Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta

Why don't the police just shoot these anarchist idiots with rubber bullets? watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
    If you keep treating the proletariat like **** they will come after you. Benefits cut too much too fast, proposed Tax credits cut, NHS waiting to be privatized, rising costs on everything, no rent controls on landlords,

    Do you expect people to just roll over and be cool with it?

    Proletariat. Put down the Marx will you.

    Name:  image.jpg
Views: 49
Size:  87.4 KB
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    Yes, I too blame overly-inflated housing prices in London on immigrants. If only they stopped flocking to London and stealing our jobs, then houses would be much more affordable.
    Do you have any actual evidence for this? I worked it out for the whole country once and it turns out that even if all the immigrants including women and children took one average house each it would still only have increased demand by 8% over the last decade: prices have gone up far faster than that.

    Plus there is the small matter of how house prices have absolutely no correlation with either major waves of immigration, total immigration, EU and non-EU immigration or net migration.

    Stop shifting blame. I want the crisis solved, I don’t want to spend the next ten years bullying immigrants because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy while the crisis continues on because the true causes have remained unchanged.

    I'll have a family to be bringing up and I won't have time to pander to your emotion-driven nonsense about immigrants: I'll just want it solved.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Skip_Snip)
    And if they keep smashing and burning things which don't belong to them, the government will have an excuse to tighten its grip; not to mention people will just see the "protesters" as scumbags.
    They're not out to win over the public.

    And if the government passes laws legalising increased physical force, tensions will rise tenfold and they'll have more than anticaps on their hands. Protests become large-scale movements and riots when people become sympathetic to their cause. The Arab Spring was almost entirely down to this. I'm not headstrong or idiotic enough to go and punch police horses, but I won't stand for rubber bullets and I know a lot of others won't either.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by billydisco)
    I'm talking about launching fireworks at police horses and burning police cars......
    Imo more of an argument for removing animals from dangerous situations that they don't choose to put themselves in (police officers choose to do the job, animals don't) than shooting protesters.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Do you have any actual evidence for this? I worked it out for the whole country once and it turns out that even if all the immigrants including women and children took one average house each it would still only have increased demand by 8% over the last decade: prices have gone up far faster than that.

    Plus there is the small matter of how house prices have absolutely no correlation with either major waves of immigration, total immigration, EU and non-EU immigration or net migration.

    Stop shifting blame. I want the crisis solved, I don’t want to spend the next ten years bullying immigrants because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy while the crisis continues on because the true causes have remained unchanged.

    I'll have a family to be bringing up and I won't have time to pander to your emotion-driven nonsense about immigrants: I'll just want it solved.
    Immigrants put pressure on the housing market not only in terms of increasing demand. They also compete with local workers for the same jobs, pushing down wages, causing the current wage stagnation which in turn makes homes unaffordable. Furthermore, lots of foreign buyers of property aren't even living in the UK. Look at all the London property development websites. Notice that most of them have two language options: one in English, the other in Mandarin.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    Immigrants put pressure on the housing market not only in terms of increasing demand. They also compete with local workers for the same jobs, pushing down wages, causing the current wage stagnation which in turn makes homes unaffordable. Furthermore, lots of foreign buyers of property aren't even living in the UK. Look at all the London property development websites. Notice that most of them have two language options: one in English, the other in Mandarin.
    Oh, I don’t doubt the economic mechanism: it's just that the effect you describe is so small it's negligible. It is quite simply not the cause of the problem. Sorry, but you will have to provide some sort of statistical based evidence before I will further engage.

    It scarcely maytrs wherther tax payers are nativ eor foreign. The more people are here the more demand there is, the more jobs, the more tsxes. It should work itself out to be about equal per capita. If all these immigrants are stealing jobs (there was I thinking they were all lazing around on benefits!) then why aren't we using the extra tax revenue to build extra houses?

    Revenue and expenditure is broadly the same per capita no matter what the population. The only opportunity for major differences to arise is in allocation of capital and it's rhe state that does that. They are deciding not to provide houses to the population.

    I have a vitriolic hatred of overseas property investors yes, but although I haven't looked into the figures my impression is that there are too few of them for them to be the cause of the problem either. (Although of course I do support measures to get their dirty money out of our property and give them to people who actually live here.) Since there are too few of them I am not going to focus my rants on them.

    It consists in separating emotion from what actually needs to be done, I hope you and the rest of the reactionary right will learn in time.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Oh, I don’t doubt the economic mechanism: it's just that the effect you describe is so small it's negligible. It is quite simply not the cause of the problem. Sorry, but you will have to provide some sort of statistical based evidence before I will further engage.

    It scarcely maytrs wherther tax payers are nativ eor foreign. The more people are here the more demand there is, the more jobs, the more tsxes. It should work itself out to be about equal per capita. If all these immigrants are stealing jobs (there was I thinking they were all lazing around on benefits!) then why aren't we using the extra tax revenue to build extra houses?

