On the subject of riots

Just Thinking makes an interesting point.

Few to none have been charged with riot: as I\’ve been saying, this might well mean that there wasn\’t in fact a riot and thus the rozzers not having to pay for the damage caused in those not riots.

What slightly worries me is that Frank Dobson thinks this a possible reason for there being no charges of riot: which makes me question my own first surmise. As would agreeing with Frank Dobson on anything.

However, we seem to be getting from the government that this won\’t change the situation under the Riot Damages Act.

Hmm, I dunno give the bureaucrats a loophole and they\’ll drive a truck through it.

5 thoughts on “On the subject of riots”

  1. As a result of your posts on the subject, and some independent reading I’d done, I emailed my MP on Wednesday. His response:

    Dear Mat

    Thanks for your email. Luckily I have family over from Australia for a month, so honeymoon not until September!

    I’ve just come from the Chamber for the Prime Minister’s statement and as you will probably already have heard he has announced the following;

    1) All those affected, whether home owners or business will be able to claim under the Riot Damage Act (which is open ended) even if they are uninsured. They have also extended the time for claims from 15 days to 42 days.
    2) £20m set aside to clean up high streets with immediate effect
    3) Business rate relief for those affected by up to 75%
    4) Council Tax and Business rates cease for those buildings uninhabitable
    5) £10m set aside for a new recovery scheme for homeowners and business
    6) Instant changes to planning laws to allow ease of shutter installations (It appears the planning laws currently impeded this to happen quickly)
    7) Government will pay all immediate costs for accommodation for those made homeless
    8) Agreement from Insurance industry to pay out quickly
    9) Time to pay tax and VAT by business timescales extended

    He also announced that all of the above will be a ‘Moving Feast’ and will be topped up or amended as need be.

    I wrote the above down as he spoke so, there may be slight inaccuracies in my short hand, but I think you get the gist of his announcement.

    I think this covers your points and even more

    Which I found reassuring, looks good, anyway.

  2. Dave gave a cast-iron promise in Parliament yesterday that people would be compensated under the Riot Damages Act. It’s going to happen, isn’t it?

  3. I’ve looked up the Riot (Damages) Act, and there’s nothing in it that requires anyone to be charged with riot before it operates.


    Of course there may be case law on it, but I’d doubt it.

    Obviously it’s much easier for the owner of the burnt-out shop to prove that there was a riot if someone has already been convicted of riot. And it’s a bit difficult for the police to argue that there wasn’t a riot if they’re charging people with riot.

    But that’s different to saying that you can’t claim if no-one is charged.

  4. If the government were to weasel out of its commitments by claiming this wasn’t a riot, I suspect it’d end up facing something that closely resembled a riot. Not in the “idiots burning down their mate’s nan’s shop” sense of the term, but in the “righteously angry citizens storming Parliament” sense of the term.

  5. @ MatGB
    6) is good news; a few years ago a local business closed down for good when planning officers refused permission for shutters after its windows had been broken twice in fairly quick succession and got a court order to remove the ones it erected after the third occasion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *