Richmond Council moves to reassure residents on riots

Richmond Council is working closely with police to protect people's safety following last night’s London riots.

Councillor Pamela Fleming, cabinet member for community, business and culture said ‘rigorous contingency plans’ were in place, should the chaos experienced in the capital spread to the borough.

She said: “The violence we have seen over the past few days, with innocent people losing their homes and livelihoods, is indefensible. There have been no incidents in Richmond but we must be vigilant.

“I would like to reiterate what the police have already said. Please can parents make sure that they know where their children are, and ensure that they are not out at night.

“Also, I urge residents not to visit the areas that have had disorder to ‘take a look’. Spectators only make the issue more complex for the police and often get in the way.”

Coun Fleming added although the current riots were part of a constantly changing picture there were plans in place to deal with any incidents that may occur in Richmond.

The reassurance comes following a third night of rioting in London, where police struggled to cope with the escalating crisis as thugs set fire to shops, fought pitched battles with officers and looted stores.

Yesterday’s riots were concentrated around new flashpoints in Croydon, Hackney, Clapham Junction, Newham, Lewisham and Bethnal Green, but the violence also spread to central London where looters smashed the windows of Hugo Boss in Sloane Square.

Richmond’s Superintendent Jim Davis confirmed officers helped with rioting in Wandsworth and Croydon last night and all officers' rest days had been cancelled for the time being. He said officers were effectively working 12 hour shifts to ensure they had the resilience necessary to control the situation.

He said: “Richmond police officers are presently dealing with an extraordinary set of policing demands but whilst we continue to ask an awful lot of our staff, we equally remain determined to keep Richmond safe while providing the critical support to our colleagues in other parts of London. “Thankfully, we have to date been minimally affected but we remain alert to the intelligence picture as it develops and determined to provide sufficient resources to deal with any problems that may arise. I ask all of our residents to be particularly patient at this demanding and difficult time.”

He also assured residents no local officers had as yet been significantly injured and morale among officers remained high.

Comments (51)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:42pm Wed 10 Aug 11

PhillipTaylor says...

Thank goodness that the Conservative Party had the sense to maintain a proper level of Council reserves between 2002-6! We can now see why.

The Liberals so misguidedly criticized the keeping of any reserves of cash during the 2006 campaign (calling it a 'war chest') and heaped a lot of criticism on the Conservative candidates which was quite unjustified at the time.

I hope now, after these disgraceful riots, that the Liberals will recognize that they were wrong in 2006. The Council must have reserves of cash for emergencies such as these civil disturbances and i am glad the Tories have been the only sensible party on this matter.

Phillip Taylor
Thank goodness that the Conservative Party had the sense to maintain a proper level of Council reserves between 2002-6! We can now see why. The Liberals so misguidedly criticized the keeping of any reserves of cash during the 2006 campaign (calling it a 'war chest') and heaped a lot of criticism on the Conservative candidates which was quite unjustified at the time. I hope now, after these disgraceful riots, that the Liberals will recognize that they were wrong in 2006. The Council must have reserves of cash for emergencies such as these civil disturbances and i am glad the Tories have been the only sensible party on this matter. Phillip Taylor PhillipTaylor

11:24pm Wed 10 Aug 11

Gareth Roberts says...

Philip,

I think most people will be disgusted to see you trying to gain some sort of party political advantage from this situation.

You should be ashamed.
Philip, I think most people will be disgusted to see you trying to gain some sort of party political advantage from this situation. You should be ashamed. Gareth Roberts

8:43am Thu 11 Aug 11

PhillipTaylor says...

No I am not, Gareth. There is no party political advantage in reminding people that you need extra cash in the kitty for emergencies. However, if you think that is a political advantage for the good old Tory Party, that is your opinion and thank you very much, I take it as a compliment.

Phillip Taylor
No I am not, Gareth. There is no party political advantage in reminding people that you need extra cash in the kitty for emergencies. However, if you think that is a political advantage for the good old Tory Party, that is your opinion and thank you very much, I take it as a compliment. Phillip Taylor PhillipTaylor

11:59am Thu 11 Aug 11

bandit63 says...

Mr . Taylor - I'm sorry, but you are just making political capital out of this. "I take this as a compliment" is exactly what I'm talking about. Our out of touch politicans , including wannbes like you, are yet again trying to see what they can gain out of a horrible situation.
Where are your words of support for the police and other emergency services who have placed themselves in danger to deal with these riots, but have the spectre of large budget cuts, so they have to do more with less? Please don't dribble out "the country is in a mess caused by Labour blah blah". If you do, then it will just reinforce what I think of politicans. A lot of labour and liberal councils around the country have maintained good levels of contingency funding despite having to pull in purse strings. It's not just a CONservative thing.
Mr . Taylor - I'm sorry, but you are just making political capital out of this. "I take this as a compliment" is exactly what I'm talking about. Our out of touch politicans , including wannbes like you, are yet again trying to see what they can gain out of a horrible situation. Where are your words of support for the police and other emergency services who have placed themselves in danger to deal with these riots, but have the spectre of large budget cuts, so they have to do more with less? Please don't dribble out "the country is in a mess caused by Labour blah blah". If you do, then it will just reinforce what I think of politicans. A lot of labour and liberal councils around the country have maintained good levels of contingency funding despite having to pull in purse strings. It's not just a CONservative thing. bandit63

1:57pm Thu 11 Aug 11

PhillipTaylor says...

You are the one who is wrong, Bandit- and why are you hiding behind an alias? Cllr Roberts is just being gratuitously rude as usual.

If you have watched today's proceedings in Parliament you would realise that the Belwin formula is being used for some parts of the national contingency requirements but the government is having to make more money available because of the sheer damage caused to smaller shops who may not have insurance cover.

It was Blair who took away the contingency funding in the first place which is why councils need reserves. Fact. It was the Liberals who drained the reserves here. Fact.

It is not about making political capital as you call it. It is about ensuring that we don't suffer the bad policies of the past again and the public should be aware of who was responsible because they started it during the 2006 election campaign making an issue out of something which most responsible people took for granted- reserves: that we had money in the kitty for a rainy day.

I will ignore your offensive comments about my lack of remarks for the work of the police and fire services. Again you are wrong. These public services have done a great job. It is quite clear where your sympathies lie with the nickname you use, "Bandit". Just remember that the Prime Minister has made it clear that face coverings are going to have to be removed in future.

And in case you haven't 'got it' yet, bandits normally favour face coverings to hide their identities so we know where you are coming from with your prejudiced postings- tell us your real name.

Phillip Taylor
You are the one who is wrong, Bandit- and why are you hiding behind an alias? Cllr Roberts is just being gratuitously rude as usual. If you have watched today's proceedings in Parliament you would realise that the Belwin formula is being used for some parts of the national contingency requirements but the government is having to make more money available because of the sheer damage caused to smaller shops who may not have insurance cover. It was Blair who took away the contingency funding in the first place which is why councils need reserves. Fact. It was the Liberals who drained the reserves here. Fact. It is not about making political capital as you call it. It is about ensuring that we don't suffer the bad policies of the past again and the public should be aware of who was responsible because they started it during the 2006 election campaign making an issue out of something which most responsible people took for granted- reserves: that we had money in the kitty for a rainy day. I will ignore your offensive comments about my lack of remarks for the work of the police and fire services. Again you are wrong. These public services have done a great job. It is quite clear where your sympathies lie with the nickname you use, "Bandit". Just remember that the Prime Minister has made it clear that face coverings are going to have to be removed in future. And in case you haven't 'got it' yet, bandits normally favour face coverings to hide their identities so we know where you are coming from with your prejudiced postings- tell us your real name. Phillip Taylor PhillipTaylor

2:32pm Thu 11 Aug 11

Gareth Roberts says...

I'm sorry that you found my comments gratuitously rude, Philip. I was simply calling it as I saw it, vis a disgusting attempt to make party political capital out of a terrible situation. Nothing you have said since has given me any cause to revise that opinion.
I'm sorry that you found my comments gratuitously rude, Philip. I was simply calling it as I saw it, vis a disgusting attempt to make party political capital out of a terrible situation. Nothing you have said since has given me any cause to revise that opinion. Gareth Roberts

5:02pm Thu 11 Aug 11

lucullus says...

Of course, if the Conservatives had been in charge of the country for the last two years, none of this would have happened, and we wouldn't need any austerity programme anyway. Oh, wait ...
Of course, if the Conservatives had been in charge of the country for the last two years, none of this would have happened, and we wouldn't need any austerity programme anyway. Oh, wait ... lucullus

9:06am Fri 12 Aug 11

Scott Naylor says...

Gareth Roberts wrote:
Philip,

I think most people will be disgusted to see you trying to gain some sort of party political advantage from this situation.

You should be ashamed.
Let's cut the hyper emotive flowery and immature language shall we Cllr Roberts and focus on the core social issues and at this stage the pain that should be put upon the perpetrators for doing in their own community.

The interesting debate right now is about should rioters if on benefits continue to be rewarded for the despicable behaviour even moreso against their own communities.

If these people happen to be living in social housing, should they be losing their entitlement to a home for life, and be moved onto the private landlord, so they shift over for others whom have more respect have their neighbours, have a focus of responsibility in mind towards their very community they have been abusing as top of their minds before they are tempted to commit low-down cheap mindless gang crime?

Cutting all benefits will be self defeating, the Universal Credit coming forward will create better incentives in any case to sustain all types of work, of course if these people are committed to shameless behaviour, they are heading for gaol.

Any thoughts in any case of National Service for all youth and be sent to third world countries to learn how lucky and spoilt in many cases we all are in this social security dependency culture?
[quote][p][bold]Gareth Roberts[/bold] wrote: Philip, I think most people will be disgusted to see you trying to gain some sort of party political advantage from this situation. You should be ashamed.[/p][/quote]Let's cut the hyper emotive flowery and immature language shall we Cllr Roberts and focus on the core social issues and at this stage the pain that should be put upon the perpetrators for doing in their own community. The interesting debate right now is about should rioters if on benefits continue to be rewarded for the despicable behaviour even moreso against their own communities. If these people happen to be living in social housing, should they be losing their entitlement to a home for life, and be moved onto the private landlord, so they shift over for others whom have more respect have their neighbours, have a focus of responsibility in mind towards their very community they have been abusing as top of their minds before they are tempted to commit low-down cheap mindless gang crime? Cutting all benefits will be self defeating, the Universal Credit coming forward will create better incentives in any case to sustain all types of work, of course if these people are committed to shameless behaviour, they are heading for gaol. Any thoughts in any case of National Service for all youth and be sent to third world countries to learn how lucky and spoilt in many cases we all are in this social security dependency culture? Scott Naylor

2:00pm Fri 12 Aug 11

lucullus says...

