The Prime Minister used the R word today.
As pressure mounts on the UK to take more of the people fleeing to Europe from Syria, he added that the UK would fulfil its "moral responsibilities".
SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon accused the government of a "walk on by" attitude.
That followed Mr Cameron's comment on Wednesday that taking "more and more" people was not the simple answer to the current migrant crisis.
Instead, Mr Cameron said, the focus should be on bringing "peace and stability" to the war-ravaged parts of the world people were fleeing from, such as Syria.
Migrant crisis: PM says UK will fulfil moral responsibilities - BBC News
You must ask yourself why so many people have fled for their lives from Syria, Mr Cameron. And from Libya, and Iraq, and suchlike places. Destabilized places, Mr Cameron.
Does the responsibility lie with the countries which deliberately destabilized these countries, perhaps?
Do you happen to know whether the United Kingdom was leading the field when it came to such destabilization? Piling in with money, propaganda and military intervention?
I suggest you do, Mr Cameron. You were at the meetings, you took the decisions. You caused the destabilization.
And the moral responsibility? Are you going to admit to it? Are you hell as like, you weasel. You're going to duck and lie as usual, just like Tony Blair did.
The moral responsibility for the refugee crisis hitting Europe is primarily the British government's. By all means invite all the refugees here if you want to discharge that responsibility, or resign and let someone of greater moral integrity do it.
A good start would be facing up to what you've done. Confession, Mr Cameron, is good for the soul, even for a self-centred myopic opportunist rogue like you.
Responsibility
Responsibility
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Responsibility
spot;1485583 wrote: The moral responsibility for the refugee crisis hitting Europe is primarily the British government's.
I was with you all the way until this part.
Not that I am a historian or taken a lot or deep interest...............but are you sure ?
I was with you all the way until this part.
Not that I am a historian or taken a lot or deep interest...............but are you sure ?
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
Responsibility
Bruv;1485584 wrote: I was with you all the way until this part.
Not that I am a historian or taken a lot or deep interest...............but are you sure ?
Do you not remember the SAS unit captured in Libya and then returned, embarrassed looks all round? Planes bombing Syria regardless of Parliamentary votes to the contrary? Who do you think is paying these mercenary rebels each time there's a government toppled round those parts? The British have been handing over large bags of gold coins to "divide and conquer" since at least as far back as Pitt the Younger. Before then it was just outright acknowledged bribery as opposed to Foreign Office largesse.
Not that I am a historian or taken a lot or deep interest...............but are you sure ?
Do you not remember the SAS unit captured in Libya and then returned, embarrassed looks all round? Planes bombing Syria regardless of Parliamentary votes to the contrary? Who do you think is paying these mercenary rebels each time there's a government toppled round those parts? The British have been handing over large bags of gold coins to "divide and conquer" since at least as far back as Pitt the Younger. Before then it was just outright acknowledged bribery as opposed to Foreign Office largesse.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Responsibility
spot;1485583 wrote:
Does the responsibility lie with the countries which deliberately destabilized these countries, perhaps?.
I might agree with you that countries that intervened might have caused the humanitarian crisis. But let's look at the big picture. Afghanistan was already in a humanitarian crisis. The Taliban had control of the country and was making it into terrorist heaven. They were brutally suppressing and killing the population. Terrorists trained in Afghanistan by Bin Laden destoyed the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon. Did gong to war with Afghanistan "cause" it to be destabilized? Or was the the inevitable result of the Taliban regime?
Iraq and Libya both had repressive brutal dictators. They were "stable." Are you arguing that it is better to let dictators teroriz their own people to keep an area "stable" than it is to give people a chance to live their own lives? Sure it turned out bad, but wasn't it bad to begin with?
When you say that the Allies, and yes, I'll include the U.S. in that statement, "destabilized" the region. You are siding with the "stabilizing" influence of vicious dictators. History has shown that's probably not good in the long run.
And I'll add this: To my mind, that region hasn't been "stable" in thousands of years.
I'll even add this: Is it a good idea to let millions of refugees from a destabilized area into a stable country? Won't that result in instability of that country as well? Especially as the resident population pushes back against the incoming tide? Allowing that kind of mass immigration is far from "responsible." It may seem so n the short term, but it's not realistic. That many people will settle in groups, isolated from the original population. They will not assimilate. They will not learn the language. Isolation and mistrust will set in. The original population will make laws against the newcomers. Unrepresented, due to their lack of assimilation, the immigrants will become suspicious and violent.
Next stop: Genocide. (See: Balkanization and the Serbian War.)
Does the responsibility lie with the countries which deliberately destabilized these countries, perhaps?.
I might agree with you that countries that intervened might have caused the humanitarian crisis. But let's look at the big picture. Afghanistan was already in a humanitarian crisis. The Taliban had control of the country and was making it into terrorist heaven. They were brutally suppressing and killing the population. Terrorists trained in Afghanistan by Bin Laden destoyed the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon. Did gong to war with Afghanistan "cause" it to be destabilized? Or was the the inevitable result of the Taliban regime?
Iraq and Libya both had repressive brutal dictators. They were "stable." Are you arguing that it is better to let dictators teroriz their own people to keep an area "stable" than it is to give people a chance to live their own lives? Sure it turned out bad, but wasn't it bad to begin with?
When you say that the Allies, and yes, I'll include the U.S. in that statement, "destabilized" the region. You are siding with the "stabilizing" influence of vicious dictators. History has shown that's probably not good in the long run.
And I'll add this: To my mind, that region hasn't been "stable" in thousands of years.
I'll even add this: Is it a good idea to let millions of refugees from a destabilized area into a stable country? Won't that result in instability of that country as well? Especially as the resident population pushes back against the incoming tide? Allowing that kind of mass immigration is far from "responsible." It may seem so n the short term, but it's not realistic. That many people will settle in groups, isolated from the original population. They will not assimilate. They will not learn the language. Isolation and mistrust will set in. The original population will make laws against the newcomers. Unrepresented, due to their lack of assimilation, the immigrants will become suspicious and violent.
Next stop: Genocide. (See: Balkanization and the Serbian War.)
Responsibility
The Taliban undoubtedly stabilized Afghanistan before the US invasion. You may not like what they were doing but they were very effective. The opium cultivation was effectively eliminated, for example. It was the allies of the US who were running the opium traffic, not the Taliban.
Libya and Iraq had the best governments they could possibly have had. Education was a priority for both, the standard of living in Libya was the highest in Africa, the proportion of women in employment and with higher education was a spectacular achievement and the casualties of repression numbered an infinitesimal proportion compared to the deaths following the collapse of the government. Staggeringly lower. It wasn't "bad" to begin with, it was a comparative paradise, with many economic and social markers that other countries in the region could only dream of.
Your description of expatriates in Europe doesn't reflect the reality we experience. The West created the refugee movement, the West can resettle them. That's called moral responsibility, though I don't see the the amoral irresponsible US pulling its weight.
Who is it you're claiming will carry out this "genocide" you're blind-siding us with?
Libya and Iraq had the best governments they could possibly have had. Education was a priority for both, the standard of living in Libya was the highest in Africa, the proportion of women in employment and with higher education was a spectacular achievement and the casualties of repression numbered an infinitesimal proportion compared to the deaths following the collapse of the government. Staggeringly lower. It wasn't "bad" to begin with, it was a comparative paradise, with many economic and social markers that other countries in the region could only dream of.
Your description of expatriates in Europe doesn't reflect the reality we experience. The West created the refugee movement, the West can resettle them. That's called moral responsibility, though I don't see the the amoral irresponsible US pulling its weight.
Who is it you're claiming will carry out this "genocide" you're blind-siding us with?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Responsibility
spot;1485599 wrote: The Taliban undoubtedly stabilized Afghanistan before the US invasion. You may not like what they were doing but they were very effective. The opium cultivation was effectively eliminated, for example. It was the allies of the US who were running the opium traffic, not the Taliban.
Yes, never mind that human rights were nonexistent.
Libya and Iraq had the best governments they could possibly have had. Education was a priority for both, the standard of living in Libya was the highest in Africa, the proportion of women in employment and with higher education was a spectacular achievement and the casualties of repression numbered an infinitesimal proportion compared to the deaths following the collapse of the government. Staggeringly lower. It wasn't "bad" to begin with, it was a comparative paradise, with many economic and social markers that other countries in the region could only dream of.
Don't you feel a little goofy singing the praises of Muammar Gadafi and Saddam Hussein? Hitler 'stabilized" Germany..before he destroyed it.
Who is it you're claiming will carry out this "genocide" you're blind-siding us with?
You, yourself. Actually, your children and descendants. they will go to war with the children of the immigrants descendants. Civil war, brutal and remorseless. It's in all the history books. Every time an external population moves in on an indigenous population it always results in war and genocide. (See: The American Indians, the Holocaust, Rwanda, The Armenian Genocide, Bosnia-Herzogovina, etc, etc..ad infinitum.)
Yes, never mind that human rights were nonexistent.
Libya and Iraq had the best governments they could possibly have had. Education was a priority for both, the standard of living in Libya was the highest in Africa, the proportion of women in employment and with higher education was a spectacular achievement and the casualties of repression numbered an infinitesimal proportion compared to the deaths following the collapse of the government. Staggeringly lower. It wasn't "bad" to begin with, it was a comparative paradise, with many economic and social markers that other countries in the region could only dream of.
Don't you feel a little goofy singing the praises of Muammar Gadafi and Saddam Hussein? Hitler 'stabilized" Germany..before he destroyed it.
Who is it you're claiming will carry out this "genocide" you're blind-siding us with?
You, yourself. Actually, your children and descendants. they will go to war with the children of the immigrants descendants. Civil war, brutal and remorseless. It's in all the history books. Every time an external population moves in on an indigenous population it always results in war and genocide. (See: The American Indians, the Holocaust, Rwanda, The Armenian Genocide, Bosnia-Herzogovina, etc, etc..ad infinitum.)
Responsibility
Saint_;1485601 wrote: Yes, never mind that human rights were nonexistent.
If you say so, and so long as you acknowledge that the refugees have human rights.
Don't you feel a little goofy singing the praises of Muammar Gadafi and Saddam Hussein? Hitler 'stabilized" Germany..before he destroyed it.
Why do you feel obliged to drag the Third Reich into the discussion? Neither of us were born back then.
Goofy? No, I think they were very accomplished political leaders who did amazing things for their countries. They were brought down because they pissed off the USA, surely that's transparently obvious. The fact that you're full of knee-jerk hatred for the two of them just shows you watch American TV, that's all. You do it because you've been told to.
You, yourself. Actually, your children and descendants. they will go to war with the children of the immigrants descendants. Civil war, brutal and remorseless. It's in all the history books. Every time an external population moves in on an indigenous population it always results in war and genocide. (See: The American Indians, the Holocaust, Rwanda, The Armenian Genocide, Bosnia-Herzogovina, etc, etc..ad infinitum.)
It will be something we shall discover in time. There seems little support for your predictions if you look at the experience of the US itself, though.
Your "always" is demonstrably false. Ask a Huguenot, for example.
If you say so, and so long as you acknowledge that the refugees have human rights.
Don't you feel a little goofy singing the praises of Muammar Gadafi and Saddam Hussein? Hitler 'stabilized" Germany..before he destroyed it.
Why do you feel obliged to drag the Third Reich into the discussion? Neither of us were born back then.
Goofy? No, I think they were very accomplished political leaders who did amazing things for their countries. They were brought down because they pissed off the USA, surely that's transparently obvious. The fact that you're full of knee-jerk hatred for the two of them just shows you watch American TV, that's all. You do it because you've been told to.
