The Student Room Group

Why didn't the riots spread to...

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Original post by MancStudent098
But if insisting that Cardiff had 'riots' as well gives you some kind of vicarious thrill then who am I to spoil your fun.

:teehee: It didn't give me a thrill, I was just pointing out that it has been recorded in news that it occurred in Cardiff, when the OP states that it didn't.

Plus, the Guardian hasn't stated every single thing in the cities that has occurred, it has just put up the most serious stuff. It doesn't mean those were the only two things that occurred in Cardiff.
Reply 21
Original post by hellomoto170
I'm not debating who started the riots, but when things were really kicking off there were so many white people also involved that to say the majority were black for me is wrong. I too have eyes and from images, videos etc I saw, there were just as many white people in the riots which by the way is expected seeing as they outnumber black people.
I just don't see the OP's point unless he has some stats because I saw lots of white people rioting.


heres some statistics. black people make up about 2-4 percent of the population of the uk. Watch the footage. Are you really going to say they make up 2-4 percent?

morons. how can we confront this problem with criminality in the black community if people point blank lie and say there is no difference. just stupid.
These places didn't experience riots for cultural, not racial, reasons.

They are all areas of the country that still have strong national identities (whether they be Welsh, Scottish, or English). The places affected contained large immigrant population that do not share these identities and are centers of the liberal elite (although they are not actually very liberal), who, do to a strong sense of self-hate, actively oppose nationalism.
Reply 23
Original post by Wucker
These places didn't experience riots for cultural, not racial, reasons.

They are all areas of the country that still have strong national identities (whether they be Welsh, Scottish, or English). The places affected contained large immigrant population that do not share these identities and are centers of the liberal elite (although they are not actually very liberal), who, do to a strong sense of self-hate, actively oppose nationalism.


I agree. It seems that the riots took place in areas where the native underclass (chavs as snobs may call them) have adopted the same pathetic "gangster" language and outlook on life as their neighbours cos it's cool to be an absolute moron now apparently...

And no this isn't racist. I guess if you were looking for an ist to call it it could be culturist.
Reply 24
Lucky for the rioters that they live in a democratic society and not be crushed by tanks and heavy machine guns...
Reply 25
Original post by Bonged.
How come the rioting only took place in areas with a large ethnic minority population?

The rioting , blamed on social exclusion and unemployment, did not spread to deprived cities such as plymouth, newcastle, glasgow, cardiff.

What is different about these cities?

Soz PC brigade for asking questions that make you squirm.

People like you are exactly what's wrong with politics. I have no issue with ethnicity being brought into debates when there's a real attempt to understand the fabric of a society. I have no issue with certain degrees of generalisation for the purpose of simplifying a broader point. For instance, as some who's left-leaning, I found myself agreeing with most of what Starkey said, as did many others who lean left, as did many others who would usually face accusations of trying too hard to appear politically correct; the man made an intelligent point and while ethnicity was used to illustrate a pervasive and damaging subculture, you could tell he didn't make the preschool mistake of confusing cause with correlation.

No. What bugs me is when morons spot a correlation, a pattern of some kind, say something racist then go "HUH SEE THAT PC BRIGADE CALL ME RACIST", like the fact you were able to predict an obvious response somehow invalidates the response. Well, tell me, if some went out to forcefully stick his cock into someone, but before doing so predicted that he'd be accused of being a rapist, would that stop him from being a rapist? Of course not. This backwards ass logic just doesn't fly, but the BNP and their followers have basically made it their mantra.

People like you make a point, chuck ethnicity into the mix then cup your ears to all further reasoning. Right, non-whites are the cause of all problems. White people have been doing good for this country for hundreds of years, and what have coloured people ever done? Sure, why not, absolutely nothing. It's in their genes. It's not like Indians make up about a tenth of the NHS workforce, or bring in 9% of the nation's GDP despite being a significantly smaller percentage of the nation's population. It's not as if black labour force helped rebuild after world war two. It's not like the Turks saved Britain from being overwhelmed by a Spanish armada in the 1700s.
Reply 26
Original post by Bonged.
I agree. It seems that the riots took place in areas where the native underclass (chavs as snobs may call them) have adopted the same pathetic "gangster" language and outlook on life as their neighbours cos it's cool to be an absolute moron now apparently...

And no this isn't racist. I guess if you were looking for an ist to call it it could be culturist.

Benefits are there to help those who need it, not to make it possible to help people live entire lives contributing literally sod all and leeching on the rest of society without making even a passing effort. It's hardly snobbery, it's just calling a leech a leech.

But what you've failed to address is how this gangsta hard mans culture isn't from Africa or Jamaica. If you've ever talked to an Authentic Jamaican or African you'd know this. You will never see a man raised in Nigeria behave like this. It isn't Pakistani culture, it isn't Indian culture. So where?

It's an American import... and we don't even have a sizeable American population!
Didn't kick off in Sheffield either. But their are some pretty deprived areas there
Reply 28
Original post by March
Benefits are there to help those who need it, not to make it possible to help people live entire lives contributing literally sod all and leeching on the rest of society without making even a passing effort. It's hardly snobbery, it's just calling a leech a leech.

But what you've failed to address is how this gangsta hard mans culture isn't from Africa or Jamaica. If you've ever talked to an Authentic Jamaican or African you'd know this. You will never see a man raised in Nigeria behave like this. It isn't Pakistani culture, it isn't Indian culture. So where?

It's an American import... and we don't even have a sizeable American population!


So all white people who wear trackies and look the part are leeches. and should be named as such. how pc. :tongue:.

I have spoken to many "authentic" jamaicans and africans. I live in london. what is an unauthentic african or jamaican btw?

"Gangsta" culture actually first appeared in Britain in the form of the yardies. Unorganised jamaican criminals. however nowadays it is clearly african american "gangsta" culture that provails in our inner cities.
Reply 29
Original post by March
People like you are exactly what's wrong with politics. I have no issue with ethnicity being brought into debates when there's a real attempt to understand the fabric of a society. I have no issue with certain degrees of generalisation for the purpose of simplifying a broader point. For instance, as some who's left-leaning, I found myself agreeing with most of what Starkey said, as did many others who lean left, as did many others who would usually face accusations of trying too hard to appear politically correct; the man made an intelligent point and while ethnicity was used to illustrate a pervasive and damaging subculture, you could tell he didn't make the preschool mistake of confusing cause with correlation.

No. What bugs me is when morons spot a correlation, a pattern of some kind, say something racist then go "HUH SEE THAT PC BRIGADE CALL ME RACIST", like the fact you were able to predict an obvious response somehow invalidates the response. Well, tell me, if some went out to forcefully stick his cock into someone, but before doing so predicted that he'd be accused of being a rapist, would that stop him from being a rapist? Of course not. This backwards ass logic just doesn't fly, but the BNP and their followers have basically made it their mantra.

People like you make a point, chuck ethnicity into the mix then cup your ears to all further reasoning. Right, non-whites are the cause of all problems. White people have been doing good for this country for hundreds of years, and what have coloured people ever done? Sure, why not, absolutely nothing. It's in their genes. It's not like Indians make up about a tenth of the NHS workforce, or bring in 9% of the nation's GDP despite being a significantly smaller percentage of the nation's population. It's not as if black labour force helped rebuild after world war two. It's not like the Turks saved Britain from being overwhelmed by a Spanish armada in the 1700s.


You are equating people that dislike political correctness with rapists? really?

you are a caricature of the hysterical finger pointing hyperbolic political correctness morons.

Where did i say non whites are the cause of all problems. I pointed out rioting did not occur in overwhelmingly white (yet deprived) cities. if you want to stick your fingers in your ears and scream racist lalalalala thats fine. doesnt really achieve anything though.
i dont know.
Reply 31
Original post by Bonged.
So all white people who wear trackies and look the part are leeches. and should be named as such. how pc. :tongue:.