If you re-phrased the question to be "Should poor people be punished twice for a crime that we'd only punish others once for?" then most people would probably arrive at an answer quite quickly.

Withdrawing someone's benefits after they've been convicted and served their punishment suggests that we should find something with a similar impact for those not on benefits. How about making MPs who fiddled expenses bankrupt? Or seizing the homes of bankers who paid themselves bonuses from the public purse after they received massive bailouts?
If you re-phrased the question to be "Should poor people be punished twice for a crime that we'd only punish others once for?" then most people would probably arrive at an answer quite quickly. Withdrawing someone's benefits after they've been convicted and served their punishment suggests that we should find something with a similar impact for those not on benefits. How about making MPs who fiddled expenses bankrupt? Or seizing the homes of bankers who paid themselves bonuses from the public purse after they received massive bailouts? lucullus

2:08pm Fri 12 Aug 11

bandit63 says...

taylor - I use a nickname for personal reasons, which are that years ago I witnessed a serious crime and appeared as a witness for the police. After that trial, the family and freinds of the scumbag that got put away, traced people involved in trial through e-mail addresses, websites etc., and then proceeded to make threats etc. So I now use nicknames so I try and keep my identity as hidden as much as possible. Oh by the way, these threats went on for a year, so I'm not facebook, friends reunited, twitter etc., and use a nickname for all e-mails. So, Mr CONservative think before you type
taylor - I use a nickname for personal reasons, which are that years ago I witnessed a serious crime and appeared as a witness for the police. After that trial, the family and freinds of the scumbag that got put away, traced people involved in trial through e-mail addresses, websites etc., and then proceeded to make threats etc. So I now use nicknames so I try and keep my identity as hidden as much as possible. Oh by the way, these threats went on for a year, so I'm not facebook, friends reunited, twitter etc., and use a nickname for all e-mails. So, Mr CONservative think before you type bandit63

2:24pm Fri 12 Aug 11

bandit63 says...

Sorry forgot the Mr.
Sorry forgot the Mr. bandit63

2:31pm Fri 12 Aug 11

Scott Naylor says...

Bandit 63; In my experience only old died in-the-wool hard left Socialists, Troskyites or Labour tend to use the word in caps CONservatives. It is very tiresome is it not and really quite school-child mindset to use babyish nicknames, but judging by your name that doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

As for Tim Lennon's comment, it could be poor people, it it could be better off, but half of the convicted are at the moment under the age of 18. Has there been an assessment yet as to the proportion of criminals caught or as yet still free as to their socio-economic groupings? However this is a discussion not a confrontation or challenge, which is why I put it out that if people are convicted of destroying their own community, should they be given any privilege which others are queuing up for? Question, not statement.

Several Councils have already indicated that this may already be in their power to do this.
Bandit 63; In my experience only old died in-the-wool hard left Socialists, Troskyites or Labour tend to use the word in caps CONservatives. It is very tiresome is it not and really quite school-child mindset to use babyish nicknames, but judging by your name that doesn't surprise me in the slightest. As for Tim Lennon's comment, it could be poor people, it it could be better off, but half of the convicted are at the moment under the age of 18. Has there been an assessment yet as to the proportion of criminals caught or as yet still free as to their socio-economic groupings? However this is a discussion not a confrontation or challenge, which is why I put it out that if people are convicted of destroying their own community, should they be given any privilege which others are queuing up for? Question, not statement. Several Councils have already indicated that this may already be in their power to do this. Scott Naylor

2:50pm Fri 12 Aug 11

bandit63 says...

Also, glad to see that our PM has taken a class in morale boosting. "The Police have admiited they got it wrong" with a small sentence of thanks to the front line officers. Sir Hugh Ord was right in saying the politicans were insignificant in the process. The police didn't get iit wrong, planning by Senior Officers running scared of the PC brigade got it wrong. Individual commanders on the ground did not get it wrong.
I would have more respect for "dave" if he repealed parts of the human rights act that allow criminals to hide behind this and get away with a multitude of things. I have not yet seen anything that is tipping the balance back in favour of the law abiding citizen, allowing the Police / Teachers / Parents to reassert their authority within reason.
The looting took place because the scum who took part know they won't have to face up to what they have done - prison means nothing, they just wear that as a badge of honour. They should lose their rights benefits etc. if on "the social", if not receiving benefits but in scoial housing - be put on notice that one more strike they are out, if not on either pay the legal bill for prosecuting them & for the damage they have caused & the goods they stole. If they are minors, then the parents get hit with the above. In all cases, their names should be published in local newspapers, they all get a curfew for a length of time and made to clean up the mess. Oh of course all of this goes against their "human rights" so it won't be done
Also, glad to see that our PM has taken a class in morale boosting. "The Police have admiited they got it wrong" with a small sentence of thanks to the front line officers. Sir Hugh Ord was right in saying the politicans were insignificant in the process. The police didn't get iit wrong, planning by Senior Officers running scared of the PC brigade got it wrong. Individual commanders on the ground did not get it wrong. I would have more respect for "dave" if he repealed parts of the human rights act that allow criminals to hide behind this and get away with a multitude of things. I have not yet seen anything that is tipping the balance back in favour of the law abiding citizen, allowing the Police / Teachers / Parents to reassert their authority within reason. The looting took place because the scum who took part know they won't have to face up to what they have done - prison means nothing, they just wear that as a badge of honour. They should lose their rights benefits etc. if on "the social", if not receiving benefits but in scoial housing - be put on notice that one more strike they are out, if not on either pay the legal bill for prosecuting them & for the damage they have caused & the goods they stole. If they are minors, then the parents get hit with the above. In all cases, their names should be published in local newspapers, they all get a curfew for a length of time and made to clean up the mess. Oh of course all of this goes against their "human rights" so it won't be done bandit63

3:03pm Fri 12 Aug 11

bandit63 says...

Ok - as it's upsetting people i won't use CON anymore. i do not have the mind of a child and am not a labour / liberal / troksy / tory/ monster raving looney party supporter. I just have respect for my culture, my community, my fellow human beings and a very high degree of cynisim where politicans of any colour are concerned. I ,like the MAJORITY of the poeple in this country, are very angry by what this scum has done and will get away with. Enough is enough.
BTW - you obviously didn't read why I have a nickname and bandit relates to the motorcycle I used to ride, so pull your necks in Taylor and Naylor
Ok - as it's upsetting people i won't use CON anymore. i do not have the mind of a child and am not a labour / liberal / troksy / tory/ monster raving looney party supporter. I just have respect for my culture, my community, my fellow human beings and a very high degree of cynisim where politicans of any colour are concerned. I ,like the MAJORITY of the poeple in this country, are very angry by what this scum has done and will get away with. Enough is enough. BTW - you obviously didn't read why I have a nickname and bandit relates to the motorcycle I used to ride, so pull your necks in Taylor and Naylor bandit63

3:13pm Fri 12 Aug 11

lucullus says...

Scott Naylor wrote:
Bandit 63; In my experience only old died in-the-wool hard left Socialists, Troskyites or Labour tend to use the word in caps CONservatives. It is very tiresome is it not and really quite school-child mindset to use babyish nicknames, but judging by your name that doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

As for Tim Lennon's comment, it could be poor people, it it could be better off, but half of the convicted are at the moment under the age of 18. Has there been an assessment yet as to the proportion of criminals caught or as yet still free as to their socio-economic groupings? However this is a discussion not a confrontation or challenge, which is why I put it out that if people are convicted of destroying their own community, should they be given any privilege which others are queuing up for? Question, not statement.

Several Councils have already indicated that this may already be in their power to do this.
No-one's going to be 'convicted of destroying their own community'. Hop off and read Peter Oborne at the Telegraph, I suggest: http://blogs.telegra
ph.co.uk/news/petero
borne/100100708/the-
moral-decay-of-our-s
ociety-is-as-bad-at-
the-top-as-the-botto
m/

(Anyone else left wondering whether bandit will be very carefully reading any very unlikely re-writing of the Human Rights Act to ensure that his right to anonymity isn't trampled in the stampede to trample on the rights of others?)
[quote][p][bold]Scott Naylor[/bold] wrote: Bandit 63; In my experience only old died in-the-wool hard left Socialists, Troskyites or Labour tend to use the word in caps CONservatives. It is very tiresome is it not and really quite school-child mindset to use babyish nicknames, but judging by your name that doesn't surprise me in the slightest. As for Tim Lennon's comment, it could be poor people, it it could be better off, but half of the convicted are at the moment under the age of 18. Has there been an assessment yet as to the proportion of criminals caught or as yet still free as to their socio-economic groupings? However this is a discussion not a confrontation or challenge, which is why I put it out that if people are convicted of destroying their own community, should they be given any privilege which others are queuing up for? Question, not statement. Several Councils have already indicated that this may already be in their power to do this.[/p][/quote]No-one's going to be 'convicted of destroying their own community'. Hop off and read Peter Oborne at the Telegraph, I suggest: http://blogs.telegra ph.co.uk/news/petero borne/100100708/the- moral-decay-of-our-s ociety-is-as-bad-at- the-top-as-the-botto m/ (Anyone else left wondering whether bandit will be very carefully reading any very unlikely re-writing of the Human Rights Act to ensure that his right to anonymity isn't trampled in the stampede to trample on the rights of others?) lucullus

3:14pm Fri 12 Aug 11

bandit63 says...

just to add yet another posting (going for a record today!!), it has been proved time and time again that a combination of being "embarrassed", being to realise the consequences of their actions and restorative justice has a very good effect on people re offending. Trying to get kids involved in their community at a young age will make them respect it, generate a higher level of self respect and they should get tangible benefits from that. The stick would be to come down hard as per my previous post.
I don't know what sort of country we have when kids as young as 3 are showing violent tendencies (ofsted report)
just to add yet another posting (going for a record today!!), it has been proved time and time again that a combination of being "embarrassed", being to realise the consequences of their actions and restorative justice has a very good effect on people re offending. Trying to get kids involved in their community at a young age will make them respect it, generate a higher level of self respect and they should get tangible benefits from that. The stick would be to come down hard as per my previous post. I don't know what sort of country we have when kids as young as 3 are showing violent tendencies (ofsted report) bandit63

3:53pm Fri 12 Aug 11

Twickenham Bob says...

