egg

Sounds ideal.

Football violence has no link to this. Smashing up opposing fans has no resemblance, whether ideologically or otherwise, to smashing up your community and random businesses. Terrible analogy.

Nothing particularly revealing. In a nutshell says that they know they can loot, that they get a buzz from it and can get stuf that they want. The big issue is how we stop this now and prevent a repeat. The possible reasons why this is happening do not assist. This is a law and order issue that needs tough handling, not namby pamby criminology assessment.

^^^^^^^ Yep. Once they see a few of their mates being dealt with they will soon calm down. Until then and/or the likes of tear gas etc are used they have no deterrent.

Err, this is a riot thread. Can you two please do your flirting somewhere else. Thanks

No, I understand your point. I just don't understand how it would help. To suggest that kids would start to behave if moved to better housing is unrealistic imo and does not address the actual issues. We will have to agree to differ.

But I don't see how moving parents from old social housing to new social housing would make the kids better behaved. Improved housing will not make the parents, police or school better equipped to control feral youths. No disrespect mate, but your argument makes no sense to me.

The link between this and feral youths is what exactly? You may just have a point if the parents were misbehaving, but it is the kids.

Similar reasons, but mainly because they can in the knowledge of a lack of reprisal in the home, school or justice system. Could throw in stupidity, peer pressure, greed, and many reasons. I reckon many are not really doing this for any reason though, just going with the flow .

Agree 100%. I grew up in lordshill when it had a "reputation". My dad was unemployed for most of ny childhood, similar for many mates if they were lucky enough to have a dad at home. We were little ****s at times but never over stepped the line (well not too often, and not to any major extent). The difference then is that respect and decency was not an issue. Our parents and police were in charge and could act accordingly. That is no longer the case and kids have no clear boundaries. One other problem is that kids are overly aware of their rights, but have no awareness of their social and moral responsibilities.

The initial protestors turned violent from everything I have heard and read. That was the catalyst.

Is it realistic to march down to the police station en masse and expect answers from a senior officer? Is it right to become violent when answers are not given? Is it right for others to piggy back that violence in the name of the deceased and/or being disadvantaged and/or some other excuse? No to all from me.

Nothing wrong with peaceful protest. Nothing wrong with asking questions. Much wrong in turning angry when questions not answered on demand. The initial protest turned angry - people overlook that. That angry reaction was the catalyst for what followed.

If, and it is an if, the guy shot at the police then the matter must be dealt with as the police see it. There is no opportunity in those cicumstances to determine guilt. Your second point is tenuous. Various people protested, we are told peacefully. They demanded answers from the police, did not get them so their protest became non peaceful. Thus a riot ensued from the protest, and thereafter increased in scale.

How do you know he was innocent? If he was, are you really saying that rioting and looting are appropriate?

I have made my point on the actual issues. I don't feel the need to repeat it again and again, or pick holes in other peoples views. People either like the cover, do not or are indifferent. The issue doesnt warrant 30 ish posts from one person, and a response to every single dissenting view. Just accept, please, that people do not have to agree with you and that you do not have to keep ramming your tedious opinion down peoples throats. By all means respond, and given that you plainly like the limelight, you can have the last word.

Because, blah blah. Just grow a pair and stop whining.

And you disputed that you labour the point.

Scouts and tv cameras do make it to non prem matches.

All sorts of factors influence transfer fees, ie the wish of the player, length of contract, contract clauses etc etc. The fact is that burnley have parachute payments so I think it unlikely that they have to sell.

I know what you mean but Eagles and Mears left for prem football. Cork, understandably, thought we were the better option I am not convinced they have to sell.

He could be better than we have but we have an abundance of left backs. As it is Mills is on the pay roll but doesnt have a squad number. We just dont have room (or a need imo) for another lb. Rodrigues is another matter. Good player who would certainly add something.

Nutshell

That was one person. He is a helmet so imo it was a good decision. Yes the ombudsman agreed with him, but not every decision is correct. I mean, someone allowed you back on here.

People knocking Cortese must remember that he is a business man from a money making background. He makes decisions accordingly. He will upset people in his business dealings, and some of those he upsets will be fans. Some decisions may not be the best, and some may bite him and the club on the arse. Thats the nature of business. I would much rather have Cortese at the helm than someone with no business acumen.