[Official] Riots in streets across the UK, after 3 children die in Southport stabbing

I've never been against rioting per se though it's not something I would ever do myself.
There are times when peaceful protest changes nothing because it just gets ignored so the only alternative to get people to sit up and take note are through "rioting".
Imagine saying the same thing for 20 years. No one listens, especially the government and the situation gets worse. What are people to do then? Let is continue? There is a reason the protests are called "Enough is enough"

Would you be against rioting if someone torched your car or ruined your livelihood or smashed up your community, leaving families terrified?

Four people facing a trial by jury and being found not guilty is the British justice system working as intended.
As for the others, if their sentences were in line with sentencing guidelines, then they didn’t get away with it. They faced appropriate sentences.

And remember the claim wasn't "got away with pulling down a statue of a former slave owner". The claim made was "pretty much got away with looting and assault". Still waiting for evidence of that.

And remember the claim wasn't "got away with pulling down a statue of a former slave owner". The claim made was "pretty much got away with looting and assault". Still waiting for evidence of that.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8394281/Priti-Patel-calls-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-stay-home-Covid-threat.html
Notice the absence of "mob" "thugs" "extremists" "sickening behaviour". 10 police officers were injured yet the media describes those who the bikes as "men", not "mindless thugs" (as the recent rioters have been described as). BLM defaced cenotaphs, committed arson and vandalism, injured police officers yet the organisation was not branded as "extremist". Angela Raynor has suggested that the recent rioters be branded as terrorists. This was never suggested for the BLM activists.
You only have to scroll through media reports of violence in 2020 to see the difference in the use of language.
BLM enjoyed a far more supportive press. Boris Johnson's speech after one of their protests sympathised with their reasons for anger at the police and the system more than it denounced their actions.
The Colston Four admitted to toppling the statue and they got away with it. Wikipedia source below 👇
The four did not deny that they toppled the statue, but advanced several defences that doing so was not an act of criminal damage within the meaning of the law. One defence was that the statue had not in fact been damaged—indeed that it had been made more valuable by the process of toppling, removal from the harbour, and display in the museum. A second was that the removal of the statue helped to prevent another crime, because the display of the statue itself was a criminal act of displaying indecent or abusive material, saying Colston's "continued veneration (...) in a vibrant multicultural city was an act of abuse".[25] Two defendants also argued that they believed the statue was collectively owned by the people of Bristol, who in the circumstances would agree with the act of toppling it. In fact the statue was owned by Bristol City Council, but even a mistaken belief about the owner and the owners' intentions would have been grounds for acquittal, if the jury felt that belief was sincerely held. The judge also advised the jury that even if not convinced by any of these arguments, the jury could still acquit on the basis that a conviction for criminal damage would, in the circumstances, represent a disproportionate interference with the defendants' right of freedom of expression. The jury would have to weigh the importance of property-owners rights not to have property (e.g. statues) damaged, with the right to freedom of expression.
Their behaviour was inexcusable and to think that a jury actually saw them as not guilty shows the failings of our court system. You cannot pick and choose whether rioting is justified. It simply is not.
You know yourself that if Tommy Robinson and a bunch of his supporters turned up and pulled down a statue of a POC, they would not get away with it. Just imagine them using the same logic that the Colston Four did: "yeah we did it, but that's cos it's justified cos this statue is abuse to us because we're the people and we own this town and it's worth more as scrap metal than it ever was. We didn't damage it, you're lying mate, it looks better!"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8394281/Priti-Patel-calls-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-stay-home-Covid-threat.html
Notice the absence of "mob" "thugs" "extremists" "sickening behaviour". 10 police officers were injured yet the media describes those who the bikes as "men", not "mindless thugs" (as the recent rioters have been described as). BLM defaced cenotaphs, committed arson and vandalism, injured police officers yet the organisation was not branded as "extremist". Angela Raynor has suggested that the recent rioters be branded as terrorists. This was never suggested for the BLM activists.
You only have to scroll through media reports of violence in 2020 to see the difference in the use of language.
BLM enjoyed a far more supportive press. Boris Johnson's speech after one of their protests sympathised with their reasons for anger at the police and the system more than it denounced their actions.
The Colston Four admitted to toppling the statue and they got away with it. Wikipedia source below 👇
The four did not deny that they toppled the statue, but advanced several defences that doing so was not an act of criminal damage within the meaning of the law. One defence was that the statue had not in fact been damaged—indeed that it had been made more valuable by the process of toppling, removal from the harbour, and display in the museum. A second was that the removal of the statue helped to prevent another crime, because the display of the statue itself was a criminal act of displaying indecent or abusive material, saying Colston's "continued veneration (...) in a vibrant multicultural city was an act of abuse".[25] Two defendants also argued that they believed the statue was collectively owned by the people of Bristol, who in the circumstances would agree with the act of toppling it. In fact the statue was owned by Bristol City Council, but even a mistaken belief about the owner and the owners' intentions would have been grounds for acquittal, if the jury felt that belief was sincerely held. The judge also advised the jury that even if not convinced by any of these arguments, the jury could still acquit on the basis that a conviction for criminal damage would, in the circumstances, represent a disproportionate interference with the defendants' right of freedom of expression. The jury would have to weigh the importance of property-owners rights not to have property (e.g. statues) damaged, with the right to freedom of expression.
Their behaviour was inexcusable and to think that a jury actually saw them as not guilty shows the failings of our court system. You cannot pick and choose whether rioting is justified. It simply is not.
You know yourself that if Tommy Robinson and a bunch of his supporters turned up and pulled down a statue of a POC, they would not get away with it. Just imagine them using the same logic that the Colston Four did: "yeah we did it, but that's cos it's justified cos this statue is abuse to us because we're the people and we own this town and it's worth more as scrap metal than it ever was. We didn't damage it, you're lying mate, it looks better!"

I am travelling in Dublin, Ireland and just encountered a suspected hate crime. Two White men walked past the street, ranted about "Irish people becoming a minority in Dublin", then spat and pointed middle fingers at random Asians. It is hard to tell if they were influenced by the unrest in the UK.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8394281/Priti-Patel-calls-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-stay-home-Covid-threat.html
Notice the absence of "mob" "thugs" "extremists" "sickening behaviour". 10 police officers were injured yet the media describes those who the bikes as "men", not "mindless thugs" (as the recent rioters have been described as). BLM defaced cenotaphs, committed arson and vandalism, injured police officers yet the organisation was not branded as "extremist". Angela Raynor has suggested that the recent rioters be branded as terrorists. This was never suggested for the BLM activists.
You only have to scroll through media reports of violence in 2020 to see the difference in the use of language.
BLM enjoyed a far more supportive press. Boris Johnson's speech after one of their protests sympathised with their reasons for anger at the police and the system more than it denounced their actions.
The Colston Four admitted to toppling the statue and they got away with it. Wikipedia source below 👇
The four did not deny that they toppled the statue, but advanced several defences that doing so was not an act of criminal damage within the meaning of the law. One defence was that the statue had not in fact been damaged—indeed that it had been made more valuable by the process of toppling, removal from the harbour, and display in the museum. A second was that the removal of the statue helped to prevent another crime, because the display of the statue itself was a criminal act of displaying indecent or abusive material, saying Colston's "continued veneration (...) in a vibrant multicultural city was an act of abuse".[25] Two defendants also argued that they believed the statue was collectively owned by the people of Bristol, who in the circumstances would agree with the act of toppling it. In fact the statue was owned by Bristol City Council, but even a mistaken belief about the owner and the owners' intentions would have been grounds for acquittal, if the jury felt that belief was sincerely held. The judge also advised the jury that even if not convinced by any of these arguments, the jury could still acquit on the basis that a conviction for criminal damage would, in the circumstances, represent a disproportionate interference with the defendants' right of freedom of expression. The jury would have to weigh the importance of property-owners rights not to have property (e.g. statues) damaged, with the right to freedom of expression.
Their behaviour was inexcusable and to think that a jury actually saw them as not guilty shows the failings of our court system. You cannot pick and choose whether rioting is justified. It simply is not.
You know yourself that if Tommy Robinson and a bunch of his supporters turned up and pulled down a statue of a POC, they would not get away with it. Just imagine them using the same logic that the Colston Four did: "yeah we did it, but that's cos it's justified cos this statue is abuse to us because we're the people and we own this town and it's worth more as scrap metal than it ever was. We didn't damage it, you're lying mate, it looks better!"