I have spoken to many "authentic" jamaicans and africans. I live in london. what is an unauthentic african or jamaican btw?

"Gangsta" culture actually first appeared in Britain in the form of the yardies. Unorganised jamaican criminals. however nowadays it is clearly african american "gangsta" culture that provails in our inner cities.

An authentic Jamaican or African is someone who was raised in the country we affiliate them with, not a Londoner who thinks he's badman talking like he was born with broken motor functions while he behaves like a yank and waves another country's flag. Someone raised in the actual culture from said country, not a subculture which has an odd fixation on the country.

The Yardies had only an ethnic makeup in common with most of the dodgy London youth of today, but they're not the one and the same, and even back then there were sizeable white gangs too. In fact, London's had gangs from pretty much the industrial revolution. Moving past London, it's been a problem for Scotland for Lord knows how long! Unless what you're saying is those Scottish gangster from centuries back were actually black Yardies?
Reply 32
Original post by Bonged.
You are equating people that dislike political correctness with rapists? really?

It was an illustration using an extreme example to highlight a gaping hole in far-right logic, not an equation.

Original post by Bonged.
Where did i say non whites are the cause of all problems. I pointed out rioting did not occur in overwhelmingly white (yet deprived) cities. if you want to stick your fingers in your ears and scream racist lalalalala thats fine. doesnt really achieve anything though.

You threw the race connection out there and added nothing to it. The race comment was your point in its entirety, which makes it racist by any standard definition. Reading some of your other comments in this thread has shifted my stance slightly, but you couldn't have made a poorer choice of words with the OP.
Reply 33
Original post by March
An authentic Jamaican or African is someone who was raised in the country we affiliate them with, not a Londoner who thinks he's badman talking like he was born with broken motor functions while he behaves like a yank and waves another country's flag. Someone raised in the actual culture from said country, not a subculture which has an odd fixation on the country.

The Yardies had only an ethnic makeup in common with most of the dodgy London youth of today, but they're not the one and the same, and even back then there were sizeable white gangs too. In fact, London's had gangs from pretty much the industrial revolution. Moving past London, it's been a problem for Scotland for Lord knows how long! Unless what you're saying is those Scottish gangster from centuries back were actually black Yardies?


I am not saying, nor is ANYONE else that black people "invented" gangs and that without black people there would be no gangs. I am saying, as are many others (starkey is one) that the current subculture you referred to , of jafaican and americanisms is endemic in cities with large black populations, endemic among the youth of those cities, black and white. Poor black person and chav(or leech as you put it).

Where there is an overwhelmingly white population, e.g. glasgow, newcastle, there is not a similar permeation of the "gangsta" subculture through the bottom levels of society.

Are you disputing any of this?
Reply 34
Original post by Bonged.
I am not saying, nor is ANYONE else that black people "invented" gangs and that without black people there would be no gangs. I am saying, as are many others (starkey is one) that the current subculture you referred to , of jafaican and americanisms is endemic in cities with large black populations, endemic among the youth of those cities, black and white. Poor black person and chav(or leech as you put it).

Where there is an overwhelmingly white population, e.g. glasgow, newcastle, there is not a similar permeation of the "gangsta" subculture through the bottom levels of society.

Are you disputing any of this?

There is a massive difference in your tone between what you just said, which is factually correct, and your original provocative post. Seriously, go back and read your first post and explain to me how such a simplistic approach to a complex problem wouldn't be construed as racist. If nobody had rationally challenged the implication in your first post you wouldn't have responded with more legitimate counter-claims, but you're pulling the oh-so-typical far right stunt of demonstrating your superior intellect by predicting a response you deliberately incite, then labelling it "hysteria".
Reply 35
Original post by March
There is a massive difference in your tone between what you just said, which is factually correct, and your original provocative post. Seriously, go back and read your first post and explain to me how such a simplistic approach to a complex problem wouldn't be construed as racist. If nobody had rationally challenged the implication in your first post you wouldn't have responded with more legitimate counter-claims, but you're pulling the oh-so-typical far right stunt of demonstrating your superior intellect by predicting a response you deliberately incite, then labelling it "hysteria".

