BTR. I can't take you seriously as I think that your flippant remarks are made purely to encourage a debate on scum. You don't have to make judgments on people but everyone is entitled to an opinion but when scum is mentioned you seem to be inconsistent with your definition of scum.
You attack the Bullingdon modus Operandii and quite rightly so in my humble opinion but then you leap to the defence of the scum who are not so well off but equally offensive to the general public by their anti social behaviour.
Anti social behaviour in all walks of life is unacceptable and should be recognised as such or do you think any different?
Firstly, I certainly did not 'leap to the defense' of anyone! I merely challenged if they should have been attacked in the first place. As I said I don't see that the incident is especially frightening or upsetting to anyone not directly involved in the situation. As to your second point I don't have a 'definition' of scum - but if I did. then that definition would not be aimed at those who are massively unfortunate but aimed at those who make them unfortunate in the first place and whose goal it is to keep them there.
Anti Social behavior is indeed unacceptable, on that we agree. I don't know how to correct that situation but I do know 100% that you do not correct it by calling certain types of people
'scum.' This is what happened in the 1980s when working class football fans were labelled as scum and indeed treated as such, I don't need to say what happened there.
Would I like to encourage a debate on scum? Yes! This is a forum after all

and I think all debate and opinions, not least those that are in opposites to my own, are welcome and very healthy.