I hope they kick the livin' shite right out of 'em !
maggots
Posted on 04/12/2013 3:53:29 AM PDT by markomalley
The authorities in London are prepared for rioting as people “celebrate” the death of Margaret Thatcher, Boris Johnson has warned.
The authorities in London are prepared for rioting as people “celebrate” the death of Margaret Thatcher, Boris Johnson has warned.
Mr Johnson, the Mayor of London, said that that protesters who break the law during the street parties will be “properly dealt with”.
Anarchist groups have warned of more mass protests on Saturday, with 2,000 to 3,000 people expected to attend.
The events, at 25 locations across the country, are being organised by a group called Class War, with the help of other organisations such as the All London Anarchist Revolutionary Mob, which says it is “committed to radical action to undermine the state”.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
If there was ever a time for the Falklands vets to come out and take care business once again, this is it. Three thousand punks shouldn’t take more than an hour or two to mop up.
Sounds like the Soros Rent-a-Mob International.
The world has become a dark weird place in the last 30 years. Sad. A world gone nuts.
And what does the “Lord Mayor” of London plan to do about it? Hide under a bed in a dress, quivering with fear?
Indeed. Evil is rampant.
Look up.
What a weird thing to say.
This is the Lord Mayor of London we’re talking about, not your Head of State.
Please keep your transvestite fantasies off FR.
Yes, that was an unfair way to criticize the Lord Mayor.
But we had hopes Boris Johnson would deal forcefully with the “Asians” when he was elected. Their crime, riots, no-go districts sort of thing.
Instead he went all wobbly and crinkly-toes on us.
Boris is mayor, right, not “lord mayor”? I never understood why Londoners wanted another layer of bureaucracy when they decided to have an actual mayor.
I’m afraid I lost all respect for Johnson during the Olympics.
They hold grudges just like the Democrats here..
And just two summers ago, London burned for four days. Did the Lord Mayor stop it then?
They rioted over a dead gangbanger.
What do you think they’ll do for a dead conservative?
Correct, he is Mayor of London, which is a directly elected position given him particular authority (along with the London Assembly) over Greater London - a 600 square mile region with about 8,000,000 people. This is in contrast to the office of Lord Mayor of the City of London, which is a (now mostly ceremonial role) with jurisdiction over about one square mile with about 7,000 permanent residents.
I never understood why Londoners wanted another layer of bureaucracy when they decided to have an actual mayor.
The City of London has existed in a reasonably recognisable 'modern' form for about 800 years, and occupies roughly the same area as was first settled by the Romans nearly 2000 years ago. The office of Lord Mayor dates back to AD1189. And these are basically the reasons it was all preserved. Because history matters to a lot of people, especially in the United Kingdom. But the structures that were used to elect a Lord Mayor were arcane and ancient as well and not suited to a modern democratic mindset - so splitting off that role into one that is almost purely ceremonial, while setting up a more modern system of local government for one of the worlds largest and richest cities was seen as desirable.
It didn't really add bureaucracy because both the Lord Mayor and the Corporation of the City of London really don't have any bureaucratic power.
It's symbolic but some of the symbolism does matter - the Lord Mayor derives his or her position from a charter signed by King John in 1215, about the same time he signed Magna Carta. This represented a step in the growth of British democracy - where a King was forced to yield some of his power to the people. Earlier charters had been issued, including one by William the Conquerer in 1067. These things are landmarks that those who believe in the rule of law in England, and what has grown out of England, tend to believe are worth preserving.
The Queen is not supposed to enter the City of London without the permission of the Lord Mayor. Permission is now assumed to be given for normal purposes (ie, if she is simply going shopping or making a public appearance within the bounds of the city), but there are still occasions when the ceremony is followed. Laws and traditions that symbolise the fact that the Monarch's powers are limited are not lightly given up.
I’m afraid I lost all respect for Johnson during the Olympics.
I quite like his politics, but his general demeanour worries me at times.
Boris Johnson is the Mayor, not the Lord Mayor (which is a very different office), but, no, he didn't.
And I'm honestly not sure it could be stopped now in similar circumstances.
But since the riots of 2011, the structure of supervision over the Metropolitan Police has been quite dramatically changed partly because of what happened in 2011 - the Metropolitan Police Authority (which as well as the Mayor, also involved about half of the elected London Assembly - a clear case of 'too many chiefs') was abolished and replaced with the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime, which gives the Mayor personal and direct influence over the police. He can react faster and give orders faster in an emergency. Whether it will work remains to be seen, but it does look like a greatly improved and much more efficient command structure - the Mayor can deal directly and personally with senior Police, including the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, with the members of the London Assembly only being able to review decisions after the fact - holding him accountable for errors, but not blocking decisions at the time.
Thank you for the Lord mayor correction.
It’s a nice thing to see they’ve revamped the chain of command, but given the destruction of the last riots, do they really want to road-test it?
I hope they kick the livin' shite right out of 'em !
maggots
It's symbolic but some of the symbolism does matter - the Lord Mayor derives his or her position from a charter signed by King John in 1215, about the same time he signed by King John in 1215, about the same time he signed the Magna Carta. This represented a step in the growth of British democracy - where a King was forced to yield some of his power to the people. Earlier charters had been issued, including one by William the Conquerer in 1067. These things are landmarks that those who believe in the rule of law in England, and what has grown out of England, tend to believe are worth preserving.
I love the fact that it goes straight back to King John and the Magna Carta era. The thing about history is that once it's gone, it's gone. You don't get it back. So I'm glad they're keeping the tradition.
5.56mm
Leftists behaving “normally”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.