Most of the people involved in the riots were thugs looking for free stuff. There was no protest there - just theft and arson.

It's only an extreme minority though... thankfully, most people in this country are content to work hard and make their own opportunities.

as for more protests - no doubt, but I think we can guarantee there won't be as many as there were on Tony Blair's watch

What was also said, was that it was the 'most plausible explanation' and that it was 'surprising' that none of the police saw the gun leaving his hand. That being said, we don't need to reopen that debate. My point from it was that we need to look at the wider reasons as to why people protest.

It doesn't start with a phone call of, 'Hey Gary, I'm bored. Fancy smashing up a few shops?' There are much wider issues at play.

I don't condone some of the awful violence we saw during those riots, nor the burning down of buildings, not some of the hideous acts of personal crime we saw. I'm saying it's easy to just say people are throwing their toys out of the pram and just criticise the protestors/rioters.

Perhaps if there was better education, housing, welfare, jobs etc. etc. etc. people would be getting on with their lives and not out on the street protesting?

I remember the BBC interviewing some rioters after the event and they themselves said they joined in because it looked like a laugh and their mates were encouraging them, so yes, some do get involved because its happening/it's exciting and/or they may get something out of it.

If I may say so, I think the economic opportunity/ deprivation argument has proved to be a total none starter, just as it is with terrorism, however, where there is a specific grievance or injustice or even a deep routed ideological objection to the party in power that can be a catalyst for protest.

Anyone condoning violence as part of protest is either stupid or naive... maybe they should look up Mahatma Gandhi and the Rev Martin Luther King, Jr... two of the greatest men in history who achieved their aims through non-violent protest. But, then again, they were fighting for real causes and not trying to loot Halfords.

Peaceful protests are fine, but does anyone think the 20th June won't get hijacked and turn nasty?

But what's the alternative? Don't protest because some idiots may tarnish it?

The majority of people didn't vote for this Government and with their proposed policies I'm not surprised people are taking to the streets. I also highly doubt it will be the last time in the next five years earlier.

Look at what happened when Duggan was shot. That wasn't purely a reaction to an over-the-top reaction by the Met but an outcry of anger and despair from today's youth. If things turn nasty we have to look at the reasons why. People don't go rioting for fun.* Perhaps if we as a society catered for all a little better people wouldn't feel the need to protest.

I know what you're saying and yes I agree some elements will turn nasty but I don't think people should just sit back and accept pressures needlessly put on them by the people that are supposed to serve them.

Many have said above they disagree with my comments comparing Cameron and Thatcher but I don't think 20th June will be the last protest against this Government - nor the worst.

*In general. Even Argyle has a fair share of dickheads.

I wonder when the last time the majority of people did vote for a Govt? Both as a percentage of the voters and as a percentage of the eligible voting population.

I wonder when the last time the majority of people did vote for a Govt? Both as a percentage of the voters and as a percentage of the eligible voting population.

I think you have to go back to the Great Depression - 1931 Tory landslide of huge proportions for Baldwin. Not sure the latter has ever been achieved .... unless someone knows better ?

You mean the G20 climate camp troubles? Yes there was a significant minority who started trouble there.... They weren't the ones with tents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t244-zEENSs

Can't see any problems there with what the public order police were doing. If they went in harder against the thugs causing problems at the Tottenham riots and the most recent student riots then it would never have escalated like both situations did.

The TSG are not around to use the softly softly approach, if you stand at a frontline pushing against them you will get hit and I don't have any sympathy for the great unwashed.

You mean the G20 climate camp troubles? Yes there was a significant minority who started trouble there.... They weren't the ones with tents.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t244-zEENSs

Can't see any problems there with what the public order police were doing. If they went in harder against the thugs causing problems at the Tottenham riots and the most recent student riots then it would never have escalated like both situations did.

The TSG are not around to use the softly softly approach, if you stand at a frontline pushing against them you will get hit and I don't have any sympathy for the great unwashed.

Well I think you have made your mind up despite the evidence of peaceful protest being forcibly broken up. Note the "hands up" from the protesters yet still they get whacked. It's far better to live in a police state eh...

I wonder when the last time the majority of people did vote for a Govt? Both as a percentage of the voters and as a percentage of the eligible voting population.

I think you have to go back to the Great Depression - 1931 Tory landslide of huge proportions for Baldwin. Not sure the latter has ever been achieved .... unless someone knows better ?

Slightly more recently I also believe that the last time a party (before now) won more than 50% of the popular vote in Scotland was in 1955 by... the Conservatives. Just shows how things can change. There's a serious point to all this of course in that the case for Scotland's independence - a final, all-in, irreversible change - is only based on the whim of what might be an ephemeral political will.