Nicholas Clegg - a liar and hypocrite? Never!
Discussion
Clegg predicts a riot
He states that there will be civil unrest if a government on a slim majority pushes through radical change with no real mandate.
So by his own logic, as he has been part of the process of radical cuts as part of a government with no overall majority, he's to blame.
When can we expect his resignation?
He states that there will be civil unrest if a government on a slim majority pushes through radical change with no real mandate.
So by his own logic, as he has been part of the process of radical cuts as part of a government with no overall majority, he's to blame.
When can we expect his resignation?
They're both stupid acts perpertrated by young teenagers. He burned down a couple of greenhouses, and being an over-privileged young man he had far less reason to do it than any of these lot. It's like BJ smashing up a restaurant's windows, and other Bullingdon club antics.
You know what the truth of the matter is? Boys will be Boys. Boys will be Boys and they will do stupid, violent and dangerous things when they're young; the more stupid, violent and dangerous it is the better, i did and I guarantee a lot of PHers did, the only ones truly shocked by this are lady-folk and the effeminate middle-class... All that's changed is that with new media we can see it more closely.
How quickly would they avoid re-election if David Cameron simply said, "Come on, we all did things like that. Nick set a couple of fires, me and Boris smashed a few windows, Dave Miliband went on a campus rampage, whilst Ed had dinner with his sociology professor - Boys will be Boys.".
You know what the truth of the matter is? Boys will be Boys. Boys will be Boys and they will do stupid, violent and dangerous things when they're young; the more stupid, violent and dangerous it is the better, i did and I guarantee a lot of PHers did, the only ones truly shocked by this are lady-folk and the effeminate middle-class... All that's changed is that with new media we can see it more closely.
How quickly would they avoid re-election if David Cameron simply said, "Come on, we all did things like that. Nick set a couple of fires, me and Boris smashed a few windows, Dave Miliband went on a campus rampage, whilst Ed had dinner with his sociology professor - Boys will be Boys.".
Edited by Puffing Devil on Saturday 13th August 14:08
There were some very nasty criminal elements involved in the riots obviously, but most of those offenders who are under 16 were just boys being boys. They aren't the ones who ripped cashpoints off the walls, fought the police, burned shops and homes, and took circular saws to safes - but they've been blanketed under the terms 'wanton criminality'.
He was very, very right to ask Nick Clegg if he had any empathy with those 15/16 down to 11 year olds who were caught up in the riots. They were boys, much like Clegg, Cameron, Johnson, Dave Miliband, Osborne; all the guys you see with that cheeky glint in their eye, that tells you they weren't anything like Ed Miliband when they were younger. It is not right for these kids to be criminalized for life just for some political agenda, first offences for under 16s should be treated as that. The true mayhem caused during the riots was caused by hardened criminals and anarchists - the 15-16 year olds first-time offenders, shoplifting, who went out for a laugh, are just boys being boys.
Clegg, Cameron and all others who call for harsh sentences on these young first-time offenders, strike me as oddly reminiscent of mad Colonel Gaddafi 'the guide of the Revolution', turning his troops on the young revolutionaries prepared to die for a cause. It is hypocritical at best, and ruinous for this country at its very worst.
He was very, very right to ask Nick Clegg if he had any empathy with those 15/16 down to 11 year olds who were caught up in the riots. They were boys, much like Clegg, Cameron, Johnson, Dave Miliband, Osborne; all the guys you see with that cheeky glint in their eye, that tells you they weren't anything like Ed Miliband when they were younger. It is not right for these kids to be criminalized for life just for some political agenda, first offences for under 16s should be treated as that. The true mayhem caused during the riots was caused by hardened criminals and anarchists - the 15-16 year olds first-time offenders, shoplifting, who went out for a laugh, are just boys being boys.
Clegg, Cameron and all others who call for harsh sentences on these young first-time offenders, strike me as oddly reminiscent of mad Colonel Gaddafi 'the guide of the Revolution', turning his troops on the young revolutionaries prepared to die for a cause. It is hypocritical at best, and ruinous for this country at its very worst.
It is. I guarantee the actions that they took in smashing restaurant windows and setting ire to greenhouses is no different, in fact probably worse than what a lot of those teenagers did on the night.
Given the amount of people that were on the steets, if they all gone out with hardened criminal motives, London would not just have had a bent back, it would have been brought to its knees. This issue should not be politicised, those first-time offenders under the age of 16 should be treated as such, unless the crime was of a violent nature.
Given the amount of people that were on the steets, if they all gone out with hardened criminal motives, London would not just have had a bent back, it would have been brought to its knees. This issue should not be politicised, those first-time offenders under the age of 16 should be treated as such, unless the crime was of a violent nature.
Puffing Devil said:
You know what the truth of the matter is? Boys will be Boys. Boys will be Boys and they will do stupid, violent and dangerous things when they're young; the more stupid, violent and dangerous it is the better, i did and I guarantee a lot of PHers did, the only ones truly shocked by this are lady-folk and the effeminate middle-class... All that's changed is that with new media we can see it more closely.
]
f]
k me I must be a fking boring tt. Do you know what? I have never smashed or burnt anything in my life or been violent for that matter.Yes I did dangerous risky things when young but the the only victims would have been me.
I didn't go hedge hoping or running over cars because even at a very early age I knew that one day I would own a car and it would piss me off if somebody did it to me. I didn't go stealing from sheds/shops/gardens wherever and people in my school who did I stayed away from them.
middle class? I grew up on a council estate in doncaster so you can't even lable me as that either.
I know a lot of people do these things but they are in the monority I simply cannot belive most young boys set other peoples property on fire. The country would be a wasteland.
When i was at the L.S.E. they had something called the 'Beer Run' - on one occasion it ended up in parts of Kings College getting trashed - there was an apology and the damages were paid. It's not the same as what happened last weekend. You might as well compare it to rock stars who go a bit mental in hotel rooms - now who doesn't find those kind of antics a bit funny? If Nick Clegg and his chums had gone riot through Alton Estate in Roehampton smashing up windows and intimidating the residents, then that would be a good comparison. See the difference.
Edited by fido on Saturday 13th August 16:51
Puffing Devil said:
Boys will be Boys. Boys will be Boys and they will do stupid, violent and dangerous things when they're young; the more stupid, violent and dangerous it is the better, i did and I guarantee a lot of PHers did, the only ones truly shocked by this are lady-folk and the effeminate middle-class...
Boys will be boys? What crap. I never destroyed anybody's property or got into any trouble whatsoever when I was young and neither did the kids I hung round with. That's because my parents weren't feckless and I wasn't a little st.carmonk said:
Boys will be boys? What crap. I never destroyed anybody's property or got into any trouble whatsoever when I was young and neither did the kids I hung round with. That's because my parents weren't feckless and I wasn't a little st.
My parents weren't feckless. I was a little st.t, once. The kicking I got from Mr Plod, then my parents was an effective cure. You may not have gotten drunk and smashed a window or set fire to something but David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Nick Clegg have. And only in Nick Clegg's own words did he 'destroy a few cacti' - he burnt down 2 greenhouses!!! It doesn't even take a lot of thought to realise what sort of fire could destroy a bunch of plants that are basically made of water and grow in the desert...
Now obviously some of us were more daring than others, but if you haven't engaged in a bit of drunken vandalism at some point you either haven't lived - or you've never been to university.
Now obviously some of us were more daring than others, but if you haven't engaged in a bit of drunken vandalism at some point you either haven't lived - or you've never been to university.
Puffing Devil said:
You may not have gotten drunk and smashed a window or set fire to something but David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Nick Clegg have. And only in Nick Clegg's own words did he 'destroy a few cacti' - he burnt down 2 greenhouses!!! It doesn't even take a lot of thought to realise what sort of fire could destroy a bunch of plants that are basically made of water and grow in the desert...
Now obviously some of us were more daring than others, but if you haven't engaged in a bit of drunken vandalism at some point you either haven't lived - or you've never been to university.
Uni...Now obviously some of us were more daring than others, but if you haven't engaged in a bit of drunken vandalism at some point you either haven't lived - or you've never been to university.
You know what, I've got some stuff to be getting on with so I'm going to go ahead and leave this thread...
You've never done any drunken vandalism or defaced anything whilst drunk? Never stolen a traffic cone? Never messed around and hidden your flatmates items? Never scrawled a message on someone's door in shaving foam? You've gotten involved in drunken pranks or you haven't lived, though like I said some are more daring than others.
If you can't find any empathy with some 15 year old getting drunk in the summer holidays, then getting roped into something that 9 times out of 10 they wouldn't normally do, you need some gaps in your memory filling.
If you can't find any empathy with some 15 year old getting drunk in the summer holidays, then getting roped into something that 9 times out of 10 they wouldn't normally do, you need some gaps in your memory filling.
Puffing Devil said:
You've never done any drunken vandalism or defaced anything whilst drunk? Never stolen a traffic cone? Never messed around and hidden your flatmates items? Never scrawled a message on someone's door in shaving foam? You've gotten involved in drunken pranks or you haven't lived, though like I said some are more daring than others.
Are you saying the majority of rioters were, just being a bit daft?http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?q=what+to+do+in+a+r...
(Linked for the image rather than the web source.)
Anyway, I'll be kind and just call you a troll.
Yes, half of them were under-16, schoolkids on their summer holidays. Is it implausible to you that impelled by schoolfriends, alcohol and bravado a lot of these kids are not 'hardened crims' or examples of 'wanton criminality', but literally schoolkids on their summer holidays, hanging around outside, pushed by bravado and crowd mentality into something they 9 times out of 10 wouldn't do?
Puffing Devil said:
Yes, half of them were under-16, schoolkids on their summer holidays. Is it implausible to you that impelled by schoolfriends, alcohol and bravado a lot of these kids are not 'hardened crims' or examples of 'wanton criminality', but literally schoolkids on their summer holidays, hanging around outside, pushed by bravado and crowd mentality into something they 9 times out of 10 wouldn't do?
FFS, are you suggesting mitigating circumstances cos it wus da skool oleedays innit?Anyway, I suspect it's a bit more complex than that.
From the first riot thread, and worth posting again.
D14 AYS said:
jq3104 said:
ZOLLAR said:
AJS- said:
evo97 said:
Another lets play the race card..........
Words cant express my anger!!!!
It is high time to play the race card...Words cant express my anger!!!!
It seems the vast majority of those rioting are black, and the spark that gave them their excuse for this wanton theft and destruction was the police shooting a black man who waved, and possibly fired, a gun at them.
Anyone surprised?
If you take blacks as a group, as people like Darcus Howe seem to be doing, then you would be hard pressed to find a group who has had an easier ride for the last few decades.
Not only do those people rioting have state education that is the same as that available to everyone else in the UK regardless of skin colour, but they have "free" housing in one of the most expensive cities in the world, they get benefits, they get positive discrimination where by certain roles have to interview "minority" candidates. They have had the language modified and laws created to make discrimination against them both illegal and socially unacceptable.
And still they end up wrecking the place, just like it was Zimbabwe or Soweto.
Anyone who is under 30 wouldn't have any memories of the "No Blacks" signs in London in the 1960s, no memory of Enoch Powell's rivers of blood speech, barely even a fleeting memory of news reports from apartheid South Africa. You probably would remember a black US President being elected by a far more racially divided nation than the UK. You probably would remember a black Formula 1 world champion getting the full support of British fans. You may well have noticed that every government brochure, advert and TV commercial features a black face. Yet still they have a chip on their shoulder about fk knows what.
Perhaps about the fact that they continually fail, where Indians, Chinese and nearly every other immigrant group succeeds in making a go of life in a civilised society? Perhaps the fact that they remain at the bottom of nearly every table measuring academic, social or financial achievement?
Or just perhaps it's because every spokesblack and quite a few white politicians and assorted do-gooders give them an excuse every time they screw up. And because their serial screwing up has got them more attention, more resources and more excuses every time.
How about this, to the black community:
Your community is a mess because you have done nothing to improve it. Your children fail at school because you do nothing to push them to succeed. They then go on to crime, drugs and prison because you do nothing to control them, or encourage them to live by the laws of the society they are in.
And if you think this is getting one back at whitey, or settling some long forgotten score you know bugger all about, think again. Shops will be rebuilt and restocked, cars will be replaced, broken bones will heal, but your community and your people will remain in utter squallor, economically, intellectually and morally, until you yourselves do something about it. And this sort of disgusting behaviour will hurt nobody more than the honest, law abiding black people who live in England and actually do want to go ahead and make use of the opportunities available to them to improve their lot in life.
Grow up. Put away your stupid gangsta rap videos. Take the chips off your shoulders and have a good hard look at the source of your problems. Will burning down shops and attacking policemen really help you solve any of them? Or will it only serve to further alienate you from civilised society and erode the massive good will that you have been on the receiving end of for a generation and more.
When I was a kid we'd have a bit of fun and sail close to the wind. Had the transport police turn up at home one day because we'd been trespassing on railway property. Vandalism you say? No, picking blackberries actually. Boy, were we bad.
Smash the window of some deserted building, leave alone one in a high street? Wouldn't even have been considered, the penalties from our parents (note 'parents' is plural) would have been too high, see.
Edited by pacman1 on Sunday 14th August 01:07
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff