Claim: UK Youths Offered Money to Start Riots

This is emerging news.....it seems that people are tweeting that they are being offered money to start riots, by unidentified individuals calling themselves journalists,

Claim: Youths Offered Money To Start Riots


Violence in Leicester after “journalists” tried to pay off kids, according to Tweets

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, August 10, 2011

As massive unrest plaguing the United Kingdom spread from London to other cities last night, claims emerged that individuals calling themselves journalists were offering to pay youths to start riots, suggesting an effort to provocateur some of the violence

[.......]

Interesting. Given the recent revelations about phone hacking, this would be a very sneaky cover to use.

Id say take a look at Charlie Veitch.....hes good at setting this sort of crap up and walking away blameless

EDIT: Charlie Veitch is a shill working for the BBC claiming to be an anarchist....i wouldnt put it past him or his cronies....(hes on youtube)

Makes sense but the question i still have is WHY???

The media have been behaving pretty irresponsibly over these events so it would not surprise me if the papers wanted to keep this fire stoked, nothing like a moral panick to shift the papers, They cant hack phones anymore so need a new revenue stream. Pictures of burning cities and hooded youths are better than semi naked celebs stumbling out of bars at the moment.

Source: Prisonplanet via random twitter message.

'Nuff said.

People would be offering them money but if they were journalists them why would say it plain and clear?

More like some idiots are offering them money and saying they are journalists... jeeesh

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.

The terrorist scaremongering was really getting past its sell-by date and the alternative community was immediately spotting the fakery.

So, now I can't help wondering whether they're trying to inflame racial hatred and riots instead. Is it a coincidence that there was that racial attack in US the same week?

reply to post by wcitizen


I can see a riot as the perfect opportunity for inserting an arsonist
to get rid of some "unwanted" real estate or an ex's automobile.

The story about them being journalists doesn't wash with me. From the beginning I've been saying I had strong suspicions this was being instigated by NWO agents provocateurs.

Given the publicity about the phone hacking, calling themselves journalists was an obvious cover they could use.

To me these riots were just not following a pattern which is typical of UK outbursts of protests/riots to date. They have been very well organised and orchestrated. The police have said blackberrys were used to organise...most kids don't have blackberrys, they have Iphones and Androids. Blackberrys aren't common, but the police apparently do use them.

Police standing back and letting it happen. Police Chief just left the country.

This is starting to stink stronger and stronger.

reply to post by cj6


Youths wanna make money - the media wants a good story. Makes sense to me.

reply to post by wcitizen


Journalists? BS! More like members of the NWO....hope those car plates are tracked!

What about the BlackBerry mass-message from earlier that was broadcast in the news:

from www.guardian.co.uk...

"If you're down for making money, we're about to go hard in east london tonight, yes tonight!!"

That didn't really make sense until I saw this thread. Would someone really describe looting and taking things as "making money"? I wouldn't. Sure, you can sell the stuff later, but why wouldn't one just say "getting free stuff" or something similar?

Originally posted by AkumaStreak
What about the BlackBerry mass-message from earlier that was broadcast in the news:

from www.guardian.co.uk...

"If you're down for making money, we're about to go hard in east london tonight, yes tonight!!"

That didn't really make sense until I saw this thread. Would someone really describe looting and taking things as "making money"? I wouldn't. Sure, you can sell the stuff later, but why wouldn't one just say "getting free stuff" or something similar?

edit on 8/10/2011 by AkumaStreak because: (no reason given)

I agree. 'Get your hands on some stuff' or something like that, not 'make money'. ..... which is also kinda typical of gubberment agents, they often seem to make some really stupid mistakes.

Re the car plates, I can't distinguish the characters. If anyone else can it would be good to record it here.

Originally posted by wcitizen
The police have said blackberrys were used to organise...most kids don't have blackberrys, they have Iphones and Androids. Blackberrys aren't common, but the police apparently do use them.

Sorry to disagree but i have two teenagers both have blackberrys they are the phone of choice at the moment because of free bbm messages. They can message their friends also on the BBm network - if its anything like ine that means at least every 30 mins - and don't get me started on Twitter !.
The second and third choice is iphone and then the androids (various).

Originally posted by britchik

Originally posted by wcitizen
The police have said blackberrys were used to organise...most kids don't have blackberrys, they have Iphones and Androids. Blackberrys aren't common, but the police apparently do use them.

Sorry to disagree but i have two teenagers both have blackberrys they are the phone of choice at the moment because of free bbm messages. They can message their friends also on the BBm network - if its anything like ine that means at least every 30 mins - and don't get me started on Twitter !.
The second and third choice is iphone and then the androids (various).

OK, I must be out of the loop. lol.

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

reply to post by wcitizen


More likely it's police either current or ex who are doing this, the cut backs in the UK alone are costing 16,000 police jobs sounds like a good reason to prove they are needed! Mmmm...we already know there are plenty of corrupt police in london met ie phone hacking bungs etc.. Doesn't take much to stretch it a bit further, yes I'm convinced it's those little piggies at it again.

problem, reaction, solution. Also know as the Hegelian Dialectic.

Possibly but I'm not saying this is the cause of the riots, further investigation is needed to be honest.

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.

reply to post by bsalert


After thinking some more I think you hit the nail on the head. Police using cash from recent drug hauls is possible, very possible.