Culture WarFeatured

To riot or not to riot

RIOTING is nothing new. It was a problem way back in 1886 when Parliament passed the Riot Damages Act, which tells us there has always been a problem with public behaviour.

Now, we find many throwing their arms up in horror that President Trump thought it prudent to quash the sentences of all those January 6 rioters. They saw fit to invade the Capitol in 2021and reach the very rotunda where the 47th President had been sworn in last Monday. In England last year, we witnessed rioters on the rampage in Southport following the three murders of innocent children and attempts on the lives of others.

Each case gives us a clue as to why such events happen. Those who feel obliged to riot do so out of anger and frustration. They are not the ones who can write erudite missives on social media or speak in eloquent tones at meetings, for they do not live in that sort of community. They do, however, have an opinion like the rest of us, but express themselves differently. The common denominator is anger at the situation, which is usually brought about by those who claim to be in charge.

If you recall the 2015 general election in Thanet South where Nigel Farage stood, a complaint was submitted that claimed electoral expenses fraud, the first point of contact for this being the police. They are required to investigate the claims and, following their inquiries, a report is sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. In that case, a senior Conservative Party campaign official was found guilty; that is the British way, and it seems much more reasonable.

Look to the claims made about election fraud in the 2020 US presidential election. Not one complainant got any further than a judge, who is the sole arbiter in those situations; it transpired that most of the judges, who were asked to intervene, were of a different political persuasion or appointment. I read and listened to many serious allegations and realised that there were many grounds for investigation, not least from the use of voting machines and the issuance of ballot papers to dead or absent residents. The ballots would also be collected from locally installed postal ballot boxes that were subsequently emptied by unknown persons, known as ‘mules’, and stored in some unknown places before being counted while the elections were ongoing over three weeks. Subsequent investigations have shown widespread inconsistencies in several states and counties where thousands of ballots were issued in error. There were also TV programmes which spoke to claimants and even IP addresses that originated in Italy and China, where electoral interference was alleged to have taken place. Is it any wonder frustration boiled over? A few investigations would surely have quelled the anger.

Returning to Southport, it has now been admitted that more details could have been given about the alleged assailant much sooner without having any prejudicial effect, despite what our esteemed PM has recently claimed. It’s so much easier to kick pertinent information into the long grass and allow the shocked public to assume the details for themselves.

Those who used the January 6 event for political purposes under the heading of ‘legality’ are now incensed that the culprits have been pardoned. Pardons should follow in the UK for those involved at Southport and elsewhere, demonstrating to those in charge that when we are angered and frustrated, we don’t all respond as Mr Angry of Tunbridge Wells but, as an instant reaction, we go out and attack property, as well as those that have the job of keeping the peace.  

One of the purposes of the 1886 Act was to make the police responsible for any riot damage done. They are the ones that must be claimed against; hence, the declaration of a riot must follow before compensation can be requested. If those who deliberately withhold public information were to be held responsible instead of hiding behind accusations of ‘racism’ or some other feeble excuse, perhaps we could avoid this kind of behaviour in the future, as we righteously claim to be so much more civilised now than we were a hundred years ago.

Source link

What's your reaction?

Related Posts

Load More Posts Loading...No More Posts.