You, yourself. Actually, your children and descendants. they will go to war with the children of the immigrants descendants. Civil war, brutal and remorseless. It's in all the history books. Every time an external population moves in on an indigenous population it always results in war and genocide. (See: The American Indians, the Holocaust, Rwanda, The Armenian Genocide, Bosnia-Herzogovina, etc, etc..ad infinitum.)
It will be something we shall discover in time. There seems little support for your predictions if you look at the experience of the US itself, though.
Your "always" is demonstrably false. Ask a Huguenot, for example.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Responsibility
Whenever and wherever we get involved with 'regime change', we end up causing a 'power vacuum'. Insurgents and terror groups, such as ISIS then step in to fill thisvacuum, and the local population is even more oppressed than under the original dictator/political group that has been 'deposed'. How does this actually help the local populace, or indeed, the rest of the world?
What we in 'the west' tend to forget is the simple fact that many of these cultures have NEVER had democracy in their history, and we need to learn that trying to implement democracy in such regions is NOT a universal panacea! I feel that between the US and the UK, WE are responsible, to a large degree, for the rise of ISIS, and other such unsavoury groups.
Quite what we should do to correct this situation now is a moot point. We should only get involved militarily if there is a PROVEN, HIGH-RISK to western nations, IMO,rather than acting on the falsified BS (WMD) that got us involved in the Iraq fiasco in the first place (I'm not referring to Gulf War 1; that was legitimate,IMO, as Kuwait asked for help).
What we in 'the west' tend to forget is the simple fact that many of these cultures have NEVER had democracy in their history, and we need to learn that trying to implement democracy in such regions is NOT a universal panacea! I feel that between the US and the UK, WE are responsible, to a large degree, for the rise of ISIS, and other such unsavoury groups.
Quite what we should do to correct this situation now is a moot point. We should only get involved militarily if there is a PROVEN, HIGH-RISK to western nations, IMO,rather than acting on the falsified BS (WMD) that got us involved in the Iraq fiasco in the first place (I'm not referring to Gulf War 1; that was legitimate,IMO, as Kuwait asked for help).
" To finish first, first you have to finish!" Rick Mears. 4x Winner Indy 500. 3x Indycar National Champion.
Responsibility
spot;1485602 wrote: If you say so, and so long as you acknowledge that the refugees have human rights.
I certainly feel that all refuges should be treated humanely. But that doesn't necessarily mean letting them into a country to overwhelm the current population. That is not humane to the current residents. Especially a country as small as Great Britain. America could easily absorb millions. We've already absorbed 20 million Mexican immigrants without too much trouble. It's a big country with lots of space and resources. But Great Britain wold be severely challenged by a group that large coming in all at once.
Why do you feel obliged to drag the Third Reich into the discussion? Neither of us were born back then.
My comparison was meant to point out that any brutally repressive dictator, with torture, murder, and secret police, can "stabilize" a country. But the stability of fear and slavery is not desirable nor is it true stability in the long run.
Goofy? No, I think they were very accomplished political leaders who did amazing things for their countries. They were brought down because they pissed off the USA, surely that's transparently obvious.
Yes they were accomplished, and yes they did some amazing things. Iraq held off an Iranian invasion for example. Hussein brought his country into the 20th century (with military and industrial help from the U.S.) But none of that is worth the death and misery that went along with it.
It will be something we shall discover in time. There seems little support for your predictions if you look at the experience of the US itself, though.
Actually the genocide of the Native Americans by European Immigrants is a perfect example of what I'm warning the residents of Great Britain about.
Your "always" is demonstrably false. Ask a Huguenot, for example.
Thank you, I'll have to look that one up. I've heard of it before, but I can't remember the context. Replace "always" with "often" then...still dangerous and worrisome.
I certainly feel that all refuges should be treated humanely. But that doesn't necessarily mean letting them into a country to overwhelm the current population. That is not humane to the current residents. Especially a country as small as Great Britain. America could easily absorb millions. We've already absorbed 20 million Mexican immigrants without too much trouble. It's a big country with lots of space and resources. But Great Britain wold be severely challenged by a group that large coming in all at once.
Why do you feel obliged to drag the Third Reich into the discussion? Neither of us were born back then.
My comparison was meant to point out that any brutally repressive dictator, with torture, murder, and secret police, can "stabilize" a country. But the stability of fear and slavery is not desirable nor is it true stability in the long run.
Goofy? No, I think they were very accomplished political leaders who did amazing things for their countries. They were brought down because they pissed off the USA, surely that's transparently obvious.
Yes they were accomplished, and yes they did some amazing things. Iraq held off an Iranian invasion for example. Hussein brought his country into the 20th century (with military and industrial help from the U.S.) But none of that is worth the death and misery that went along with it.
It will be something we shall discover in time. There seems little support for your predictions if you look at the experience of the US itself, though.
Actually the genocide of the Native Americans by European Immigrants is a perfect example of what I'm warning the residents of Great Britain about.
Your "always" is demonstrably false. Ask a Huguenot, for example.
Thank you, I'll have to look that one up. I've heard of it before, but I can't remember the context. Replace "always" with "often" then...still dangerous and worrisome.
Responsibility
Smaug;1485604 wrote:
What we in 'the west' tend to forget is the simple fact that many of these cultures have NEVER had democracy in their history, and we need to learn that trying to implement democracy in such regions is NOT a universal panacea!
I agree wholeheartedly. I would never have even gotten involved in the Middle East were I in charge. But of course there's that whole "oil" thing...
I feel that between the US and the UK, WE are responsible, to a large degree, for the rise of ISIS, and other such unsavoury groups.
Europe is responsible for the Crusades. Perhaps that was the original destabilizing influence on the Middle East. How far back do you want to go? Or maybe that part of the world has just always been crazy and it's no one's fault but their own.
Quite what we should do to correct this situation now is a moot point. We should only get involved militarily if there is a PROVEN, HIGH-RISK to western nations, IMO,rather than acting on the falsified BS (WMD) that got us involved in the Iraq fiasco in the first place (I'm not referring to Gulf War 1; that was legitimate,IMO, as Kuwait asked for help).
I totally agree.
What we in 'the west' tend to forget is the simple fact that many of these cultures have NEVER had democracy in their history, and we need to learn that trying to implement democracy in such regions is NOT a universal panacea!
I agree wholeheartedly. I would never have even gotten involved in the Middle East were I in charge. But of course there's that whole "oil" thing...
I feel that between the US and the UK, WE are responsible, to a large degree, for the rise of ISIS, and other such unsavoury groups.
Europe is responsible for the Crusades. Perhaps that was the original destabilizing influence on the Middle East. How far back do you want to go? Or maybe that part of the world has just always been crazy and it's no one's fault but their own.
Quite what we should do to correct this situation now is a moot point. We should only get involved militarily if there is a PROVEN, HIGH-RISK to western nations, IMO,rather than acting on the falsified BS (WMD) that got us involved in the Iraq fiasco in the first place (I'm not referring to Gulf War 1; that was legitimate,IMO, as Kuwait asked for help).
I totally agree.
Responsibility
The last time the UK had anything even slightly resembling a massacre related to immigration was 1190, when 150 Jews died.
And we killed every immigrant Roman Catholic priest who entered the country during the reign of Elizabeth the First, because they were all intent on having her assassinated. Fair dinkum, I always reckoned.
Can you think af anything more recent? Because we've had an awful lot of immigration since then. Jews from the Pale before the first world war, Caribbean nationals fifty years ago, Poles and Italians and Germans before them, the French between 1680-1710 and then between 1790-1820, the fallout from creating Bangladesh, Uganda exploding, Mountbatten's disaster-policy breaking up India in 1948. We've had a Chinatown in a dozen cities since the days of Victoria. None of it achieved what you claim happens invariably.
And we killed every immigrant Roman Catholic priest who entered the country during the reign of Elizabeth the First, because they were all intent on having her assassinated. Fair dinkum, I always reckoned.
Can you think af anything more recent? Because we've had an awful lot of immigration since then. Jews from the Pale before the first world war, Caribbean nationals fifty years ago, Poles and Italians and Germans before them, the French between 1680-1710 and then between 1790-1820, the fallout from creating Bangladesh, Uganda exploding, Mountbatten's disaster-policy breaking up India in 1948. We've had a Chinatown in a dozen cities since the days of Victoria. None of it achieved what you claim happens invariably.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Responsibility
Not massacres but plenty of riots
The Race Riots of 1919
The British Race Riots of 1919
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_riots
South Shields (February 1919) - South Shields
Cardiff (June 1919) - Cardiff riots 1919
Liverpool (June 1919) - Liverpool riot 1919
London (April 1919) - Stepney
London (May 1919) - St Anne Street
London (June 1919) - Cable Street
London (June 1919) - Poplar
Liverpool (August 1948) - Liverpool riot 1948
Nottingham (August 1958) - Nottingham riot 1958
London (1958) - 1958 Notting Hill race riots
Leeds (1975) - 1975 Chapeltown riot
London (1976) - Notting Hill
London (23 April 1979) - Southall race riot
Bristol (1980) - 1980 St. Pauls riot
London (April 1981) - 1981 Brixton riot
Liverpool (July 1981) - 1981 Toxteth riots
Birmingham (July 1981, 1985) - 1985 Handsworth riots
Leeds (1981) - 1981 Chapeltown Caribbean riot
Manchester (1981) - Moss Side
London (1985) - Peckham riot
London (September 1985) - 1985 Brixton riot
London (October 1985) - Broadwater Farm riot
Leeds (1987) - 1987 Chapeltown riot
Dewsbury (1989) - 1989 Dewsbury riot
North Shields (1991) - Benwell and The Meadow Well riots
Oldham (May 2001) - 2001 Oldham riots
Burnley (June 2001) - Burnley Riots
Bradford (July 2001) - 2001 Bradford riots
Stoke-on-Trent (July 2001)
Birmingham (2005) - 2005 Birmingham riots
Windsor (2006) - 2006 Windsor ethnic violence[40]
London (2011) - 2011 London riots
Then of course there is the anti-irish riots.
The Race Riots of 1919
The British Race Riots of 1919
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_riots
South Shields (February 1919) - South Shields
Cardiff (June 1919) - Cardiff riots 1919
Liverpool (June 1919) - Liverpool riot 1919
London (April 1919) - Stepney
London (May 1919) - St Anne Street
London (June 1919) - Cable Street
London (June 1919) - Poplar
Liverpool (August 1948) - Liverpool riot 1948
Nottingham (August 1958) - Nottingham riot 1958
London (1958) - 1958 Notting Hill race riots
Leeds (1975) - 1975 Chapeltown riot
London (1976) - Notting Hill
London (23 April 1979) - Southall race riot
Bristol (1980) - 1980 St. Pauls riot
London (April 1981) - 1981 Brixton riot
Liverpool (July 1981) - 1981 Toxteth riots
Birmingham (July 1981, 1985) - 1985 Handsworth riots
Leeds (1981) - 1981 Chapeltown Caribbean riot
Manchester (1981) - Moss Side
London (1985) - Peckham riot
London (September 1985) - 1985 Brixton riot
London (October 1985) - Broadwater Farm riot
Leeds (1987) - 1987 Chapeltown riot
Dewsbury (1989) - 1989 Dewsbury riot
North Shields (1991) - Benwell and The Meadow Well riots
Oldham (May 2001) - 2001 Oldham riots
Burnley (June 2001) - Burnley Riots
Bradford (July 2001) - 2001 Bradford riots
Stoke-on-Trent (July 2001)
Birmingham (2005) - 2005 Birmingham riots
Windsor (2006) - 2006 Windsor ethnic violence[40]
London (2011) - 2011 London riots
Then of course there is the anti-irish riots.
Responsibility
Distinguishing between ethnic riots and political riots is difficult. Several of those involved Mosley's Blackshirts, the National Front, the BNP and Bristol's damnable whites-only bus drivers, so perhaps racist riots is a better description.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.