Sadly, I don't think it should be. However, if they were legitimately supplying rioters with intent to cause harm, it has to be. Issue is, the law is like a slippery slope, and it only ever sways in favour of the powerful. The only way it could ever be in our's is if we, the principled few, remain ardent in our convictions. I fail to see how setting the legal precedent to prosecute the selling of otherwise legally obtainable goods without definitive evidence of intent toharm will not go wrong. It sounds like London all over again, and we all know how badly that shithole turned out to be.

Sadly, I don't think it should be. However, if they were legitimately supplying rioters with intent to cause harm, it has to be. Issue is, the law is like a slippery slope, and it only ever sways in favour of the powerful. The only way it could ever be in our's is if we, the principled few, remain ardent in our convictions. I fail to see how setting the legal precedent to prosecute the selling of otherwise legally obtainable goods without definitive evidence of intent toharm not go wrong. It sounds like London all over again, and we all know how badly that shithole turned out to be.