It’s very worrying that we have Councillors like Scott Naylor who believe in double punishment and collective punishment in the 21st Century.
.
My grandfather’s generation fought a world war so that they and their children could live in free society, and live under the rule of law.
.
A small amount of pressure, and it would seem that Conservatives at Richmond Council will happily chuck away our hard won (& maintained) liberties, and introduced extra-judicial punishments, retrospectively to (Jack) boot too.
.
We also have a prime minister instructing courts how to sentence people, and courts ignoring the due process (e.g. sending people to jail without pre-sentencing reports), having defence lawyers who have had no sleep for 24 hours (how is that adequate legal representation). Our legal system sacrificed so the Prime Minister can sound tough, after he wasn’t able to run the country effective though his Blackberry whilst on holiday.
.
Many will rightly condemn the looters, but it’s even worse for the courts not to give people fair trails. When the court system is abused in this way, it affects the liberty of all citizens – not just those standing in the dock. How can we respect the magistrates and the court institution – when they too blatantly bend the rules?
.
I can well see many of the convictions being squashed and looters awarded damages by the European Court of Human Rights. A truly dreadful outcome, but that is the likely outcome when rules are bent to help save the political skin of the Prime Minister.
It’s very worrying that we have Councillors like Scott Naylor who believe in double punishment and collective punishment in the 21st Century. . My grandfather’s generation fought a world war so that they and their children could live in free society, and live under the rule of law. . A small amount of pressure, and it would seem that Conservatives at Richmond Council will happily chuck away our hard won (& maintained) liberties, and introduced extra-judicial punishments, retrospectively to (Jack) boot too. . We also have a prime minister instructing courts how to sentence people, and courts ignoring the due process (e.g. sending people to jail without pre-sentencing reports), having defence lawyers who have had no sleep for 24 hours (how is that adequate legal representation). Our legal system sacrificed so the Prime Minister can sound tough, after he wasn’t able to run the country effective though his Blackberry whilst on holiday. . Many will rightly condemn the looters, but it’s even worse for the courts not to give people fair trails. When the court system is abused in this way, it affects the liberty of all citizens – not just those standing in the dock. How can we respect the magistrates and the court institution – when they too blatantly bend the rules? . I can well see many of the convictions being squashed and looters awarded damages by the European Court of Human Rights. A truly dreadful outcome, but that is the likely outcome when rules are bent to help save the political skin of the Prime Minister. Twickenham Bob

4:33pm Fri 12 Aug 11

bandit63 says...

Twickenham Bob - So did my grandfather. He also fought for the belief that people should respect the society they are in and the right to live in our society has to be earned and has to be earned and not given. This includes poeple born / not born within our shores.
The last thing anybody wants is injustice, but why should be bend over backwards to protect the "rights" of people who have no respect for anything / anybody. A large majority of the people currently going through the court system after these riots have been caught on CCTV and / or at the scene and /or later with stolen goods and admitted the offences straight away. There should be fast tracking of these cases so that they can associate that doing bad thngs brings immeidate conseqeunces. Not weeks of waiting for reports and then "oh poor boy, he comes from a broken home blah blah", whilst he stands there in the dock smirking because he knows he is going to get away with it.
There are too many excuses in our society for bad behaviour and everyone blames everyone else. As an individual I have a choice as to whether or not I kick in a window and steal a TV or not. If I do perform that action and get caught then I should feel the full hand of the law, not some **** footing around with punishment being given out motnhs later when I've probably foorgotten what I've done. When a child does something bad, you don't wait for weeks and then deal with it, you sort it out there and then to asscoiate worng doing with bad outcomes for the child, and reward genuine good behaviour.

We ahve got to get back the inbuilt self respect that our society used to have from the top downwards as per the article lucullus posted
Twickenham Bob - So did my grandfather. He also fought for the belief that people should respect the society they are in and the right to live in our society has to be earned and has to be earned and not given. This includes poeple born / not born within our shores. The last thing anybody wants is injustice, but why should be bend over backwards to protect the "rights" of people who have no respect for anything / anybody. A large majority of the people currently going through the court system after these riots have been caught on CCTV and / or at the scene and /or later with stolen goods and admitted the offences straight away. There should be fast tracking of these cases so that they can associate that doing bad thngs brings immeidate conseqeunces. Not weeks of waiting for reports and then "oh poor boy, he comes from a broken home blah blah", whilst he stands there in the dock smirking because he knows he is going to get away with it. There are too many excuses in our society for bad behaviour and everyone blames everyone else. As an individual I have a choice as to whether or not I kick in a window and steal a TV or not. If I do perform that action and get caught then I should feel the full hand of the law, not some **** footing around with punishment being given out motnhs later when I've probably foorgotten what I've done. When a child does something bad, you don't wait for weeks and then deal with it, you sort it out there and then to asscoiate worng doing with bad outcomes for the child, and reward genuine good behaviour. We ahve got to get back the inbuilt self respect that our society used to have from the top downwards as per the article lucullus posted bandit63

6:11pm Fri 12 Aug 11

PhillipTaylor says...

Bob's attack on Cllr Naylor is quite unnecessary. Cllr Naylor is doing an excellent job on Richmond Council which is more than I can say for the posturing of other Liberal councillors who remain firmly in fairy dairy land and in denial on reserves.

The problem which comes out of the postings from Bob and Bandit and others shows the level of intolerance we have now reached when anyone wishes to express a view.

The real reason why we have such confusion from the Liberals can be seen by the u turn from Cllr Eady and the Liberals on their education policy: they are also in denial.

The only message given to the electors is that the Liberals have been caught out again with their vain attempts to try to appeal to everyone- I notice Clegg had to be hustled away when he tried to say anything, when Boris stood and took it.

As usual, it is the Tories who have had to pick up the latest mess up which Labour created between 1997-2010. No wonder we never get a Labour point of view in these columns... they are too ashamed of their terrible record.

Phillip Taylor
Bob's attack on Cllr Naylor is quite unnecessary. Cllr Naylor is doing an excellent job on Richmond Council which is more than I can say for the posturing of other Liberal councillors who remain firmly in fairy dairy land and in denial on reserves. The problem which comes out of the postings from Bob and Bandit and others shows the level of intolerance we have now reached when anyone wishes to express a view. The real reason why we have such confusion from the Liberals can be seen by the u turn from Cllr Eady and the Liberals on their education policy: they are also in denial. The only message given to the electors is that the Liberals have been caught out again with their vain attempts to try to appeal to everyone- I notice Clegg had to be hustled away when he tried to say anything, when Boris stood and took it. As usual, it is the Tories who have had to pick up the latest mess up which Labour created between 1997-2010. No wonder we never get a Labour point of view in these columns... they are too ashamed of their terrible record. Phillip Taylor PhillipTaylor

6:13pm Fri 12 Aug 11

Twickenham Bob says...

- The most worrying aspect of the looting is how it’s brought out all the closet authoritarians; offering the 'people' their solutions.
.
The Magistrates Courts have clearly bent to an executive edict to lock people up, going well past sentencing guidelines, and the courts have been bi-passing due process. Remand in custody is being abused, and people are getting sentences well out proportion for the crime committed. Like in Germany – the legal niceties were observed in Court, but justice was not done. For many of defendants, the sentence was decided upon before they even set foot in court. Downing Street ordered them to jail as many people as possible and the 'independent judiciary' rolled over.
.
The government has also been encouraging local authorities to issue extra-judicial collective punishments by trying to evict people from home for offences other people committed. So it’s trying to go around the legal system to get the result it wants. Another typical feature of authoritarian regimes.
.
People who have done wrong ought to be punished, by everyone has the right to a fair trial, and equal justice. This has been lost in political panic, and will have many ramifications which will long outlast the effects of the riots. The tough talk from politicians is also to hide their role in the riots – which are linked to mass youth unemployment and that people can’t get on the housing ladder unless their parents are rich enough to give them a deposit. This has fuelled widespread alienation and the belief that the State is only interested in the ‘haves’ in society.
.
Anyone who has read the book on Hitler’s Justice –by Ingo Muller, will be chilled to see the similarities. The judges bent to executive edits, and if the government couldn’t get what they wanted from the courts they devised new extra-judicial methods to impose punishment. Though references to the Hitler’s Germany are often over blown, the judicial principles we have today in the Europe, are an attempt to stop similar things happening again. As soon as the courts bow to political edits everyone’s liberty is in danger. We ignore such warnings from history at our peril.
- The most worrying aspect of the looting is how it’s brought out all the closet authoritarians; offering the 'people' their solutions. . The Magistrates Courts have clearly bent to an executive edict to lock people up, going well past sentencing guidelines, and the courts have been bi-passing due process. Remand in custody is being abused, and people are getting sentences well out proportion for the crime committed. Like in Germany – the legal niceties were observed in Court, but justice was not done. For many of defendants, the sentence was decided upon before they even set foot in court. Downing Street ordered them to jail as many people as possible and the 'independent judiciary' rolled over. . The government has also been encouraging local authorities to issue extra-judicial collective punishments by trying to evict people from home for offences other people committed. So it’s trying to go around the legal system to get the result it wants. Another typical feature of authoritarian regimes. . People who have done wrong ought to be punished, by everyone has the right to a fair trial, and equal justice. This has been lost in political panic, and will have many ramifications which will long outlast the effects of the riots. The tough talk from politicians is also to hide their role in the riots – which are linked to mass youth unemployment and that people can’t get on the housing ladder unless their parents are rich enough to give them a deposit. This has fuelled widespread alienation and the belief that the State is only interested in the ‘haves’ in society. . Anyone who has read the book on Hitler’s Justice –by Ingo Muller, will be chilled to see the similarities. The judges bent to executive edits, and if the government couldn’t get what they wanted from the courts they devised new extra-judicial methods to impose punishment. Though references to the Hitler’s Germany are often over blown, the judicial principles we have today in the Europe, are an attempt to stop similar things happening again. As soon as the courts bow to political edits everyone’s liberty is in danger. We ignore such warnings from history at our peril. Twickenham Bob

6:16pm Fri 12 Aug 11

PhillipTaylor says...

Bob should rename himself 'Alarmist Bob' or 'Extremist Bob' after this latest posting. he does not understand the working of the Magistrates' Courts.

Phillip Taylor
Bob should rename himself 'Alarmist Bob' or 'Extremist Bob' after this latest posting. he does not understand the working of the Magistrates' Courts. Phillip Taylor PhillipTaylor

6:36pm Fri 12 Aug 11

Scott Naylor says...

So Tim Lennon (or is that Lucullus?) just loves disagreeing with discussion of ideas, I am always amazed at people not wishing to debate, and quick to ****.

Let's get back to sharing of ideas, again, shall we, not the all too typical curt dismissal. Otherwise you will end up driving everyone off, like Twickenham Bob's very stilted attempt at aliteration and damnation at people who dare stand up on behalf of the community in elections, maybe if you haven't tried it before see how much time it takes out of your life every week. Some common courtesy and non glib condemnations would be appreciated, it do you just condemn because of a label, Government at Local or National wouldn't function in this country, would it?

Community is held together by people giving up their time, is it not, and is it also true to say that those who a consensual and fair rather than self centred and power-hungry?

Just look at the broom brigades in Tottenham and the Barber's 89 year old who has received £25,000 in small notes and kind cards and words of support. I was on the loop line yesterday chatting to the train guard who had been part of the broom brigade near his home in Clapham Junction.

So you can put people together whom were collectively part of a riot, and you can talk about their collective crime, and they can be dealt with in the existing framework of the law, whoever said all solicitors were working 24 hours a day, collectively, slight over-simplification? I am sure that complex matters like murder as in Ealing will take sometime longer, but clear and obvious convictions of clear-cut crime is to be applauded. JP's give their time freely to work at Magistrates Courts too, congratulations for running courts on shifts through the night to deal with the hundreds convicted. So as mobile phones may have been responsible for the negative communications, so are the mobile phones revealing video and photographic evidence will put these low-lifes in their place.
So Tim Lennon (or is that Lucullus?) just loves disagreeing with discussion of ideas, I am always amazed at people not wishing to debate, and quick to ****. Let's get back to sharing of ideas, again, shall we, not the all too typical curt dismissal. Otherwise you will end up driving everyone off, like Twickenham Bob's very stilted attempt at aliteration and damnation at people who dare stand up on behalf of the community in elections, maybe if you haven't tried it before see how much time it takes out of your life every week. Some common courtesy and non glib condemnations would be appreciated, it do you just condemn because of a label, Government at Local or National wouldn't function in this country, would it? Community is held together by people giving up their time, is it not, and is it also true to say that those who a consensual and fair rather than self centred and power-hungry? Just look at the broom brigades in Tottenham and the Barber's 89 year old who has received £25,000 in small notes and kind cards and words of support. I was on the loop line yesterday chatting to the train guard who had been part of the broom brigade near his home in Clapham Junction. So you can put people together whom were collectively part of a riot, and you can talk about their collective crime, and they can be dealt with in the existing framework of the law, whoever said all solicitors were working 24 hours a day, collectively, slight over-simplification? I am sure that complex matters like murder as in Ealing will take sometime longer, but clear and obvious convictions of clear-cut crime is to be applauded. JP's give their time freely to work at Magistrates Courts too, congratulations for running courts on shifts through the night to deal with the hundreds convicted. So as mobile phones may have been responsible for the negative communications, so are the mobile phones revealing video and photographic evidence will put these low-lifes in their place. Scott Naylor

6:43pm Fri 12 Aug 11

bandit63 says...

Mr Taylor - I'm not intolerant of your views, I just disagree with them, whereas you appear to be intolerant of others. In fact you and I are probably on the same page with regards with what to do with the morons that have dragged our country down. You revert to type every single time and think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot.

Don't gloat on what other parties did /didn't do. The Tories record in previous governments hasn't excatly been unblemished and the current government is only in power because it is propped up by the liberals, a party that you keep knocking (and in some respects you are right to do so).
Mr Taylor - I'm not intolerant of your views, I just disagree with them, whereas you appear to be intolerant of others. In fact you and I are probably on the same page with regards with what to do with the morons that have dragged our country down. You revert to type every single time and think that anyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot. Don't gloat on what other parties did /didn't do. The Tories record in previous governments hasn't excatly been unblemished and the current government is only in power because it is propped up by the liberals, a party that you keep knocking (and in some respects you are right to do so). bandit63

6:45pm Fri 12 Aug 11

Twickenham Bob says...

Phillip, I’m well aware of how a Magistrates Court works, and the normal high standards they operate under. But there is strong evidence that they have given into political pressure. Both by what senior politicians are saying, and what the courts are doing in practice.
.
The facts speak for themselves. The Guardian is one of the few sources that is keeping a running total (not an ideal unbiased source but it’s the only one we have) - and it’s very clear that something extra-ordinary is happening.
.
http://www.guardian.
co.uk/news/datablog/
2011/aug/11/uk-riots
-magistrates-court-l
ist?intcmp=239
Phillip, I’m well aware of how a Magistrates Court works, and the normal high standards they operate under. But there is strong evidence that they have given into political pressure. Both by what senior politicians are saying, and what the courts are doing in practice. . The facts speak for themselves. The Guardian is one of the few sources that is keeping a running total (not an ideal unbiased source but it’s the only one we have) - and it’s very clear that something extra-ordinary is happening. . http://www.guardian. co.uk/news/datablog/ 2011/aug/11/uk-riots -magistrates-court-l ist?intcmp=239 Twickenham Bob

7:18pm Fri 12 Aug 11

Montrose says...

Bandit63 is quite right – “there are too many excuses in our society for bad behaviour”. Of course we need to find out what were the root causes of the rioting, but with the liberal elite expunging what they call ‘value judgements’ over behaviour – amorality rules. Discipline, and self-control – watchwords to our grandfathers – are deemed unimportant, and this ‘Lord of the Flies’ style ‘self-expression
is not condoned – viz. the Left-leaning BBC calling the rioters ‘protesters’. This is, of course, an insult to anybody who has taken part in a peaceful protest.

Lucullus/Tim Lennon quotes an article by Peter Oborne, but is he seriously suggesting this juvenile, and teenage ‘underclass’ have intellectual discussions about the so-called ruling class whom they deem unfit to ‘rule’? For a more down-to-earth view – read Max Hastings who said: “They are an absolute deadweight upon society, because they contribute nothing yet cost the taxpayer billions. Liberal opinion holds they are victims, because society has failed to provide them with opportunities to develop their potential. They are products of a culture which gives them so much unconditionally that they are let off learning how to become human beings.” Here: http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/debate/articl
e-2024284/UK-riots-2
011-Liberal-dogma-sp
awned-generation-bru
talised-youths.html#
ixzz1Uplf31it

“Twickenham Bob” makes a fatuous – and unpleasant – analogy with Nazi Germany considering CCTV has captured many rioters ’red handed’. What is their defence – somebody impersonated them? If the coalition government was really an ‘authoritarian’ regime, these rioters would have been stopped in their tracks instead of being allowed to continue their theft – and arson. And why shouldn’t the courts deal with these rioters as soon as possible? Where is the sympathy for the families of people who have lost their lives – and all those people who have lost their livelihoods? And full marks to those community spirited people – mentioned by Cllr Naylor – who have been helping to clear up the mess left by the rioters. As a matter of course the courts ought to sentence the rioters to ‘community service’, and make them clear up the mess they have created.

Just as it’s highly unlikely the rioters will clear up the mess they created, it’s similarly highly unlikely they will pay for their criminal damage. Indeed, I can guess that – as usual – it’s the law-abiding taxpayers who end up footing the bill. To use a favourite word by the Left – is that fair? Perhaps it’s time for the silent majority to make their feelings known in a taxpayers’ revolt?

PS: I have written Lucellus/Tim Lennon because of this: http://twitter.com/#
!/lucullus
Bandit63 is quite right – “there are too many excuses in our society for bad behaviour”. Of course we need to find out what were the root causes of the rioting, but with the liberal elite expunging what they call ‘value judgements’ over behaviour – amorality rules. Discipline, and self-control – watchwords to our grandfathers – are deemed unimportant, and this ‘Lord of the Flies’ style ‘self-expression is not condoned – viz. the Left-leaning BBC calling the rioters ‘protesters’. This is, of course, an insult to anybody who has taken part in a peaceful protest. Lucullus/Tim Lennon quotes an article by Peter Oborne, but is he seriously suggesting this juvenile, and teenage ‘underclass’ have intellectual discussions about the so-called ruling class whom they deem unfit to ‘rule’? For a more down-to-earth view – read Max Hastings who said: “They are an absolute deadweight upon society, because they contribute nothing yet cost the taxpayer billions. Liberal opinion holds they are victims, because society has failed to provide them with opportunities to develop their potential. […] They are products of a culture which gives them so much unconditionally that they are let off learning how to become human beings.” Here: http://www.dailymail .co.uk/debate/articl e-2024284/UK-riots-2 011-Liberal-dogma-sp awned-generation-bru talised-youths.html# ixzz1Uplf31it “Twickenham Bob” makes a fatuous – and unpleasant – analogy with Nazi Germany considering CCTV has captured many rioters ’red handed’. What is their defence – somebody impersonated them? If the coalition government was really an ‘authoritarian’ regime, these rioters would have been stopped in their tracks instead of being allowed to continue their theft – and arson. And why shouldn’t the courts deal with these rioters as soon as possible? Where is the sympathy for the families of people who have lost their lives – and all those people who have lost their livelihoods? And full marks to those community spirited people – mentioned by Cllr Naylor – who have been helping to clear up the mess left by the rioters. As a matter of course the courts ought to sentence the rioters to ‘community service’, and make them clear up the mess they have created. Just as it’s highly unlikely the rioters will clear up the mess they created, it’s similarly highly unlikely they will pay for their criminal damage. Indeed, I can guess that – as usual – it’s the law-abiding taxpayers who end up footing the bill. To use a favourite word by the Left – is that fair? Perhaps it’s time for the silent majority to make their feelings known in a taxpayers’ revolt? PS: I have written Lucellus/Tim Lennon because of this: http://twitter.com/# !/lucullus Montrose

8:12pm Fri 12 Aug 11

Twickenham Bob says...

Standing up for the community – can be a noble aim, but being an elected councillor means you have responsibility. We have a representative democracy in the UK and we delegate decision to them to make on our behalf and we expect them to have well though through decisions based on experience, and proper analysis, and judgement.
.
As we delegate decisions, we ought to be concerned about how are decision makers make their decisions. Are they wise, are they prepared to suffer short term unpopularity, or do they follow the prejudices of the people?
..
Evicting Council tenants because one person may have been involved in the riots breaches the principle of legality; the legal ideal that requires all law to be clear, ascertainable and non-retrospective. Its cornerstone of our legal system. Collective punishment is inheritably unjust and is about retribution, not justice. People should also not be punished twice, or more harshly than someone else who committed an identical crime.
.
What’s going on in the courts is wrong; yes there should be speedy justice. But on the same hand it’s wrong to have all night sittings where people are exhausted, and that presentencing reports are not being carried out properly.
.
The Prime Minister has stated anyone involved, will go to jail. That has to a great degree how the courts have operated, and this does breach the principle of legality. It wasn’t clear beforehand, was not ascertainable and is retrospective. Thus in time we will have to look at stronger safeguards to keep our courts free of judicial interference. All night sittings are clearly politically motivated, and have been organised by a government department run by a politician.
.
It’s also telling how some rightwingers paint whole sections of society as scum, lowlife, deadweight etc. Many of the people caught up in the riots are ordinary people caught up in events. Those who were caught may well royally deserve a prison sentence, for their crimes. But what we are seeing is our institutions, and liberties being eroded in the quest for retribution and political expediency.
.
The Nazi comparison is justified, as it shows how a the judiciary can be politicised, that terrible episode had a key influnce on how manages the conflicts between the executive and judicary.
.
We have seen politicians become more authoritarian and have closed their minds (and hearts) to the real problem.
.
Middle England, have turned their backs on the poor and is prepared for them to live in sink estates, and without opportunity to improve their lives. The politicians are desperate to act tough, to avoid the big question of how people at the bottom can have opportunity.
.
I guess the fault line is between thoes who beleive the state should assist citizens and take an almost French view of equality. And thoes who beleive the state should be as small as possible
Standing up for the community – can be a noble aim, but being an elected councillor means you have responsibility. We have a representative democracy in the UK and we delegate decision to them to make on our behalf and we expect them to have well though through decisions based on experience, and proper analysis, and judgement. . As we delegate decisions, we ought to be concerned about how are decision makers make their decisions. Are they wise, are they prepared to suffer short term unpopularity, or do they follow the prejudices of the people? .. Evicting Council tenants because one person may have been involved in the riots breaches the principle of legality; the legal ideal that requires all law to be clear, ascertainable and non-retrospective. Its cornerstone of our legal system. Collective punishment is inheritably unjust and is about retribution, not justice. People should also not be punished twice, or more harshly than someone else who committed an identical crime. . What’s going on in the courts is wrong; yes there should be speedy justice. But on the same hand it’s wrong to have all night sittings where people are exhausted, and that presentencing reports are not being carried out properly. . The Prime Minister has stated anyone involved, will go to jail. That has to a great degree how the courts have operated, and this does breach the principle of legality. It wasn’t clear beforehand, was not ascertainable and is retrospective. Thus in time we will have to look at stronger safeguards to keep our courts free of judicial interference. All night sittings are clearly politically motivated, and have been organised by a government department run by a politician. . It’s also telling how some rightwingers paint whole sections of society as scum, lowlife, deadweight etc. Many of the people caught up in the riots are ordinary people caught up in events. Those who were caught may well royally deserve a prison sentence, for their crimes. But what we are seeing is our institutions, and liberties being eroded in the quest for retribution and political expediency. . The Nazi comparison is justified, as it shows how a the judiciary can be politicised, that terrible episode had a key influnce on how manages the conflicts between the executive and judicary. . We have seen politicians become more authoritarian and have closed their minds (and hearts) to the real problem. . Middle England, have turned their backs on the poor and is prepared for them to live in sink estates, and without opportunity to improve their lives. The politicians are desperate to act tough, to avoid the big question of how people at the bottom can have opportunity. . I guess the fault line is between thoes who beleive the state should assist citizens and take an almost French view of equality. And thoes who beleive the state should be as small as possible Twickenham Bob

10:46pm Fri 12 Aug 11

Montrose says...

“Twickenham Bob” is giving the appearance of an apologist for these rioters by suggesting they were “caught up in events”. Yet there was a lot of premeditation involved because information was spread through social networking sites such as Blackberry’s Mobile Messenger – and leaflets. Check this out: http://order-order.c
om/2011/08/09/organi
sed-anarchy/ And also check out some of the remarks by judges presiding over the rioters’ court cases.

And “Twickenham Bob” is quite wrong – his Nazi comparison has no justification whatsoever. Although I agree that “the judiciary can be politicised” – but “Twickenham Bob” is ascribing this politicisation to the wrong wing of politics. It’s the Left and their perverse idea of so-called ‘justice’ that has brought an abuse of the legal system whereby the perpetrators are treated as if they are the victims.

And then there is the pernicious ‘Human Rights Act’ – courtesy of the last Labour government. We have Lefty judges ruling that foreign national terrorists can’t be deported because their ‘Human Rights’ might be infringed. Or – if it’s not the ‘Human Rights Act’ they invoke – it’s the ‘European Convention on Human Rights’. Forces external to this country’s sovereignty are dictating to us – and we have to suffer from foreign terrorists, and criminals’ ‘Human Rights’ taking precedent over the UK population. It’s about time the coalition government rectified that wrong.

Oh, and “Middle England” hasn’t turned their backs on the poor “Twickenham Bob” – it’s their taxes that help them. Indeed, it’s in the interests of the taxpayers of “Middle England” that something is done so there aren’t so many taxpayer money dependents, and taxpayers’ money can go elsewhere.
“Twickenham Bob” is giving the appearance of an apologist for these rioters by suggesting they were “caught up in events”. Yet there was a lot of premeditation involved because information was spread through social networking sites such as Blackberry’s Mobile Messenger – and leaflets. Check this out: http://order-order.c om/2011/08/09/organi sed-anarchy/ And also check out some of the remarks by judges presiding over the rioters’ court cases. And “Twickenham Bob” is quite wrong – his Nazi comparison has no justification whatsoever. Although I agree that “the judiciary can be politicised” – but “Twickenham Bob” is ascribing this politicisation to the wrong wing of politics. It’s the Left and their perverse idea of so-called ‘justice’ that has brought an abuse of the legal system whereby the perpetrators are treated as if they are the victims. And then there is the pernicious ‘Human Rights Act’ – courtesy of the last Labour government. We have Lefty judges ruling that foreign national terrorists can’t be deported because their ‘Human Rights’ might be infringed. Or – if it’s not the ‘Human Rights Act’ they invoke – it’s the ‘European Convention on Human Rights’. Forces external to this country’s sovereignty are dictating to us – and we have to suffer from foreign terrorists, and criminals’ ‘Human Rights’ taking precedent over the UK population. It’s about time the coalition government rectified that wrong. Oh, and “Middle England” hasn’t turned their backs on the poor “Twickenham Bob” – it’s their taxes that help them. Indeed, it’s in the interests of the taxpayers of “Middle England” that something is done so there aren’t so many taxpayer money dependents, and taxpayers’ money can go elsewhere. Montrose

12:08am Sat 13 Aug 11

alex twickenham says...

So, Lucullus has been unmasked as the well known LibDem activist, Tim_Lennon - the dog poo man. I was intrigued by Scott Naylor's post so I've just googled Lucullus. If he really wanted to remain anonymous, why also post as Lucullus on Twitter? It's well worth a google to see his mug shot (he really should have gone to specsavers) If you can be bothered to have a look, please note that, apart from his role as a LibDem attack dog, he is also a serious cyclist - probably one of those lycra clad obsessives who make a pleasant stroll around Richmond Park so nerve wracking.
Elsewhere we have LibDem Councillor Gareth Roberts berating Phillip Taylor for supporting our Tory council and Martin Seymour for not acknowledging his chairmanship of the Hampton Tories - coming from you that was a bit rich - wasn't it Gareth? Let's remember who enjoys a seat in Hampton, "the second safest LibDem ward in the borough" as Garth recently crowed.
A couple of weeks ago I dared to debate the Whitton parking nonsense and was promptly subjected to a drubbing from Mr Wise's whacko chums - some literate, most not. I think he would be well advised to distance himself from some of them. The most amusing insult was the last one from someone who described me as a "looser"!
I know this hasn't got a lot to do with the thread but I've enjoyed writing it - I hope I have not offended too many and perhaps amused a few. The debate has got a bit too seriously pointless.
Alex
So, Lucullus has been unmasked as the well known LibDem activist, Tim_Lennon - the dog poo man. I was intrigued by Scott Naylor's post so I've just googled Lucullus. If he really wanted to remain anonymous, why also post as Lucullus on Twitter? It's well worth a google to see his mug shot (he really should have gone to specsavers) If you can be bothered to have a look, please note that, apart from his role as a LibDem attack dog, he is also a serious cyclist - probably one of those lycra clad obsessives who make a pleasant stroll around Richmond Park so nerve wracking. Elsewhere we have LibDem Councillor Gareth Roberts berating Phillip Taylor for supporting our Tory council and Martin Seymour for not acknowledging his chairmanship of the Hampton Tories - coming from you that was a bit rich - wasn't it Gareth? Let's remember who enjoys a seat in Hampton, "the second safest LibDem ward in the borough" as Garth recently crowed. A couple of weeks ago I dared to debate the Whitton parking nonsense and was promptly subjected to a drubbing from Mr Wise's whacko chums - some literate, most not. I think he would be well advised to distance himself from some of them. The most amusing insult was the last one from someone who described me as a "looser"! I know this hasn't got a lot to do with the thread but I've enjoyed writing it - I hope I have not offended too many and perhaps amused a few. The debate has got a bit too seriously pointless. Alex alex twickenham

2:22am Sat 13 Aug 11

metis says...

Not really keen on any of the suggestions from our political elite so far. Giving more power to the State will eventually threaten all our liberties . Removing face coverings is a back door burqua ban. Shutting down internet sites during civil unrest – conveniently forgetting it was 'twitter' that drove the ‘Arab Spring’. To a politician civil unrest could be defined as an EDL rally, an EU referendum campaign or popular support for anything antithetical to yet more centralism. Who ever imagined that RIPA would be used to spy on peoples rubbish bins or which school your child goes to?
Evicting people from their council house – what about those that don’t live in council houses, who aren’t on benefits? You cannot apply it to all rioters. Bring back the stocks – now there’s a thought. Public humiliation writ large. ASBOs and prison sentences are the mark of a ‘hard man’ and demands respect in ‘yoof culture’ circles, whereas having your best white hoodie and baggy trousers covered in rotten eggs and horse s### isn’t good for your ‘street cred’
Not really keen on any of the suggestions from our political elite so far. Giving more power to the State will eventually threaten all our liberties . Removing face coverings is a back door burqua ban. Shutting down internet sites during civil unrest – conveniently forgetting it was 'twitter' that drove the ‘Arab Spring’. To a politician civil unrest could be defined as an EDL rally, an EU referendum campaign or popular support for anything antithetical to yet more centralism. Who ever imagined that RIPA would be used to spy on peoples rubbish bins or which school your child goes to? Evicting people from their council house – what about those that don’t live in council houses, who aren’t on benefits? You cannot apply it to all rioters. Bring back the stocks – now there’s a thought. Public humiliation writ large. ASBOs and prison sentences are the mark of a ‘hard man’ and demands respect in ‘yoof culture’ circles, whereas having your best white hoodie and baggy trousers covered in rotten eggs and horse s### isn’t good for your ‘street cred’ metis

10:44am Sat 13 Aug 11

TrevorC says...

I understand the points that Twickenham Bob and Metis have made. It has made me think of the lines "Be careful what you wish for" and "The law of unintended consequences".

It is interesting to see that the senior police officers are presently a moderating influence on the politicians and that is reassuring. Sir Hugh Orde, and Tim Godwin, the acting Met Police Commissioner, blend toughness with pragmatism well.

The dilemma is the feeling of be tough with the rioters and looters but not to let dracionian laws that may have a much wider impact slip through on the tide of anger felt towards these mostly chancer criminals. (I hope the arsonists and those commiting acts of violence receive very long sentences to send out a clear message).

It's a difficult balancing act. I don't think party political point scoring is helpful. Far better if cross party solutions can be agreed, that finds the right mix of authoritarian with liberty.

We do need to look at the underlying causes, otherwise this problem will simply simmer below the surface until flaring up again from one random incident.
I understand the points that Twickenham Bob and Metis have made. It has made me think of the lines "Be careful what you wish for" and "The law of unintended consequences". It is interesting to see that the senior police officers are presently a moderating influence on the politicians and that is reassuring. Sir Hugh Orde, and Tim Godwin, the acting Met Police Commissioner, blend toughness with pragmatism well. The dilemma is the feeling of be tough with the rioters and looters but not to let dracionian laws that may have a much wider impact slip through on the tide of anger felt towards these mostly chancer criminals. (I hope the arsonists and those commiting acts of violence receive very long sentences to send out a clear message). It's a difficult balancing act. I don't think party political point scoring is helpful. Far better if cross party solutions can be agreed, that finds the right mix of authoritarian with liberty. We do need to look at the underlying causes, otherwise this problem will simply simmer below the surface until flaring up again from one random incident. TrevorC

11:02am Sat 13 Aug 11

Gareth Roberts says...

Just to add a word of clarification to Alex's earlier point. I didn't berate Mr Taylor for supporting the Tory Council, I berated him for seeking to make cheap political capital out of a terrible situation. My comments stand.

As for my comments regarding Martin Seymour made in another thread, well I would have thought it entirely appropriate for somebody who holds a senior position within a local political party to make their status known when commenting on a major local issue in the local newspaper. That said, I would hardly call my comments 'berating', simply pointing out an omission.
Just to add a word of clarification to Alex's earlier point. I didn't berate Mr Taylor for supporting the Tory Council, I berated him for seeking to make cheap political capital out of a terrible situation. My comments stand. As for my comments regarding Martin Seymour made in another thread, well I would have thought it entirely appropriate for somebody who holds a senior position within a local political party to make their status known when commenting on a major local issue in the local newspaper. That said, I would hardly call my comments 'berating', simply pointing out an omission. Gareth Roberts

12:35pm Sat 13 Aug 11

lucullus says...

Alex said "I hope I've not offended too many ..." Whatever, Alex. You're a train-wreck of small minded bigotry and Daily Mail style insight. Your lame 'woe is me, I'm so offended against' drivel got tired a long time ago.

I could try Googling "Alex, Twickenham", but it seems so pointless!
Alex said "I hope I've not offended too many ..." Whatever, Alex. You're a train-wreck of small minded bigotry and Daily Mail style insight. Your lame 'woe is me, I'm so offended against' drivel got tired a long time ago. I could try Googling "Alex, Twickenham", but it seems so pointless! lucullus

2:15pm Sat 13 Aug 11

jeremyhm says...

I note what happened to Lucullus (BC117-57) in real life (according to Plutarch):
"he quitted and abandoned public affairs, either because he saw that they were already beyond proper control and diseased, or, as some say, because he had his fill of glory, and felt that the unfortunate issue of his many struggles and toils entitled him to fall back upon a life of ease and luxury... in the life of Lucullus, as in an ancient comedy, one reads in the first part of political measures and military commands, and in the latter part of drinking bouts, and banquets, and what might pass for revel-routs, and torch-races, and all manner of frivolity".

However, to get to comment on this news story: I am always amazed how suddenly everybody becomes an expert - I am not referring in particular to those who have commented above, but in general (eg Jeremy Vine show). Here is my penn'orth - doubtless to be shot down. It seems that under The Education Act 1988 there is a legal obligation to hold an act of mainly Christian worship daily in schools. I actually doubt if this is being done, that perhaps accounts for the obvious fact that many young people appear to be unaware of one of the Commandants, namely "Thou shalt not steal" (and also the one about not coveting your neighbours possessions).
I note what happened to Lucullus (BC117-57) in real life (according to Plutarch): "he quitted and abandoned public affairs, either because he saw that they were already beyond proper control and diseased, or, as some say, because he had his fill of glory, and felt that the unfortunate issue of his many struggles and toils entitled him to fall back upon a life of ease and luxury...[for] in the life of Lucullus, as in an ancient comedy, one reads in the first part of political measures and military commands, and in the latter part of drinking bouts, and banquets, and what might pass for revel-routs, and torch-races, and all manner of frivolity". However, to get to comment on this news story: I am always amazed how suddenly everybody becomes an expert - I am not referring in particular to those who have commented above, but in general (eg Jeremy Vine show). Here is my penn'orth - doubtless to be shot down. It seems that under The Education Act 1988 there is a legal obligation to hold an act of mainly Christian worship daily in schools. I actually doubt if this is being done, that perhaps accounts for the obvious fact that many young people appear to be unaware of one of the Commandants, namely "Thou shalt not steal" (and also the one about not coveting your neighbours possessions). jeremyhm

3:28pm Sat 13 Aug 11

alex twickenham says...

As usual, jeremyhm makes an excellent point and makes me feel slightly ashamed of my blatant baiting of tim_lennon aka Lucullus. I'm surprised that he was foolish enough to respond - excellent! It's always good to flush out the true character of these people as shown by his somewhat intemperate post - dear me, The Daily Mail insult - is that the best you can do Tim? At least we have moved on from dog poo. What really concerns me is that people like Tim Lennon probably have significant input into LibDem policy both nationally and within our local party. Given the quality of his posts, are these the sort of people you want running our lives in the future? I certainly hope not. We've already got the cleaned-up LibDem Councillor, Gareth Roberts projecting himself as the voice of reason and moderation, although, every now and again he can't help himself and reverts to his bad old ways, albeit with a bit of humour - something woefully lacking in Tim Lennon's posts. I still hope that he's been to Specsavers or changed his Twitter mugshot. Alex
As usual, jeremyhm makes an excellent point and makes me feel slightly ashamed of my blatant baiting of tim_lennon aka Lucullus. I'm surprised that he was foolish enough to respond - excellent! It's always good to flush out the true character of these people as shown by his somewhat intemperate post - dear me, The Daily Mail insult - is that the best you can do Tim? At least we have moved on from dog poo. What really concerns me is that people like Tim Lennon probably have significant input into LibDem policy both nationally and within our local party. Given the quality of his posts, are these the sort of people you want running our lives in the future? I certainly hope not. We've already got the cleaned-up LibDem Councillor, Gareth Roberts projecting himself as the voice of reason and moderation, although, every now and again he can't help himself and reverts to his bad old ways, albeit with a bit of humour - something woefully lacking in Tim Lennon's posts. I still hope that he's been to Specsavers or changed his Twitter mugshot. Alex alex twickenham

2:41pm Sun 14 Aug 11

martnal says...

Perhaps some celebrity should start a National Celebration of Great Britain campaign, to raise the flag in support of all those who oppose anti-social behaviour in all its forms, from rioting and looting, down to spitting, dog mess, feet on seats and general unpleasantness. We could all wear badges to 'Say no to yobs'.
Perhaps some celebrity should start a National Celebration of Great Britain campaign, to raise the flag in support of all those who oppose anti-social behaviour in all its forms, from rioting and looting, down to spitting, dog mess, feet on seats and general unpleasantness. We could all wear badges to 'Say no to yobs'. martnal

3:47pm Sun 14 Aug 11

alex twickenham says...

I wonder if Tim Lennon aka Lucullus could explain these two tweets posted on his Twitter account relating to the riots. I'm not a subscriber so have no idea of the etiquette apart from the 140 character limit. Perhaps it's some sort of jargon which I am not familiar with - if not, it's quite worrying. If they don't copy, they are on his Lucullus/Tim Lennon page, both dated August 9th. Hopefully I have assumed the worst - in which case it would be good if Mr Lennon would clarify his tweets:

Takeaway owner: "I've invested all my savings in that place." I guess he's only got water damage from next door's torching ... :(
9 Aug
»

lucullus Tim Lennon
Rioters in Ealing do good work trashing small local businesses .... http://ow.ly/i/fvgS
9 Aug
I have copied them exactly as posted.
Alex
I wonder if Tim Lennon aka Lucullus could explain these two tweets posted on his Twitter account relating to the riots. I'm not a subscriber so have no idea of the etiquette apart from the 140 character limit. Perhaps it's some sort of jargon which I am not familiar with - if not, it's quite worrying. If they don't copy, they are on his Lucullus/Tim Lennon page, both dated August 9th. Hopefully I have assumed the worst - in which case it would be good if Mr Lennon would clarify his tweets: Takeaway owner: "I've invested all my savings in that place." I guess he's only got water damage from next door's torching ... :( 9 Aug » lucullus Tim Lennon Rioters in Ealing do good work trashing small local businesses .... http://ow.ly/i/fvgS 9 Aug I have copied them exactly as posted. Alex alex twickenham

3:53pm Sun 14 Aug 11

alex twickenham says...

Sorry, I missed out the author in the first post:
lucullus Tim Lennon
Takeaway owner: "I've invested all my savings in that place." I guess he's only got water damage from next door's torching ... :(
Alex
Sorry, I missed out the author in the first post: lucullus Tim Lennon Takeaway owner: "I've invested all my savings in that place." I guess he's only got water damage from next door's torching ... :( Alex alex twickenham

8:35pm Sun 14 Aug 11

Montrose says...

Lib Dem Cllr “for the second safest ward in the borough” Roberts posts on the RTT online without using his councillor designation – unlike Cllr Scott Naylor. Consequently, readers could get the impression he writes as an individual although he does spend the bulk of his posts attacking the Conservatives.

As Cllr Roberts isn’t upfront about his status on the RTT online isn’t this evidence of Lib Dem double-standards when he attacks Martin Seymour for writing a letter – in a purely personal capacity – that was published in the print edition of the RTT?

For those unaware that Cllr Roberts boasted about his status of representing “the second safest ward I the borough” check this out:
http://www.richmonda
ndtwickenhamtimes.co
.uk/news/richmondnew
s/9127354.New_Heatha

m_House_petition_lau
nched/?ref=mr
Lib Dem Cllr “for the second safest ward in the borough” Roberts posts on the RTT online without using his councillor designation – unlike Cllr Scott Naylor. Consequently, readers could get the impression he writes as an individual although he does spend the bulk of his posts attacking the Conservatives. As Cllr Roberts isn’t upfront about his status on the RTT online isn’t this evidence of Lib Dem double-standards when he attacks Martin Seymour for writing a letter – in a purely personal capacity – that was published in the print edition of the RTT? For those unaware that Cllr Roberts boasted about his status of representing “the second safest ward I the borough” check this out: http://www.richmonda ndtwickenhamtimes.co .uk/news/richmondnew s/9127354.New_Heatha m_House_petition_lau nched/?ref=mr Montrose

10:12pm Sun 14 Aug 11

lucullus says...

Alex whoeveryouare, it was a cafe I used regularly - I saw the owner standing outside the police cordon and asked him what the damage was. The store on the corner was completely torched and all the businesses seriously damaged in that row were small ones which looked like they might be their owners' only businesses.

I don't go to Specsavers, by the way: I use a local optician who - unlike Specsavers - doesn't use Guernsey to dodge paying taxes in the UK.

By the way, click on the time of a tweet if you want to link to it.
Alex whoeveryouare, it was a cafe I used regularly - I saw the owner standing outside the police cordon and asked him what the damage was. The store on the corner was completely torched and all the businesses seriously damaged in that row were small ones which looked like they might be their owners' only businesses. I don't go to Specsavers, by the way: I use a local optician who - unlike Specsavers - doesn't use Guernsey to dodge paying taxes in the UK. By the way, click on the time of a tweet if you want to link to it. lucullus

10:28pm Sun 14 Aug 11

Gareth Roberts says...

It's an interesting argument that Montrose puts forward, that, according to him or indeed her, I don't declare a partisan role or office when I correspond through this particular medium. It would be slightly more interesting were it not for the fact that Montrose goes on to shoot himself or herself in both feet immediately afterwards by referencing a post in which it is quite clear I'm a serving councillor for Hampton Ward.

Since election whenever I have corresponded in the print edition of the local paper I have always been open about my position. Before that time I held no official office within the constituency party. Yes I was a supporter and low level activist but I think there is a world of difference between being a ward level activist and being chair of the constituency party and most people, I think, would agree.

Those for whom my identity on these pages may still remain a puzzle could take a leaf out of Montrose's book and simply google Gareth Roberts, Hampton and there I am. Nothing to hide there (though I really must update my OnCom profile as I now have 3 daughters!)

So why don't I use the title on these pages? Well most people who correspond through here know who I am and I would imagine those who don't would have the wit and intelligence to take an educated guess that I'm not some random person. Anyway, as I have said, those with a burning desire can google me. I make it quite clear in print because the google service may not be readily available to everybody

I am grateful, however, to Montrose to raising the 2nd safest ward bit. Read the whole thread and read the sentence which immediately follows it. Context is everything, as I continuously reminded one correspondent on the now sadly defunct VoxPops pages (where people were forced to use their real names!)

By the way, the irony is rather irresistible that I should be accused of not being 100% transparent by a pseudonymical correspondent and should not be lost here.
It's an interesting argument that Montrose puts forward, that, according to him or indeed her, I don't declare a partisan role or office when I correspond through this particular medium. It would be slightly more interesting were it not for the fact that Montrose goes on to shoot himself or herself in both feet immediately afterwards by referencing a post in which it is quite clear I'm a serving councillor for Hampton Ward. Since election whenever I have corresponded in the print edition of the local paper I have always been open about my position. Before that time I held no official office within the constituency party. Yes I was a supporter and low level activist but I think there is a world of difference between being a ward level activist and being chair of the constituency party and most people, I think, would agree. Those for whom my identity on these pages may still remain a puzzle could take a leaf out of Montrose's book and simply google Gareth Roberts, Hampton and there I am. Nothing to hide there (though I really must update my OnCom profile as I now have 3 daughters!) So why don't I use the title on these pages? Well most people who correspond through here know who I am and I would imagine those who don't would have the wit and intelligence to take an educated guess that I'm not some random person. Anyway, as I have said, those with a burning desire can google me. I make it quite clear in print because the google service may not be readily available to everybody I am grateful, however, to Montrose to raising the 2nd safest ward bit. Read the whole thread and read the sentence which immediately follows it. Context is everything, as I continuously reminded one correspondent on the now sadly defunct VoxPops pages (where people were forced to use their real names!) By the way, the irony is rather irresistible that I should be accused of not being 100% transparent by a pseudonymical correspondent and should not be lost here. Gareth Roberts

11:07pm Sun 14 Aug 11

Montrose says...

Cllr “for the second safest ward in the borough” Roberts, I referred to one post amongst many where you ‘came out’ as an elected councillor. In case you hadn’t noticed there are a variety of people who post here – not all are local – and so would not necessarily know you “are not some random person”. Incidentally, I think many posters would take issue with your illiberal and undemocratic dismissive description of “random” people as if that invalidates their comments.

Regarding pseudonyms, why aren’t you admonishing “Lucullus”? Is it because “Lucullus” toes the Lib Dem party line? This looks like your double-standards are showing again.
Cllr “for the second safest ward in the borough” Roberts, I referred to one post amongst many where you ‘came out’ as an elected councillor. In case you hadn’t noticed there are a variety of people who post here – not all are local – and so would not necessarily know you “are not some random person”. Incidentally, I think many posters would take issue with your illiberal and undemocratic dismissive description of “random” people as if that invalidates their comments. Regarding pseudonyms, why aren’t you admonishing “Lucullus”? Is it because “Lucullus” toes the Lib Dem party line? This looks like your double-standards are showing again. Montrose

11:16pm Sun 14 Aug 11

Gareth Roberts says...

And the very many other posts which invariably follow mine, from correspondents such as yourself, Montrose who frequently draw attention to my status? Again with the 2nd Safest Ward stuff, context is everything.

Random? No I don't think that implies any derogatory nuance - of course if you wish to infer such meanings that is a matter for you but none is intended.

As far as I'm aware Lucullus/Tim hasn't used a pseudonym to criticise others for not showing their hand, Montrose. You have and therefore no double standards exist
And the very many other posts which invariably follow mine, from correspondents such as yourself, Montrose who frequently draw attention to my status? Again with the 2nd Safest Ward stuff, context is everything. Random? No I don't think that implies any derogatory nuance - of course if you wish to infer such meanings that is a matter for you but none is intended. As far as I'm aware Lucullus/Tim hasn't used a pseudonym to criticise others for not showing their hand, Montrose. You have and therefore no double standards exist Gareth Roberts

1:37am Mon 15 Aug 11

Montrose says...

Cllr “for the second safest seat in the borough” Roberts – you seem to think the context in which you made this braggadocio statement justifies it. Yet it was made when you were applying AV voting to Richmond Council elections. This is, of course, irrelevant as we use the first-past-the-post system.

As for your next comment “As far as I'm aware Lucullus/Tim hasn't used a pseudonym to criticise others for not showing their hand”. Let me enlighten you. “Lucullus” criticised two people for using pseudonyms – when he seemed to think it irrelevant that he, too, used one – here: http://www.richmonda
ndtwickenhamtimes.co
.uk/news/richmondnew
s/9064847.Lack_of_af
fordable_housing_a_m
ajor_issue_for_Vince
_Cable/?ref=mr

So that makes two of you deploying Lib Dem double standards. And – for the record – I have never commented on posters using nom de plumes. However, in the interests of clarity – and in order to put your comments in context – you ought to use your elected title.
Cllr “for the second safest seat in the borough” Roberts – you seem to think the context in which you made this braggadocio statement justifies it. Yet it was made when you were applying AV voting to Richmond Council elections. This is, of course, irrelevant as we use the first-past-the-post system. As for your next comment “As far as I'm aware Lucullus/Tim hasn't used a pseudonym to criticise others for not showing their hand”. Let me enlighten you. “Lucullus” criticised two people for using pseudonyms – when he seemed to think it irrelevant that he, too, used one – here: http://www.richmonda ndtwickenhamtimes.co .uk/news/richmondnew s/9064847.Lack_of_af fordable_housing_a_m ajor_issue_for_Vince _Cable/?ref=mr So that makes two of you deploying Lib Dem double standards. And – for the record – I have never commented on posters using nom de plumes. However, in the interests of clarity – and in order to put your comments in context – you ought to use your elected title. Montrose

9:09am Mon 15 Aug 11

TrevorC says...

This has gone way off topic but just one point about using the title "Cllr" here as an identifier.

Many, including myself, would interpret it as that person always commenting in an official party political capacity. Scott Naylor's views take on a different connotation by using the title of Cllr.

Having to use Cllr may inhibit many from engaging in online forums such as this one. (Very few do). Yet they should have the freedom to engage and express their own views independently, even if with a political bias.

Most reading these comment sections will know who Gareth Roberts is. For all we know, some of the pseudonyms may be councillors themselves! The outing of Lucillus will please some, but to most observers, I doubt it. There is a slightly sinister undertone to the selective "outing" taking place.

A more appropriate headline at the top should now read "Richmond Council moves to reassure residents on pseudonyms".
This has gone way off topic but just one point about using the title "Cllr" here as an identifier. Many, including myself, would interpret it as that person always commenting in an official party political capacity. Scott Naylor's views take on a different connotation by using the title of Cllr. Having to use Cllr may inhibit many from engaging in online forums such as this one. (Very few do). Yet they should have the freedom to engage and express their own views independently, even if with a political bias. Most reading these comment sections will know who Gareth Roberts is. For all we know, some of the pseudonyms may be councillors themselves! The outing of Lucillus will please some, but to most observers, I doubt it. There is a slightly sinister undertone to the selective "outing" taking place. A more appropriate headline at the top should now read "Richmond Council moves to reassure residents on pseudonyms". TrevorC

3:55pm Mon 15 Aug 11

lucullus says...

I see Montrose is about as able to spot irony as Alex. The post in question poked fun at 'ratcatcher' for moaning about Twickenham Bob using a pseudonym.
I see Montrose is about as able to spot irony as Alex. The post in question poked fun at 'ratcatcher' for moaning about Twickenham Bob using a pseudonym. lucullus

7:29pm Mon 15 Aug 11

Montrose says...

I’m afraid “TrevorC” that I disagree because it’s patently obvious that Lib Dem Cllr “for the second safest ward in the borough” Roberts writes in “an official party political capacity”. Although I would agree that he tends to write from an activist’s perspective with an emphasis on attacking the Conservatives instead of putting forward Lib Dem arguments.

When a person is elected a councillor, it’s a privilege for that term of office. Being in public office – that is having been elected, and having allowances paid for by the electorate – is not something that can be switched on or off to suit an individual.
I’m afraid “TrevorC” that I disagree because it’s patently obvious that Lib Dem Cllr “for the second safest ward in the borough” Roberts writes in “an official party political capacity”. Although I would agree that he tends to write from an activist’s perspective with an emphasis on attacking the Conservatives instead of putting forward Lib Dem arguments. When a person is elected a councillor, it’s a privilege for that term of office. Being in public office – that is having been elected, and having allowances paid for by the electorate – is not something that can be switched on or off to suit an individual. Montrose

7:30pm Mon 15 Aug 11

Montrose says...

“Lucullus” – you have obviously forgotten how you responded to “Twickenham Bob” on that thread – here is a reminder: “Sorry Bob, I was just trying to point out the irony of ratcatcher's whining. Clearly I shouldn't post late at night!”

And “Ratcatcher” wasn’t “moaning about Twickenham Bob using a pseudonym” per se. If you had read that post correctly you would see that “Ratcatcher” thought “Twickenham Bob” was a nom de guerre of Lib Dem group leader Cllr Stephen Knight.

So as well as totally misreading a post, I would suggest you are not expressing yourself clearly when trying to be ironic.
“Lucullus” – you have obviously forgotten how you responded to “Twickenham Bob” on that thread – here is a reminder: “Sorry Bob, I was just trying to point out the irony of ratcatcher's whining. Clearly I shouldn't post late at night!” And “Ratcatcher” wasn’t “moaning about Twickenham Bob using a pseudonym” per se. If you had read that post correctly you would see that “Ratcatcher” thought “Twickenham Bob” was a nom de guerre of Lib Dem group leader Cllr Stephen Knight. So as well as totally misreading a post, I would suggest you are not expressing yourself clearly when trying to be ironic. Montrose

7:58pm Mon 15 Aug 11

alex twickenham says...

Since Lucullus thinks that neither I nor Montrose have a sense of irony, may I please remind your readers of his intemperate and thoroughly unpleasant rhetoric:
" Whatever, Alex. You're a train-wreck of small minded bigotry and Daily Mail style insight. Your lame 'woe is me, I'm so offended against' drivel got tired a long time ago.
Not long ago when I dared to challenge him about another matter, he suggested that my words were no better than "dog excrement on the pavement" - when I proved him wrong and asked for an apology he was typically boorish and refused to give me one - hence he is forever "the dog poo man". Silly boy - as he grows up and gets a new pair of glasses he will probably regret his boorishness. If this is the quality of his irony, heaven help us - perhaps its lurking somewhere in his tweets.
To TrevorC and others who post articulately and reasonably - I'm sorry but I really can't let Tim Lennon/Lucullus get away with this constant unpleasantness. I get a bit irritated from time to time and have apologised when wrong or out of order, however Lucullus and his LibDem chum Gareth Roberts seem incapable of doing so. Lucullus bombards us with his unpleasant rehetoric and Gareth subjects us to his brilliant purple prose. I'm not sure which irritates me most. Probably Gareth, since, as a councillor and committee member, he has more potential impact on the way we lead our lives.
Alex
Since Lucullus thinks that neither I nor Montrose have a sense of irony, may I please remind your readers of his intemperate and thoroughly unpleasant rhetoric: " Whatever, Alex. You're a train-wreck of small minded bigotry and Daily Mail style insight. Your lame 'woe is me, I'm so offended against' drivel got tired a long time ago. Not long ago when I dared to challenge him about another matter, he suggested that my words were no better than "dog excrement on the pavement" - when I proved him wrong and asked for an apology he was typically boorish and refused to give me one - hence he is forever "the dog poo man". Silly boy - as he grows up and gets a new pair of glasses he will probably regret his boorishness. If this is the quality of his irony, heaven help us - perhaps its lurking somewhere in his tweets. To TrevorC and others who post articulately and reasonably - I'm sorry but I really can't let Tim Lennon/Lucullus get away with this constant unpleasantness. I get a bit irritated from time to time and have apologised when wrong or out of order, however Lucullus and his LibDem chum Gareth Roberts seem incapable of doing so. Lucullus bombards us with his unpleasant rehetoric and Gareth subjects us to his brilliant purple prose. I'm not sure which irritates me most. Probably Gareth, since, as a councillor and committee member, he has more potential impact on the way we lead our lives. Alex alex twickenham

8:39pm Mon 15 Aug 11

Twickenham resident says...

Boris said tonight, 86% of rioters have previous convictions and 1 in 4 are still functionally illiterate.

These gangs live on sink estates where drugs are the currency. Kids not even hold enough to go to secondary school are used as drugs runners and earn far more than they could ever possibly hope for from an honest living.

With regard to Metis’s, Twickenham’s comment – banning hoodies has nothing to do with burkas - but given that dressing up as Muslim women is an old trick being played on the Army in Afghanistan, maybe devious individuals might buy a burka if they can’t wear a hoodie?

It’s about time Magistrates were given the freedom to impose tougher penalties. What's so wrong with that? This is what the public want. Make examples out of these people – a woman today was sentenced to six months for receiving stolen goods. It might just make some of them think twice about doing it again and maybe, this woman's children might just learn that it is wrong to steal and if you are caught, your hand will longer be chopped off but you WILL be punished.

These riots are the result of too many years of a labour namby pamby government and Cllr Stephen Knight in shining armour do gooders, who for too long have thrown money at the problem (benefits showered on people for doing nothing and a more babies equals more benefits culture) instead of raising the standard of schools, stricter discipline, making fathers face up to their responsibilities – by legal means if necessary and tougher penalties for crime.

Why can’t the unemployed work in charity shops or do other community / voluntary work whilst claiming benefits? I've been unemployed recently and the current system is a joke. A structure to the day is hugely important for all number of reasons, including self esteem and you never know what contacts you will make and what doors might open… Anyway, I digress.

These rioters aren’t poor. No doubt they have the latest iphones, designer clothing, trainers, jewellery and the latest plasmas. Gangs led the assaults of shops - fact. They are part of a disaffected youth, borne of disaffected parents, borne of disaffected grandparents, who if they were honest, probably have little respect for themselves, have no concept of community and more importantly, they don’t care.

This has been a long time coming.

Off now to watch Panorama....
Boris said tonight, 86% of rioters have previous convictions and 1 in 4 are still functionally illiterate. These gangs live on sink estates where drugs are the currency. Kids not even hold enough to go to secondary school are used as drugs runners and earn far more than they could ever possibly hope for from an honest living. With regard to Metis’s, Twickenham’s comment – banning hoodies has nothing to do with burkas - but given that dressing up as Muslim women is an old trick being played on the Army in Afghanistan, maybe devious individuals might buy a burka if they can’t wear a hoodie? It’s about time Magistrates were given the freedom to impose tougher penalties. What's so wrong with that? This is what the public want. Make examples out of these people – a woman today was sentenced to six months for receiving stolen goods. It might just make some of them think twice about doing it again and maybe, this woman's children might just learn that it is wrong to steal and if you are caught, your hand will longer be chopped off but you WILL be punished. These riots are the result of too many years of a labour namby pamby government and Cllr Stephen Knight in shining armour do gooders, who for too long have thrown money at the problem (benefits showered on people for doing nothing and a more babies equals more benefits culture) instead of raising the standard of schools, stricter discipline, making fathers face up to their responsibilities – by legal means if necessary and tougher penalties for crime. Why can’t the unemployed work in charity shops or do other community / voluntary work whilst claiming benefits? I've been unemployed recently and the current system is a joke. A structure to the day is hugely important for all number of reasons, including self esteem and you never know what contacts you will make and what doors might open… Anyway, I digress. These rioters aren’t poor. No doubt they have the latest iphones, designer clothing, trainers, jewellery and the latest plasmas. Gangs led the assaults of shops - fact. They are part of a disaffected youth, borne of disaffected parents, borne of disaffected grandparents, who if they were honest, probably have little respect for themselves, have no concept of community and more importantly, they don’t care. This has been a long time coming. Off now to watch Panorama.... Twickenham resident

9:27pm Mon 15 Aug 11

lucullus says...

Poor suffering Alex - so offended against, yet never offending.
Poor suffering Alex - so offended against, yet never offending. lucullus

10:01am Tue 16 Aug 11

Gareth Roberts says...

How interesting to note that though there are two councillors frequently contributing on these pages Alex only picks out one for his oprobrium.
How interesting to note that though there are two councillors frequently contributing on these pages Alex only picks out one for his oprobrium. Gareth Roberts

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree