Different serious problems require different serious solutions. The comparison to Norway isn't useful.

I agree it's not a fair comparison, but I think it's an interesting thought experiment nonetheless. How do you think Norway would have reacted if a situation similar to the UK riots occurred in Norway? Implement more laws and add police, or look deeper to the root causes?

It really isn't an interesting exercise. It's comparing one bombing by one person to thousands of acts of vandalism and theft by thousands of people.

It's fairly self evident that "looking deeper into the root causes" is not going to prevent rioters from destroying private property in the next 24 hours.

Sorry let me clarify -- again I'm not focusing on the comparison of the two acts. What I consider interesting is to ponder how another country (Norway in this case) would handle a situation that arises in another country. Naturally there are many variables to consider, however in general it allows me to look at the situation from a different perspective, or through a different lens. I find that to be a valuable exercise and one I feel isn't exercised often enough.

Does this make more sense?

In addition, clearly "looking deeper" won't resolve anything on its own as I feel you are suggesting -- what counts rather are the actions that could result from gaining better understanding through the act of looking deeper.

How is it at all interesting if it isn't a fair comparison? What you are suggesting isn't what you are defending here: you're suggesting that we compare two entirely different scenarios and then defending it by saying it is worth doing an entirely different thought experiment.

(For the record, I'm appalled that anyone would consider anything that could remotely be called "web censorship" as a response, I just don't think you're making any sense here).

Sorry let me clarify. What I consider interesting is to ponder how another country (Norway in this case) would handle a situation that arises in another country. Naturally there are many variables to consider, however in general it allows me to look at the situation from a different perspective, or through a different lens. I find that to be a valuable exercise and one I feel isn't exercised often enough.

Does this make more sense? Again I don't agree with the comparison of the two acts.

I think it does make more sense. Does it make sense why those of us who have responded don't read your first comment that way?

(I appreciate the clarification, btw)