks of a authoritarian right-wing regime you would normally have to visit a Russian satellite state to find.
- a hard right party in power - an ideological war being waged against the poor, homeless and disabled - rise in xenophobia and Islamophobia - leaving the EU and the EEA - anti-migrant sentiments - refugees being scapegoated and international obligations on asylum seekers being flouted - withdrawing from international human rights jurisdiction - the party in power allied in the European Parliament with far-right parties - water cannons purchased to be used against own citizens - civil liberties being withdrawn - threats against other EU nations regarding defence and security - Government going to court to subvert democratic procedure - widespread corruption amongst officials in power - international environmental commitments being ignored or flouted - backtracking on women's rights - healthcare provision being withdrawn
Then it would be a serious cause for concern.
I couldn't help but spot your water canon point: the ones bought off another European country, and explicitly forbidden from being used by our Prime Minister?
Or do you mean the ones that PSNI have had for years prior to the current government?
Don't let the circumstances get in the way though...
Context, my friend.
Boris bought them because the Tories fully know that as a direct result of their economic policy social unrest will be on the rise. May did not forbid their use out of the goodness of her heart but it was a purely cynical move to embarrass Boris. The PSNI has them, yes, but the region does have some history with violent civilian action and so it is merited.
Khan is apparently selling them but chilling to think that the Tories' apparent mindset is that instead of healing social divides they would rather assault their own population.
They were bought in response to the London Riots - which had nothing to do with civil unrest as a result of Conservative economic policy - as the Met Commissioner had stated it was a tactic he would like to have had access to. (Hence why David Cameron actually approved the usage during the riots.)
It's bit rich to ask me to take your full post in to context when you're not prepared to look at the context of your own points IMO.
There have been 3 instances since the Tories took power in 2010 of violent disorder in the UK. 2 were in direct response to the Tories' cuts, whereas whilst the England Riots in 2011 may have been sparked by the shooting of Mark Duggan, it has been widely suggested that the riots spread due to the reaction towards the government of the day. The Tories clearly know that more riots in opposition of their destructive policies are on the way, which is why they are readying themselves to weaponise any response to further social disorder.
The riots spread due to the opportunity to nick a pair of trainers from the local JD Sports FFS. I didn't see any banners or political slogans, but I saw everything from rice to sportswear being stolen; I remember being offered some nice shirts in a pub a few weeks later - I can't remember being told the extent of the conservative economic policy though.
Theres often public disorder, but it doesn't always mean there's merit behind them. If you can expand on how the Tories are "readying themselves to weaponise any response to further social disorder" I'd be rather interested, as all I can see is the refusal to use water cannons and further cuts and restrictions imposed on the police service. Not doing an especially good job of "weaponising the response" are they?
That is the context. Even if your opinion differs to mine as to the legitimacy of a Tory buying water cannons in order to attack the people he was elected to protect, the other dozen or so points I made still stand that this government bears all the hallmarks of a authoritarian right-wing regime you would normally have to visit a Russian satellite state to find.
Oh please, some of your points are simply duplicates - and I only responded to the most obvious one that was disingenuous, bordering on deceitful.
If you genuinely believe that our current climate is that of a "Russian satellite" (in 2017? What satellite are we referring to exactly?) then I'd suggest a trip to Waterstones or nearest library to help you gain some perspective. Snoopers Charter and communications intercepts aside, that's a ridiculous notion.
Clearly we're not going to agree but you haven't really presented any evidence and your tone isn't particularly appreciated. I'm just pointing out that if a country like Romania or Bulgaria was making the same sorts of sounds the UK is now making there would be international condemnation. None of my points are duplicates (although there are some overlaps I will admit) but the points are very much factual, this is what is happening in reality. It is your choice to ignore it if you want. I don't think I am being disingenuous or deceitful, you are just trying to twist the truth to suit your agenda. If anything, that is more disingenuous.
If you think that a furniture store in South London was burnt down because someone was shot in North London then you are a very silly boy. Looting was perhaps the least of the problems of the riots (although no doubt that our capitalism-obsessed media and a Government that acts in the interests of big business would obsess over designer items being stolen). This really isn't the time or place to discuss the causes of what caused the riots to spread but from your comments on it, it looks like you're the one who needs to read up on it if you think the cause of the riots was kids looking for free trainers.
