Advanced search

To slightly hope that the same hackers who got The Sun

(25 Posts)
GnocchiGnocchiWhosThere Mon 08-Aug-11 23:18:29

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MrsTerryPratchett Mon 08-Aug-11 23:21:32

Nice as that would be, I doubt they own their own homes.

plupervert Mon 08-Aug-11 23:35:23

Oh, so burning down and losing a home doesn't matter to people who rent? hmm

MrsReasonable Mon 08-Aug-11 23:43:14

No, but it also matters to the landlord.

Tortington Mon 08-Aug-11 23:44:05

fuckinell its like hysteria central in here.

Pan Mon 08-Aug-11 23:47:55

no it wouldn't be satisfying. IT would be really stupid.

plupervert Mon 08-Aug-11 23:59:14

I'm sorry, I don't quite get the landlord thing. Are you saying that people who rent would gladly burn something down, just in order to spite the/a landlord? confused

Pan Tue 09-Aug-11 00:00:34

she possibly meant they don't own their own homes because they are too young. yet to face GCSEs sort of young for some.

GnocchiGnocchiWhosThere Tue 09-Aug-11 00:03:06

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

plupervert Tue 09-Aug-11 00:04:21

Thanks, Pan; I hadn't considered that interpretation (sadly true as it is: can't believe how young some of these idiots are!).

Yet the owning one's own house comment did also sound rather like a bit of class fear, didn't it....

Pan Tue 09-Aug-11 00:05:39

yes it was ambigous and so open to that particualr interpretation.

plupervert Tue 09-Aug-11 00:14:35

I don't think the landlord would necessarily be hurt more. A landlord should have insurance, so should only suffer an increase in premiums, whereas a tenant would lose a place to live (even if there were insurance in place). That's pretty asymmetrical, I would say.

I'm responding mostly to MrsTerryPratchett's comment, by the way.

altinkum Tue 09-Aug-11 00:17:44

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Pan Tue 09-Aug-11 00:25:52

<<altinkum - are you named after a beach?>>

plupervert Tue 09-Aug-11 00:37:25

Yes, yes, Altinkum - and that's one of the most terrible things about this sort of vicious behaviour, which is not a great protest, if it hurts the "community" (or environment out of which the violent people grew)!

Anyway, this sort of class hatred doesn't work, doesn't satisfy.

And I don't believe the violence outside over the past couple of days (days 2 and 3, certainly) is particularly class-conscious or -motivated. It seems like people are having vicious and stupid fun, that's all

Empusa Tue 09-Aug-11 00:38:06

You know there's a phone number to suggest hacking target to the hackers...

EdithWeston Tue 09-Aug-11 00:48:17

Plupervert - consequences of riot are excluded from insurance policies. The landlord loses everything.

plupervert Tue 09-Aug-11 00:53:28

I hadn't realised that, EdithWeston. Sorry.

However, there are losses on both sides, so it was unfair to imply (above) that only landlords and property owners have something to lose. None of this violence satisfies anything.

MrsTerryPratchett Tue 09-Aug-11 04:05:31

I went away and didn't realise I had started something. I meant own as in their name is on the property (either renting or owning/mortgage). They may live with family. I had mental image of some poor Grandmother having her house/flat burnt down because her idiot DGS rioted. The youngest person arrested (I heard) was 11 so not a renter.

I certainly didn't mean that renters don't care about their places blush. I rented for many happy years in Croydon sad. I don't feel that I really 'own' my massively mortgaged flat any more that I 'owned' my rented flat.

BTW, I have worked with a lot of homeless young people in South London (and all over) and a lot of them felt pretty disenfranchised and failed. Some really intelligent, creative, fantastic, young (mainly male, Black) people leaving school with nothing. No excuse for the riots of course.

plupervert Tue 09-Aug-11 09:04:05

An 11yo arrested! shock

I'm just a bit sensitive to the renting/owning opposition, as that sort of prejudice is strong enough when it's "background" (e.g. interest rates being kept low benefits those paying mortgages, but shafts those with savings). In a fiery situation, it seems even more alarming, especially as it's a false dichotomy, as you point out - attacking property can't possibly "get" just one class!

plupervert Tue 09-Aug-11 12:10:37

An update on insurance from the Association of British Insurers (via the BBC):

Seems insurers will cover damage.

EdithWeston Tue 09-Aug-11 13:09:57

Thanks plupervert - I don'ypt know how I got the wrong end of the stick before.

plupervert Tue 09-Aug-11 14:10:07

Well, thank goodness it was wrong, that's all! smile Insurers do occasionally have big "hits" like this (e.g. Hurricane Andrew in the States was a very bad year for insurers). I think if a country is long-term unstable, then property owners/ businesses/ individuals have to buy political risk insurance, to cover a background risk which has always been there, rather than a risk which was unknown at the start of the policy. Everyone seems to have been taken off guard by this rioting, so it's scarcely fair for insurers to dump their policyholders, who were acting in good faith. Premiums may go up in a while, though, to "price in" their risk.

hellospoon Tue 09-Aug-11 14:43:24

Insurance companies sometimes do cover the damage caused by riot, I worked in insurance for a long time (home & Car) usually there is a clause which says how many people are involved in the riot is the qualifier.

And insurance companies that do cover it claim it back off the police force then the police are left to prosecute the people responsible.

plupervert Tue 09-Aug-11 18:46:32

And here is what's happening about compensation.

I only noticed the article after your comments, so thanks, hellospoon.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: