Claim: UK Youths Offered Money to Start Riots

Originally posted by drblair
reply to post by wcitizen

 

After watching my share of bbc and brit media live coverage, I started to get annoyed with the "Helpless Child" role the media started to portay. MP's would be paraded in front of the camera to whine about the blackberry messaging service. It seems the media are trying to re-enforce the false notion of real privacy existing in off-the- shelf consumer products and "leaky" social media sites like fb, twitter etc.

Ask yourself a few questions. Who owns the infrastructure these services run on? Is it mega-corp + gov or is it broke azz looters? What conforms to a higher level of technological specification? Is it mass produced consumer electronics (the joke you call a smart phone) or latest Generation Military, Secret service & Police hardware + all infrastructure used to support it? Suddenly the UK police state can't police itself? BS I say.

Yes, apparently Blackberry encrypt all the messages and the SS are having trouble with that.

If this is a false flag, they could well be using ti to 'demonise' the social media by showing it to be used to facilitate crime and....yes, riots.

Their false flags always serve more than one part of their agenda.

Originally posted by Lightrule
reply to post by AkumaStreak

 

The things no body ever wants to admit are the items in these stores technically belonged to the people that stole them to begin with.

I was at lunch with a few colleagues yesterday and we were discussing this topic. We were all disappointed in the behaviors exhibited by these rioters. Then we got discussing the law and justification. I brought up the idea that since the natural resources of a country are only held in trust by the government of said country for the people of that country. They are responsible to run country in the best interest of the people.

Governments are not looking out for the best interests of the people, they are looking at the corporations best interests. In order for any company to start up and begin turning natural resources into goods a license must be granted from the government. If they didn't receive a license the government would charge them with, among other things, theft. Theft of the countries natural resources, held in trust by the government for the people.

Considering now that no decision made by government is in the best interests of the private person, it makes all the contracts to take the natural resources null and void. It also returns the stolen property to the original owners. Since businesses are used to the legal protection granted by their contracts and licenses they feel like they are the sole owners of the goods they produce, therefor they have no intentions of giving those products away. They must be stolen back.

Needless to say this one single topic then consumed our lunch, in the end out of the business owner, 3 lawyers and a student, it was the student and a lawyer that disagreed.

The student's reasoning was because the time and effort to make the product was put in by the company that made it, it belongs to that company. With follow up questions it became clearer she was having trouble grasping the concept of the trust relationship between people and government.

My colleague pointed out that fees and taxes most likely would have been paid to the government and by extension the people of the country to use the natural resources. The major disagreement he had was that government is in fact looking out for the welfare of the people, but people don't understand the complexities of the system.

-Lightrule

I agree with you, lightrule. Most people aren't yet aware of the trust set-up. Linked to that, according to Mary Croft, everything is 'pre-paid' and charging for the items is 'double-dipping'. It's mind boggling when you first learn about this, I'm not surprised she was having trouble grasping it, but it's a real eye-opener when you delve into it.

If some of these kids are being offered money to start riots then

This is a win-win-win-win-win-loosers! Nobody here looses except the innocent, Sir!

Cameron wins because he can bring in yet more control laws to curb our freedom. He knows he will then have complete control by the time the Olympics occur, so the wealthy will line their pockets and eventually when the stadiums are finished they will sink down into the marshes. So their investment won't cost a lot as there is likely to be little maintenance.

The kids win because they get to keep their booty and their moment of fame. There is so much imported labour in this country,they don't and won't be likely to ever get jobs unless a miracle occurs. give them a criminal record and they will fail the CAB checks so will never work. Utopia to them when young. Later in age they may reflect on today.

The Police have made the point that they don't want cuts in numbers or pay and will get extra toys to play with using the public as target practise.

The media or as many of them who act as gutter press will get their stories.

Some failing businesses or opportunist business operatives, will get to claim on their insurance either to boost and redo their premises, or if its a failing business they get to grab the dosh and run.

The innocent caught up in this and the rest of us will be expected to put up with the new legislation which be more draconian and, of course, foot the bill for this little lot from our taxes, or will we? Who knows enough will be enough one day and I don't think the English should ever be underestimated. I suspect Cameron is becoming dimly aware of just how irritated and angry many people appear to be in this country.

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by cj6
Makes sense but the question i still have is WHY???

NWO tactic:

Cause a problem. Create a reaction. Provide a solution.

Order out of chaos.

The problem...riots, damage,violence, looting
The reaction...people asking for more policing, for the military to step in.
The solution...implementation of tighter police/military state control by consent through manufactured fear.

I kind of had this feeling myself, be in NWO or some other organisation or person with an agenda - I'd put it to the back of my mind as I thought it was a daft idea, but....

42

Hey long time lurker, first time poster here. Don't think it's been mentioned. But perhaps the people claiming to be journalists, and offering teenagers money to start riots, could simply be more organised criminals. My main reason to believe this is that amongst all the small stores being looted, there were a few robberies which stood out as very professional and organised. For example the Sony Depot, in Enfield, North London. (news.sky.com...). So it seems more logical that organised criminals would be the ones paying these kids to cause havoc, as it would spread the law enforcement very thin, creating a distraction and aiding them in more profitable and targeted crime.

reply to post by Theybehidingsomething


Welcome to ATS!

Also, for a first post, you make more sense than most of the people claiming the riots were paid to happen by government types because there always has to be a "the gubmint did everything!!" reaction here for some reason even if it's a blatant lie and laughable mistruth.

I also see wcitizen got the banhammer, oh well, least there's one less person on here spouting idiotic claims and claiming secret agenda.