OT 3 days of rioting thus far

[ramAnag]

I surmise the reference is to those who, for example, assembled to protect various statuary, cultural assets and retail outlets from both BLM protestor or casual looters who affiliated with BLM in order to plunder

Debatable, GP. I accept your point that not everyone who identified with the BLM protests which targeted certain statues was well intentioned, however I think it’s also true that those ‘protectors’ you speak of included a very significant number of right wing thugs spoiling for a Saturday afternoon fight.

Been to den Bosch, lovely town...hard to imagine such things having to happen, but the reactions MA speaks of do seem far more positive and protective than most of the reactive violence seen in this country last summer.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I didn't make the point, merely explained what I thought it referenced.

However, you raise the point that the "defenders" were "thugs spoiling for a.... fight" (eg DFLA) whilst BLM were" not all well intentioned". This clearly illustrates which side of the fence your sympathies lie, as if this needed reinforcement.

Lets look at this a different way - one group is there to defend property and prevent crime/larceny etc, the other to potentially destroy/steal etc. If for a minute we can delete political affiliations and skin colour from such a question, then which flagpole do you nail your standard to?





.

[Andy_Faber]

When, and in what way?

I have a friend called John Cole, who I know through my rock'n'roll interest, a military veteran and first generation 'ted' in his 80s and a 50-year season ticket holder at one of the West country clubs God help him. He and a small number of likeminded souls were concerned for the 'safety' of a number of military statues/memorials, specifically the regular location of their local Rememberance Day event, and about twenty footy fans of pensionable age and a couple of younger veterans made sure their intended presence around the memorials over a couple of weekends was noted through social media. The eventual face-offs only happened on a verbal level only but the level of vitriol aimed at John and his friends was intense both 'on the day' and on social media (I only saw it on facebook) thereafter. some really nasty stuff. One ironic twist was the use of photos of John (who does look a 'character' and was therefore singled out) as a 'football hooligan and right wing extremist' - John's a life-long Marxist

[Andy_Faber]

Lets look at this a different way - one group is there to defend property and prevent crime/larceny etc, the other to potentially destroy/steal etc. If for a minute we can delete political affiliations and skin colour from such a question, then which flagpole do you nail your standard to?

.

Very good way of putting my single anecdote into a wider context GP

[ramAnag]

I’m not sure it’s possible to ‘delete political affiliations and skin colour from such a question’ while still ‘nailing my standard to a flagpole’.

I’m wholly opposed to racism and recognise the issues raised by the presence of monuments to figures who have since become discredited by the passing of the years and the judgement of history.

Equally, with the possible exception of certain monuments, I want nothing to do with ‘attacks on property and larceny’.

Suspect it is very disingenuous of you to describe the DFLA as existing to ‘protect property and prevent crime...’ but ultimately I’ll nail my standard to the cause of those who support a less divided and more egalitarian society.

Hopefully I’m now grown up enough (or maybe just too old) to recognise the limitations of extremist adventurism from either side, but my former more militant self - in the days before personal responsibility - would, for what it’s worth, have been a supporter of the BLM flag.

[Geoff Parkstone]

An honest answer, except I did not say the DFLA existed to protect, but rather that this was the role they took in the example.

Whilst I deplore racism, I deplore equally the destruction of or taking of other people's property. it does nothing but tarnish the values of a cause such as BLM for the protestors to loot and burn (eg the Target store in Minneapolis post George Floyd) as opponents simply seize on these actions and the cause loses credibility and focus in the public eye, and indeed makes "heroes" out of the DFLA etc.

The question of statuary is perhaps more difficult as what is acceptable to one section of a community may not be to another, and time, far from being a great healer, sees attitudes change.

Anyway this started as a question of anti lockdowners in Holland protesting the lockdown by looting and destruction. So that has taken colour out of the equation, and replaced it perhaps by civil liberties in a different manner: one that I suspect you are less passionate about.

So "football hooligans" as vigilantes protecting their town: support or decry? Answers from the now rA and the younger militant one too! For me its fine as a one off, but not as a substitute for proper policing.

The irony for all to see is that these protesters are destroying their own community resources and assets. I noticed it mostly clearly in the Croydon riots in 2011 (just up the road a few miles) where countless shops were trashed, robbed and in one case burned to the ground. Many of the (mostly Asian) shopkeepers chose not - or could not afford - to reopen and, no surprise here, not long after (mostly black) community leaders were complaining about a lack of convenience stores. As the great man said earlier, no **** Sherlock

[swaledale]

I didn't make the point, merely explained what I thought it referenced.

However, you raise the point that the "defenders" were "thugs spoiling for a.... fight" (eg DFLA) whilst BLM were" not all well intentioned". This clearly illustrates which side of the fence your sympathies lie, as if this needed reinforcement.

Lets look at this a different way - one group is there to defend property and prevent crime/larceny etc, the other to potentially destroy/steal etc. If for a minute we can delete political affiliations and skin colour from such a question, then which flagpole do you nail your standard to?



.

But is that group there to defend property? Or is that just a convenient excuse to justify their presence and enable them to have a punch up with people whose views they oppose?

Personally I'd say the latter, given the nature of the "protectors" so in that instance I'd not associate with either.

As for the extremists that associate with the BLM movement, hardly the majority in most cases

[ramAnag]

I do try to answer honestly and you and I are not so far apart.

I also recall the only time, I think, I’ve actually been frightened at a football match was coming away from the BBG after a defeat against West Ham in the late seventies/very early eighties(?). As people may remember the ‘convenience stores’ in the streets surrounding the BBG were largely Asian and they had been targeted and trashed by West Ham fans. I suspect that was no coincidence and I suspect their offspring or even their older selves are now likely to be part of the DFLA.

What MA describes is hopefully very different and I have every sympathy, and would probably - even now - have stood alongside Andy’s mate to protect the Remembrance Day memorials.

On the subject of ‘football hooligans as vigilantes’...I suspect most of the members of the DFLA probably fit that description, but only a small, if televisually spectacular, proportion of football fans are ‘hooligans’ and I’m not sure the people MA speaks of fit the description of ‘hooligans’.

Otherwise, as I’ve said, we are not far apart.

[swaledale]

An honest answer, except I did not say the DFLA existed to protect, but rather that this was the role they took in the example.

Whilst I deplore racism, I deplore equally the destruction of or taking of other people's property. it does nothing but tarnish the values of a cause such as BLM for the protestors to loot and burn (eg the Target store in Minneapolis post George Floyd) as opponents simply seize on these actions and the cause loses credibility and focus in the public eye, and indeed makes "heroes" out of the DFLA etc.

The question of statuary is perhaps more difficult as what is acceptable to one section of a community may not be to another, and time, far from being a great healer, sees attitudes change.

Anyway this started as a question of anti lockdowners in Holland protesting the lockdown by looting and destruction. So that has taken colour out of the equation, and replaced it perhaps by civil liberties in a different manner: one that I suspect you are less passionate about.

So "football hooligans" as vigilantes protecting their town: support or decry? Answers from the now rA and the younger militant one too! For me its fine as a one off, but not as a substitute for proper policing.

The irony for all to see is that these protesters are destroying their own community resources and assets. I noticed it mostly clearly in the Croydon riots in 2011 (just up the road a few miles) where countless shops were trashed, robbed and in one case burned to the ground. Many of the (mostly Asian) shopkeepers chose not - or could not afford - to reopen and, no surprise here, not long after (mostly black) community leaders were complaining about a lack of convenience stores. As the great man said earlier, no **** Sherlock

Its not fine and most were there to legitimise their presence so they could be in a position to have a punch up with those whose views they didn't like.

AS for your comment re the riots, its a little more complex than you suggest, it only takes a small number of people to tag along and make mischief, most involved couldn't give a stuff about the aim of the protest.

The race or colour of those involved isn't an issue, anywhere there will human beings who will take advantage of a situation to cause damage and destruction. It certainly doesn't make sense to destroy ones own neighbourhood, it would make sense to destroy a rich neighbourhood, but then mob mentality has no sense.

[MadAmster]

Most of the "lads" out on patrol were the local equivalent of the DLF. Proud of their local team and proud of their town. A bunch of eejits were looking to trash the place. The den Bosch lads went out to protect their town ans retail outlets, as did those in Maastricht and Breda. Only the Bosch boys caught sight of the eejits and there was no confrontation because the eejits might be eejits but they do understand bad odds.

I am quite certain none of the "crews" out on vigliante patrol last night would have been upset if they's had to break a head or two. In the end they didn't have to as one lot of eejits made a tactical withdrawal and, in the other towns, probably knew the "lads" were about and ddecided to stay home.

We'll see what tonight brings. I expect more DLF type vigilantes to be out and about defending their home town against people merely out to plunder.

With regard to the groups that have been plundering, some will have gone out to do just that, others will have been "out for a laugh" and got caught up in the hysteria. At their heart will have been a group, more than likely less than 20 in number, who will have been the catalysts to the riot and subsequent looting and, once they'd lit the blue touch paper they will have retired a comfortable distance away from the "action" to stand back and enjoy their "creation". I saw that a fair few times at football in the late 60s and 70s. They start the ball rolling and then watch how much damage it causes.