How does one convey tone over the internet?

I asked a question.

You equated me to a rapist for asking said question.

I called you hysterical.

I'm a card carrying member of the SNP so not really that far right.

How is it rational to challenge a question anyway. Very poor.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 36
Original post by Bonged.
How does one convey tone over the internet?

I asked a question.

You equated me to a rapist for asking said question.

I called you hysterical.

I'm a card carrying member of the SNP so not really that far right.

How is it rational to challenge a question anyway. Very poor.

You asked a question which came with a kick in the shins and a nudge in the arm. I didn't equate anyone with anything. In fact, I even used the third person during the verbal illustration, so now you're really just pissing around with words.

And yes. Yes you did.
Reply 37
Original post by March
You asked a question which came with a kick in the shins and a nudge in the arm. I didn't equate anyone with anything. In fact, I even used the third person during the verbal illustration, so now you're really just pissing around with words.

And yes. Yes you did.


Be hysterical and that's what people will call you.

I've got a feeling you think that you are arguing with some BNP lout with Heil hitler scrawed on his forehead. I'm a fairly liberal left winger. Living on a council estate, near wandsworth and being white puts me into the "leech" classification you devised earlier.

Now I'm going to describe you. Tell me if I am wrong. Middle class. Private school. Lives somewhere in Englands green and pleasant hinterland.

Now the terrible fact that someone like you can tell someone like me not only not to ask questions about the community in which I live but that I am a leech because of my station at birth (and lets be honest, my colour) is shameful. Especially when you consider your pretense of being outraged by my supposed racism, followed by using discriminatory language to describe an entire group of the populace.
Reply 38
Original post by Bonged.
How come the rioting only took place in areas with a large ethnic minority population?

The rioting , blamed on social exclusion and unemployment, did not spread to deprived cities such as plymouth, newcastle, glasgow, cardiff.

What is different about these cities?

Soz PC brigade for asking questions that make you squirm.


Last I checked, these Riots haven't taken place yet in any of Northern England (my severely predominantly-white county of Cumbria included, with 95.1% White British Population and 2.2% White Other).

In the City of Carlisle, where I live, the sight of a non-Caucasian anywhere, be it school or on the streets, is severely rare - which has made some of my local community incredibly intolerant on Race etc. Surprisingly, it hasn't been rioted in (and gladly not).

Neither has Scotland or Northern Ireland received rioting - the former country having (and this is an understatement) a predominantly-white population, the latter (most notably, all of Ireland) being renowned for intolerance based on Religion and a zealous Nationalism.

Original post by Bonged.
heres some statistics. black people make up about 2-4 percent of the population of the uk. Watch the footage. Are you really going to say they make up 2-4 percent?


There's a little technique the media use called "Selective Photography". For example, take a picture of a politician carving up meat for his loving family [how sweet]; crop it, and within an instant it becomes a politician stabbing away at some funky meat (potentially human flesh) with a carving knife. That's how select photography works.

Then, ofcourse, many advertisers use Photoshopping to add people that were never found in the advertisement previously, as can be seen here. Not to accuse the BBC or other news outlets but, as seen from the page, it has been done before for various newspapers.

Lastly, assuming all these people are legitimately black and it wasn't selected from a group, I still believe there are 2-4% because the media is only reporting on the largest-hit areas. The England 2008 Census Estimate is 51,446,000; 2% of 51,446,000 is still 1,028,920. That's just over a million - A.K.A. An absolutely huge amount of people. Double that for 4%, and we have over 2 million. The crowds shown on TV, as a random estimate, seem to only be around one-to-two-thousand people. If even as many as 10,000 people were rioting in those videos, they'd have needed to zoom out the camera to record a far larger area than they were.

Quick Reply

Latest