Clearly we're not going to agree but you haven't really presented any evidence and your tone isn't particularly appreciated. I'm just pointing out that if a country like Romania or Bulgaria was making the same sorts of sounds the UK is now making there would be international condemnation. None of my points are duplicates (although there are some overlaps I will admit) but the points are very much factual, this is what is happening in reality. It is your choice to ignore it if you want. I don't think I am being disingenuous or deceitful, you are just trying to twist the truth to suit your agenda. If anything, that is more disingenuous.
Erh... and you state that I haven't provided any evidence, but your list of bullet points wasnt exactly backed up by systematic review was it? Nor was your comparison with a "Russian satellite".
I'm not ignoring anything, nor am I twisting the truth. Once again - I'd welcome any attempt at backing that claim up too, because it's not a particularly nice thing to say - and it smells of a degree of hypocrisy to be entirely honest.
If you think that a furniture store in South London was burnt down because someone was shot in North London then you are a very silly boy. Looting was perhaps the least of the problems of the riots (although no doubt that our capitalism-obsessed media and a Government that acts in the interests of big business would obsess over designer items being stolen). This really isn't the time or place to discuss the causes of what caused the riots to spread but from your comments on it, it looks like you're the one who needs to read up on it if you think the cause of the riots was kids looking for free trainers.
It may not be the best time or place to discuss, but if you genuinely believe it was more than opportunism then I'd suggest you look at social media postings that were used for the prosecutions. They didnt exactly extol a virtue of economics aimed at the needy. Of course, as I need to read it up on it I'm clearly wrong as were the courts, and as were friends who were involved with the situation as it developed.
If we're going to talk about not being very nice then don't suggest that I need to go read a book just because you disagree with me.
If you don't think anger at government cuts and at the Tories in general contributed towards the likelihood of things kicking off, here are some accounts and sources that back me up:
It cannot be simply explained away as 'opportunism', otherwise there would be a riot every time police forces were operationally overstretched (Olympics, big sporting events, large protests etc.)
As I said, looting was the least of the problems that happened during the riots. What opportunism was there for all the arson, vandalism and violence that occurred if there was no profit to be had? What else would cause young lads to be driven to such terrible acts if there was absolutely no reward for it? This is a rhetorical question by the way, I know the answer, just trying to help you see there was more to the riots than a bunch of kids robbing from JD.
If we're going to talk about not being very nice then don't suggest that I need to go read a book just because you disagree with me.
I think it's ludicrous to compare us to "Russian satellite", and still do. I think you're underestimating the extent of the authoritarianism and control required, and genuinely do feel it's worth reading up on the subject before you throw it about.
Not so much because of my political views here, but more so because it undermines the conditions that people have had to endure in such regimes. I apologise - and genuinely so, mate - if it came across as a hyperbolic dig at you, but it's both fascinating and well documented, and we're a long way off that situation IMO.
If you don't think anger at government cuts and at the Tories in general contributed towards the likelihood of things kicking off, here are some accounts and sources that back me up:
Shockingly, I haven't read those articles, but just from how you've phrased it there - we have some common ground. Happy people do not riot, but once the situation hit a tipping point it was no longer about that, and other elements came out to play; the very definition of opportunistic!
It cannot be simply explained away as 'opportunism', otherwise there would be a riot every time police forces were operationally overstretched (Olympics, big sporting events, large protests etc.)
Even your second guardian link points to opportunism as a core factor though, and the main dynamic being antipathy towards the police - i.e what began about a police action (the shooting of Mark Duggan) hit a tipping point and the opportunists took control.
The difference is that the Olympics, sporting events and organised protests are policed to prevent escalation from the outset.
Fair does. Apology for tone, I do actually like you, I think there was just a misunderstanding and I reacted poorly.
FFS - I've just read word for word both your responses and I had my grasser's hat on ready to alert the group to a potentially good argument and then this. Pathetic
Fair does. Apology for tone, I do actually like you, I think there was just a misunderstanding and I reacted poorly.