    Revenue and expenditure is broadly the same per capita no matter what the population. The only opportunity for major differences to arise is in allocation of capital and it's rhe state that does that. They are deciding not to provide houses to the population.

    I have a vitriolic hatred of overseas property investors yes, but although I haven't looked into the figures my impression is that there are too few of them for them to be the cause of the problem either. (Although of course I do support measures to get their dirty money out of our property and give them to people who actually live here.) Since there are too few of them I am not going to focus my rants on them.

    It consists in separating emotion from what actually needs to be done, I hope you and the rest of the reactionary right will learn in time.
    The amount of tax revenue generated from most immigrants is paltry considering the wages they are paid; coupled with stagnant/lowered wages for British workers, revenue as a result of immigration won't dramatically increase to allow the government to build new homes as fast as one wants. Furthermore, the amount of work available is finite, and so tax revenue will not necessarily increase in proportion to the rate at which the population grows (due to immigration).

    It is quite amusing that you don't know how big it is for foreigners to invest in London housing. London homes are not just destinations for dirty money, but also sound investments for middle-class foreigners. In fact, every weekend the local paper in the country where I am at now (i.e. not the UK) will run full-page advertisements for investment opportunities in new-build London apartments, with seminars held at hotels such as the Hyatt.

    I hope that the immigration-loving lefties will finally separate emotion from reality and understand the true effect of immigration on this country.

    And this is coming from an immigrant.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    They're not out to win over the public.

    And if the government passes laws legalising increased physical force, tensions will rise tenfold and they'll have more than anticaps on their hands. Protests become large-scale movements and riots when people become sympathetic to their cause. The Arab Spring was almost entirely down to this. I'm not headstrong or idiotic enough to go and punch police horses, but I won't stand for rubber bullets and I know a lot of others won't either.
    Lots more would. The opinion polls were overwhelmingly in favour of rubber bullets, water cannon and even real bullets during and after the London riots.

    Comparing the UK to the Arab spring is poor. We have nothing like a comparable environment for such things.

    Condoning violence in the way you're doing is pathetic.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Lots more would. The opinion polls were overwhelmingly in favour of rubber bullets, water cannon and even real bullets during and after the London riots.

    Comparing the UK to the Arab spring is poor. We have nothing like a comparable environment for such things.

    Condoning violence in the way you're doing is pathetic.
    Please tell me where I've condoned violence. I'm totally against it - unlike the pollsters 'overwhelmingly in favour' of increased physical force from 'authorities'.

    I can tell you with near-certainty that though opinion polls may support increased physical force from police, a small band of rioting idiots would swell to a much larger group if tensions were to increase.

    Although I might come across as an 'All Coppers Are *******s' type, I'm honestly being pragmatic. Violence to meet violence is a bad idea.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    The amount of tax revenue generated from most immigrants is paltry considering the wages they are paid; coupled with stagnant/lowered wages for British workers, revenue as a result of immigration won't dramatically increase to allow the government to build new homes as fast as one wants. Furthermore, the amount of work available is finite, and so tax revenue will not necessarily increase in proportion to the rate at which the population grows (due to immigration).
    It doesn't matter as if the immigrants weren't here a Brit would be doing just the same job for just the same money paying just the same taxes.

    The amount of work available is not finite, it is governed by the amount of demand in the economy. Therefore if there are more people in the country (foreign or native) there will be commensurately more jobs.

    The amount of jobs, however, is always less than the amount of people wanting them, particularly if you define a job as something which oays enough to live on. Un(der)employment is an inevitable economic fact and all the more as work gets more automated.

    It is quite amusing that you don't know how big it is for foreigners to invest in London housing. London homes are not just destinations for dirty money, but also sound investments for middle-class foreigners. In fact, every weekend the local paper in the country where I am at now (i.e. not the UK) will run full-page advertisements for investment opportunities in new-build London apartments, with seminars held at hotels such as the Hyatt.
    I know it's big and I deplore it particularly after seeing a BBC programme on it last year. In fact it was one of the proximate reasons why I voted Labour, as they were talking about/putting in manifesto measures to restrict the sale of these properties so that Brits got preferential treatment. Seriously if you want this one sorted out Labour or maybe the Greens are your best choice and it is why London voted Labour.

    Nevertheless I am not convinced that foreign investors are the cause of the crisis either. It is 40 years of not building enough houses - hence rising prices - that has made it an attractive investment for these foreign oligarchs in the first place.

    Incidentally they are not "middle class": these are Russian mafiosi, Chinese Communist Party apparatchiks and Saudi oil sheikhs.

    Kicking out foreign investors - and I do await the crash which will hopefully free up the housing they have tied up - will do as little as restricting immigration and what it does do will only be a one-off relief.

    I remain convinced that the only solution is massive public house building and one for rhe libertarians relaxing planning laws.

    I hope that the immigration-loving lefties will finally separate emotion from reality and understand the true effect of immigration on this country.

    And this is coming from an immigrant.
    Have never had any love for immigrants, I just recognise going after them will not solve the problem. I don't much care about immigration one way or the other and I wish people would stop lazily blaming the effects of neoliberal underinvestment on it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I know it's big and I deplore it particularly after seeing a BBC programme on it last year. In fact it was one of the proximate reasons why I voted Labour, as they were talking about/putting in manifesto measures to restrict the sale of these properties so that Brits got preferential treatment. Seriously if you want this one sorted out Labour or maybe the Greens are your best choice and it is why London voted Labour.
    As an immigrant, this was one of the reasons I decided not to vote Labour nor the Greens.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    As an immigrant, this was one of the reasons I decided not to vote Labour nor the Greens.
    Er, on what grounds? What better measures did the party you voted for bave on the housing crisis in general and the issue of foreign investment in particular?

    Because no other party - certainly not the right wing ones - mentioned it. They looove foreigners as long as they're rich.

    Or did you just vote on your emotions and prejudices?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0123456543210)
    The Government of pussies, if it was Russia or some other country those lefties would have been shot with actual bullets. With few lefties dead, the world would become a calmer place for decent people
    You basically just advocated for authoritarianism and removal of freedom of expression. I suggest if that is what you're after you should probably moved to Russia where communication is controlled by the Kremlin.

    I personally think they need a bit more focus so we know what the dissenting voice actually want to see change and how they would do it but the fact that there is a dissenting voice is a start. I also don't agree with the violence but the police are absolutely hyped for all of these organised events and that doesn't help at all. Nor do the draconian controls on the protest. Give people more of a framework to work within and they're less likely to rebel than where you force them into very particular times and routes and cite sections of law at them. I don't think blocking people in helps, that just frustrates people and heightens tension.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    Although I might come across as an 'All Coppers Are *******s' type, I'm honestly being pragmatic. Violence to meet violence is a bad idea.
    I don't disagree, but when the alternative is seemingly 'allowing' property to be destroyed something has to be done. I'm in favour of water cannon personally, even though that is not without potential for injury.

    There's nothing at all wrong with peaceful protest. This is not that. It's purely wanton violence and has to be deterred.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Er, on what grounds? What better measures did the party you voted for bave on the housing crisis in general and the issue of foreign investment in particular?

    Because no other party - certainly not the right wing ones - mentioned it. They looove foreigners as long as they're rich.

    Or did you just vote on your emotions and prejudices?
    I voted for promises for restrictions to EU immigrants, whom I have to compete with. I do not want any policies which priorities British property owners, as I too want to buy property in the future. So in the end, a Labour/Green party which did not promise a referendum/EU treaty renegotiations were not too attractive for me.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    I voted for promises for restrictions to EU immigrants, whom I have to compete with. I do not want any policies which priorities British property owners, as I too want to buy property in the future. So in the end, a Labour/Green party which did not promise a referendum/EU treaty renegotiations were not too attractive for me.
    Well you are not supposed to vote in your self-interest but rather that of those whose lives are in direst need of improvement. You will be OK whether Labour or the Tories are in, others won't. Plus if you are voting in a British general election then you are eligible to buy property under such rules the same as any Brit I would have thought.

    It emerges that your opposition to (particularly) European immigrants combined with your support for property bought by absent foreigners is nothing but self-interest. Therefore your views are not admissible in a discussion of what is best for the country as a whole.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Well you are not supposed to vote in your self-interest but rather that of those whose lives are in direst need of improvement. You will be OK whether Labour or the Tories are in, others won't. Plus if you are voting in a British general election then you are eligible to buy property under such rules the same as any Brit I would have thought.

    It emerges that your opposition to (particularly) European immigrants combined with your support for property bought by absent foreigners is nothing but self-interest. Therefore your views are not admissible in a discussion of what is best for the country as a whole.
    I'm not supposed to vote in my self-interest? Preposterous. And hilarious.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Well you are not supposed to vote in your self-interest.
    And politicians are supposed to act the same way...


    Kindly get into the real world.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bupdeeboowah)
    I'm not supposed to vote in my self-interest? Preposterous. And hilarious.
    Well OK the system is set up so that in theory if everyone votes in their self-interest the result is the greatest good for the greatest number. Civilisation is about designing systems which neuter, redirect or harness the self-interest of the venal, because we can never convince you otherwise.

    However in my mind you shouldn't actively make the decision to vote in your self-interest if you can clearly see your self-interest isn't the same as that of the majority of people, particularly those worse off. Put simply, a poor British family needs that house far more than some pampered Saudi prince and the latter should vote on behalf of the former.

    Champagne socialism is by far the most virtuous and most genuine of all the political positions. Mine's a Bollinger! :cheers:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    And politicians are supposed to act the same way...


    Kindly get into the real world.
    Thankfully the democratic system is supposed to ensure that even with the venal voting in their self-interest a good outcome for all will result. Nevertheless, we ought not to if we can afford not to and if we are aware of the plight of others.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 8, 2015
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.