You.gov poll of 4000 individuals finds overwhelming support for sentencing of those involved in the recent riots. Even among Reform voters, leniency is a minority POV.

Leniency is a minority view held disproportionately by Reform votes. Wonder why!

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8394281/Priti-Patel-calls-Black-Lives-Matter-protesters-stay-home-Covid-threat.html
Notice the absence of "mob" "thugs" "extremists" "sickening behaviour". 10 police officers were injured yet the media describes those who the bikes as "men", not "mindless thugs" (as the recent rioters have been described as). BLM defaced cenotaphs, committed arson and vandalism, injured police officers yet the organisation was not branded as "extremist". Angela Raynor has suggested that the recent rioters be branded as terrorists. This was never suggested for the BLM activists.
You only have to scroll through media reports of violence in 2020 to see the difference in the use of language.
BLM enjoyed a far more supportive press. Boris Johnson's speech after one of their protests sympathised with their reasons for anger at the police and the system more than it denounced their actions.
The Colston Four admitted to toppling the statue and they got away with it. Wikipedia source below 👇
The four did not deny that they toppled the statue, but advanced several defences that doing so was not an act of criminal damage within the meaning of the law. One defence was that the statue had not in fact been damaged—indeed that it had been made more valuable by the process of toppling, removal from the harbour, and display in the museum. A second was that the removal of the statue helped to prevent another crime, because the display of the statue itself was a criminal act of displaying indecent or abusive material, saying Colston's "continued veneration (...) in a vibrant multicultural city was an act of abuse".[25] Two defendants also argued that they believed the statue was collectively owned by the people of Bristol, who in the circumstances would agree with the act of toppling it. In fact the statue was owned by Bristol City Council, but even a mistaken belief about the owner and the owners' intentions would have been grounds for acquittal, if the jury felt that belief was sincerely held. The judge also advised the jury that even if not convinced by any of these arguments, the jury could still acquit on the basis that a conviction for criminal damage would, in the circumstances, represent a disproportionate interference with the defendants' right of freedom of expression. The jury would have to weigh the importance of property-owners rights not to have property (e.g. statues) damaged, with the right to freedom of expression.
Their behaviour was inexcusable and to think that a jury actually saw them as not guilty shows the failings of our court system. You cannot pick and choose whether rioting is justified. It simply is not.
You know yourself that if Tommy Robinson and a bunch of his supporters turned up and pulled down a statue of a POC, they would not get away with it. Just imagine them using the same logic that the Colston Four did: "yeah we did it, but that's cos it's justified cos this statue is abuse to us because we're the people and we own this town and it's worth more as scrap metal than it ever was. We didn't damage it, you're lying mate, it looks better!"

I was amazed it was not a higher figure for them tbh!

I don't know if it was the same poll, but YouGov also found that about 80% of people say that the protests do not represent Britain. The 'silent majority' end up just being the vocal minority, as always.

I don't know if it was the same poll, but YouGov also found that about 80% of people say that the protests do not represent Britain. The 'silent majority' end up just being the vocal minority, as always.

I'd love to hear someone make the argument as to why looting your local Greggs is an act patriotism.

I take it you are referring to this:
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1820806535724904649?s=19
I'd love to hear someone make the argument as to why looting your local Greggs is an act patriotism.