FFS - I've just read word for word both your responses and I had my grasser's hat on ready to alert the group to a potentially good argument and then this. Pathetic
I am going to see where my MP stands on a soft or hard Brexit - If they are strongly for a soft Brexit, they have my vote whether they are Tory, Labour or Lib Dem. I accept there are sensible tories I could vote for. That would be a first in my lifetime - and I think May is a potential disaster for the country! If the MP is a hard Brexiter or is unclear, I will look at their biggest rival and work down from there. I think everybody who can see the disaster a hard Brexit will be has to take this position.
I am going to see where my MP stands on a soft or hard Brexit - If they are strongly for a soft Brexit, they have my vote whether they are Tory, Labour or Lib Dem. I accept there are sensible tories I could vote for. That would be a first in my lifetime - and I think May is a potential disaster for the country! If the MP is a hard Brexiter or is unclear, I will look at their biggest rival and work down from there. I think everybody who can see the disaster a hard Brexit will be has to take this position.
That's how I plan to do it. I'm still registered in Greenwich despite moving to Spain a few years ago. Not getting any of the mailshots or keeping fully up to date, have they announced the candidates yet?
I think everybody who is passionate about this and fears the consequences has to do it. We need somebody to come out who is not affiliated to a political party and help people identify what would be teh ultimate protest vote. If it is clear there are no patterns it will give all the parties a kick in the teeth.
Comments
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158524071580384&id=660365383
Or do you mean the ones that PSNI have had for years prior to the current government?
Don't let the circumstances get in the way though...
Boris bought them because the Tories fully know that as a direct result of their economic policy social unrest will be on the rise. May did not forbid their use out of the goodness of her heart but it was a purely cynical move to embarrass Boris. The PSNI has them, yes, but the region does have some history with violent civilian action and so it is merited.
Khan is apparently selling them but chilling to think that the Tories' apparent mindset is that instead of healing social divides they would rather assault their own population.
(Joking Fishy!!)
It's bit rich to ask me to take your full post in to context when you're not prepared to look at the context of your own points IMO.
There is no consensus on how to calculate the contribution to the countries finances, positive or negative, as a result of migration. It will change from year to year depending on whether the country is running a budget surplus or deficit, where migration is from, and how far you project generational impact . The estimates from research from many different quarters allowing for margins of error suggest the impact is +/- 1% of GDP say £22bn either way.
Not really useful in supporting a political position either for or against immigration, so the indisputable figure of £2bn was rolled out and dressed up as proving the case against immigration controls and it's then left to lazy journalism and confirmation bias to do the work of the politicians.
I will modify my comment about a minuscule proportion of the population being self supporting in terms of paying for public services, reckon a single person without dependants paying more than £50k a year in taxes is paying, on average, more than he consumes in services.
That is the context. Even if your opinion differs to mine as to the legitimacy of a Tory buying water cannons in order to attack the people he was elected to protect, the other dozen or so points I made still stand that this government bears all the hallmarks of a authoritarian right-wing regime you would normally have to visit a Russian satellite state to find.
If you think that a furniture store in South London was burnt down because someone was shot in North London then you are a very silly boy. Looting was perhaps the least of the problems of the riots (although no doubt that our capitalism-obsessed media and a Government that acts in the interests of big business would obsess over designer items being stolen). This really isn't the time or place to discuss the causes of what caused the riots to spread but from your comments on it, it looks like you're the one who needs to read up on it if you think the cause of the riots was kids looking for free trainers.
If you don't think anger at government cuts and at the Tories in general contributed towards the likelihood of things kicking off, here are some accounts and sources that back me up:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/aug/10/uk-riots-political-classes
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/05/anger-police-fuelled-riots-study
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-disorder-idUKTRE7752QX20110808
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/world/europe/08britain.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
It cannot be simply explained away as 'opportunism', otherwise there would be a riot every time police forces were operationally overstretched (Olympics, big sporting events, large protests etc.)
As I said, looting was the least of the problems that happened during the riots. What opportunism was there for all the arson, vandalism and violence that occurred if there was no profit to be had? What else would cause young lads to be driven to such terrible acts if there was absolutely no reward for it? This is a rhetorical question by the way, I know the answer, just trying to help you see there was more to the riots than a bunch of kids robbing from JD.