Would be nice if they actually stopped it from happeninig in the first place though..
I am really not looking forward to work tomorrow. Guess which silly tit agreed to do the late shift *raises hand*... then again, id rather it me than the 60 year old woman who normally locks up.
SilverMK2 wrote:But the point is do you want possible future convictions, or do you want to stop places getting looted and burned down in the first place?
In medicine prevention is better than a cure...
But you don't lop off someone's leg to save them from a cramp.
There's only so much you can do to "prevent" riots, looting, etc. And there's not much you can do when the police are the perceived 'cause' of the riot that led to the looting.
Kilkrazy wrote:It's a complex social problem which doesn't have an easy fix.
I know, theres always hope though right?....right?
And when hope fails, there's rubber baton rounds!
But seriously. The only way to prevent this would have been not shooting the guy, but then it would have happened at some distant point as long as the underlying problems/feelings of the minority community were still there.
Well, the minority community and the twits who wanted to start looting.
Why exactly haven't extreme measures been taken yet? this is an extremely serious riot. Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets and Batons should have been out on the first day.
After this they should all be tried for Treason as terrorists.
I know, theres always hope though right?....right?
Mr Hyena wrote:Why exactly haven't extreme measures been taken yet? this is an extremely serious riot. Tear Gas, Rubber Bullets and Batons should have been out on the first day.
After this they should all be tried for Treason as terrorists.
I know, theres always hope though right?....right?
Hope doesn't exist.
And yet we're all hoping this "rioting" ends soon.
Hope does exist bro - it is most definitely not a false concept. In fact, it's a defining quality of humanity.
Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be blest:
The soul, uneasy and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.
Kilkrazy wrote:It's a complex social problem which doesn't have an easy fix.
I know, theres always hope though right?....right?
And when hope fails, there's rubber baton rounds!
But seriously. The only way to prevent this would have been not shooting the guy, but then it would have happened at some distant point as long as the underlying problems/feelings of the minority community were still there.
Well, the minority community and the twits who wanted to start looting.
Yay for rubber baton rounds! Bring em on
that may have helped, but there would have been some other tipping point as you say. The point is now that the looting is absolutely, positively f all about that tit that got shot (seriously, he was a gangster, no remorse for him at all) and everything about sodding stupid looters. I cant believe people on the News now are trying to give the looters political agendas (as if) in some weird, vague attempt to explain it all away. I doubt most of the looters can even spell politics (*goes to check spelling*), and even if they could, even they wouldnt even bother to attribute politic ideals (whatever they may be) onto what they are doing.
Kilkrazy wrote:Hope springs eternal in the human breast;
Man never Is, but always To be blest:
The soul, uneasy and confin'd from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come.
-Alexander Pope,
An Essay on Man, Epistle I, 1733
Paradise was unendurable, otherwise the first man would have adapted to it; this world is no less so, since here we regret paradise or anticipate another one. What to do? where to go? Do nothing and go nowhere, easy enough.
No point taking down communications, keeping them going means that we should be able to monitor where's to be hit next, we need to take charge of communications and be able to plan our counter attacks / areas of defense accordingly. Keeping it live will also mean that we can use it as evidence against them WHEN we take them down
We need to do what the Victorians did with their social underclass. Get a big boat, load them on board and send it off to Austrailia. You still got room down there guys?
So it's all over Manchester city centre now, hope everyone up there is ok?
Just listening to the news now: Looting and shops being torched, hundreds of young lads in hoodies on bikes, according to the news on the radio......Salford too, Wolverhampton and West Bromich as well. Bad news here, Mark Duggan did NOT fire his weapon at police....uh oh.....
Flashman wrote:We need to do what the Victorians did with their social underclass. Get a big boat, load them on board and send it off to Austrailia. You still got room down there guys?
IMO a small core of rioters are career criminals. The majority are hangers-on, wannabes, deluded youths and some idiots out for kicks or petty looting gains.
To the extent they have any political awareness it's along of the lines of "smash the rich", we want "respect".
Flashman wrote:We need to do what the Victorians did with their social underclass. Get a big boat, load them on board and send it off to Austrailia. You still got room down there guys?
Flashman wrote:We need to do what the Victorians did with their social underclass. Get a big boat, load them on board and send it off to Austrailia. You still got room down there guys?
sarpedons-right-hand wrote:OMG, just heard that a 6 year old kid has been seen with a brand new fishing rod walking down Manchester City Centre!! 6!? WTF are his parents doing?!
Ahtman wrote:A lot of the people posting in this thread don't seem much better than the people they are calling for violence against.
Except of course, they are not the ones actually...rioting...
So? It is hypocritical to complain about the morals of rioters while calling for exacerbated violence and actually killing in the streets. The riots need to be brought under control, but calling for the state to start gunning down it's citizens in such a manner is reminiscent of the worse moments of our histories and it rarely solves anything more than either escalating the violence or momentarily suppressing it.
I'm sorry for not caring about dead criminals, I really am. Maybe if this was happening where you lived and it was your family and friends scared to leave the house you wouldn't have such a hippy stance towards these animals.
IMO a small core of rioters are career criminals. The majority are hangers-on, wannabes, deluded youths and some idiots out for kicks or petty looting gains.
Glad you understood
Agreed. But its the 'hardcore' leaders who are then directing it all. And the rest of them are so stupid, or so desperate to appear 'in' with the real crooks that they will do anything they tell them.
To the extent they have any political awareness it's along of the lines of "smash the rich", we want "respect".
Yup, and that is saddening. Did you read that quote from the radio btw? He said almost exactly this, (and also that apparently, this is how they get money these days) What a moron.
Kilkrazy wrote:It's a complex social problem which doesn't have an easy fix.
I dont think it has a fix. Poor people are generally under-educated, and turn to crime easier. You cant stop them from breeding, so that leaves the popular option of doing nothing and letting the situation compound itself. Hand outs are only a bandaid and dont really encourage bettering yoursellf. Jail is a F'n joke because they meet all their drug contacts there and learn how to become better criminals.
I mean how to you fix poor and stupid? Its like tossing money into a flaming hole and hoping it eventually fills up.
That leaves the extreme options of forced schooling/work facilities but no one will ever try such a totaltarian approach.
Now we're seeing the rise of the "vigilantes" (actually they seemed pretty sorted, knowing their rights etc) in Enfield - a group of 50 or 70 guys are patrolling Enfield and policing the streets because they're pissed off that the police aren't.
MrH wrote:I'm sorry for not caring about dead criminals, I really am.
You apparently can't read. No one has asked for people to sympathize with the man.
MrH wrote:Maybe if this was happening where you lived and it was your family and friends scared to leave the house you wouldn't have such a hippy stance towards these animals.
You know nothing of what I have been through, other than I find ignorant gamers that advocate mindless violence to end mindless violence to be insipid, pitiable people. I also get the impression you don't know what a hippie is either. Again, this isn't a unique situation, has happened in other places throughout the globe, so it actually is fairly easy to understand what is going on.
warspawned wrote:Now we're seeing the rise of the "vigilantes" (actually they seemed pretty sorted, knowing their rights etc) in Enfield - a group of 50 or 70 guys are patrolling Enfield and policing the streets because they're pissed off that the police aren't.
More than that dude. My sister just showed me Facebook photos of the 'keep Enfield Safe' (or something like that) and there are a couple hundred that i can see.
Good on em. problem is that they will be targetted by the police because they think they will comply.
Ravenous D wrote:I dont think it has a fix. Poor people are generally under-educated, and turn to crime easier.
*Snip*
I mean how to you fix poor and stupid? Its like tossing money into a flaming hole and hoping it eventually fills up.
Well, the solution for this is schooling, which has to be funded by the government, which is in turn funded mostly by taxes. In an economic depression, corners have to be cut, and if you cut education (Like a great deal of the U.S. is doing) and/or police forces (Which, iirc, has occured across the pond in the UK), it fosters environments that are ripe for events like these riots/looting.
As for poor, in some (not all) cases, you have no choice. If you suddenly broke your [insert valuable organ here], and had a $100K (Sorry, ~50K pounds I think? Not sure on exchange rates) medical bill, what would you do if you couldn't afford it. Would you resort to the "...bandaid [that] dont really encourage bettering yoursellf?"
People abuse social welfare programs, but the programs are also a great benefit to people who are either struggling for a short period financially, or have been doing so for a majority of their lives.
Plus, I really, really hope you were joking about sterilizing/segregating against poor people...
Ahtman wrote:Oh I am sure it is as simple as the kind hearted police shooting an evil man that lead to the riots, but what if we suppose that it is more complicated than that? People rarely riot because of one incident, but a series of incidents until there frustration erupts into violence. I suppose you are all right, just a bunch of uppity coloreds and foreigners that just have a distaste for law and order.
warspawned wrote:Now we're seeing the rise of the "vigilantes" (actually they seemed pretty sorted, knowing their rights etc) in Enfield - a group of 50 or 70 guys are patrolling Enfield and policing the streets because they're pissed off that the police aren't.
More than that dude. My sister just showed me Facebook photos of the 'keep Enfield Safe' (or something like that) and there are a couple hundred that i can see.
Good on em. problem is that they will be targetted by the police because they think they will comply.
Frankly, I think all the other towns, villages and cities need something like this.
But they really need to work with the police. They could be issued with those reflective jackets and what have you to indicate they mean business. It'll also make them look less like a mob and more like people actually working with the police.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
darkPrince010 wrote:As for poor, in some (not all) cases, you have no choice. If you suddenly broke your [insert valuable organ here], and had a $100K (Sorry, ~50K pounds I think? Not sure on exchange rates) medical bill, what would you do if you couldn't afford it. Would you resort to the "...bandaid [that] dont really encourage bettering yoursellf?"
People abuse social welfare programs, but the programs are also a great benefit to people who are either struggling for a short period financially, or have been doing so for a majority of their lives.
Well, at least for the meantime, we have the NHS which provides free care and treatment in most circumstances.
romegamer wrote:
Ahtman wrote:Oh I am sure it is as simple as the kind hearted police shooting an evil man that lead to the riots, but what if we suppose that it is more complicated than that? People rarely riot because of one incident, but a series of incidents until there frustration erupts into violence. I suppose you are all right, just a bunch of uppity coloreds and foreigners that just have a distaste for law and order.
Your blatant racism is very offensive.
You'd think someone ready to say that would at least stand by it and not edit it out.
warspawned wrote:Now we're seeing the rise of the "vigilantes" (actually they seemed pretty sorted, knowing their rights etc) in Enfield - a group of 50 or 70 guys are patrolling Enfield and policing the streets because they're pissed off that the police aren't.
More than that dude. My sister just showed me Facebook photos of the 'keep Enfield Safe' (or something like that) and there are a couple hundred that i can see.
Good on em. problem is that they will be targetted by the police because they think they will comply.
Frankly, I think all the other towns, villages and cities need something like this.
But they really need to work with the police. They could be issued with those reflective jackets and what have you to indicate they mean business. It'll also make them look less like a mob and more like people actually working with the police.
Agreed.
But then militia groups have always been frowned upon because they dont follow the law. What a joke.
Ahtman wrote:Oh I am sure it is as simple as the kind hearted police shooting an evil man that lead to the riots, but what if we suppose that it is more complicated than that? People rarely riot because of one incident, but a series of incidents until there frustration erupts into violence. I suppose you are all right, just a bunch of uppity coloreds and foreigners that just have a distaste for law and order.
He was clearly being sarcastic, although not to stir the pot or anything the majority of looters/rioters are colored, that's just a fact and you shouldn't label people as racist for telling it how it is.
Ahtman wrote:Oh I am sure it is as simple as the kind hearted police shooting an evil man that lead to the riots, but what if we suppose that it is more complicated than that? People rarely riot because of one incident, but a series of incidents until there frustration erupts into violence. I suppose you are all right, just a bunch of uppity coloreds and foreigners that just have a distaste for law and order.
Your blatant racism is very offensive.
He is being sarcastic.
Ah, I see it now. Quick reading and the lack of intonation on the internet gets us all again.
warspawned wrote:Now we're seeing the rise of the "vigilantes" (actually they seemed pretty sorted, knowing their rights etc) in Enfield - a group of 50 or 70 guys are patrolling Enfield and policing the streets because they're pissed off that the police aren't.
Good. Neighborhood watches.
The criminals are looking for easy pickings. It just takes people standing up for themselves to get them to back down and move on.
That, and more police and military folks rounding up the bad guys.
I hope the video survelance (sp?) tapes at the looted stores net a ton of bad guys. And that the twitter/Black berry messages net the ring-leaders and instigators.
MrH wrote:He was clearly being sarcastic, although not to stir the pot or anything the majority of looters/rioters are colored, that's just a fact and you shouldn't label people as racist for telling it how it is.
Sorry, did not pick up on the sarcasm. Hope everyone in London is safe. And I agree, Citizens standing up for themselves is the best idea. Think of the Korean shopkeepers during the LA Riots.
MrH wrote:He was clearly being sarcastic, although not to stir the pot or anything the majority of looters/rioters are colored, that's just a fact and you shouldn't label people as racist for telling it how it is.
darkPrince010 wrote:
Plus, I really, really hope you were joking about sterilizing/segregating against poor people...
Partially, its mostly that I believe you should need a license to be a parent and that raising 3+ kids on minimum wage should classify as abuse as essentially you are knowningly destroying someones life without penalty.
My point is that with any social problem, doing nothing or quick fixes dont solve anything, sometimes drastic ideas are needed even if it is hard to stomach.
I agree most communities should do this, but it's dangerous also, not just for them but it could spread anarchy even more if we're not careful (I'm probably giving them too much credit - they'll likely buckle under any heavy community pressure).
I'm actually agreeing with Sky News ...our politicians have been too slow and seem completely adrift of the reality/mentality of some people - it's like they're surprised after the second day that the violence escalated after little was done to oppose it. They should always ask the question: what would Churchill have done? Hell, even Thatcher would be better for this kind of thing.
Although some of them are so stupid they should be easy to catch. There was a picture in the papers today that really caught my eye. It was of a young man, posing behind a coffee table that was full to overflowing with gadgets, blu-rays and games. And where did he post it? That's right, on his own Facebook account...... Idiot
MrH wrote:He was clearly being sarcastic, although not to stir the pot or anything the majority of looters/rioters are colored, that's just a fact and you shouldn't label people as racist for telling it how it is.
This is true.
I agree, simply did not pick up on his sarcasm, and without that, it seemed to have racist overtones.
warspawned wrote:Now the Sikhs in Southall are out - good guys
I agree most communities should do this, but it's dangerous also, not just for them but it could spread anarchy even more if we're not careful.
I'm actually agreeing with Sky News ...our politicians have been too slow and seem completely adrift of the reality/mentality of some people - it's like they're surprised after the second day that the violence escalated after little was done to oppose it. They should always ask the question: what would Churchill have done? Hell, even Thatcher would be better for this kind of thing.
And then they get lambasted for going in "heavy" when they should have been handing out fluffy kittens and butterflies.
There's no way to win in a situation like this. If you go in too heavy, you get an outcry of fascism. If you go in too light and the police get beat back, you get outcries of incompetence and demands for "something to be done!"(no actual suggestions of what, just "something!").
There is likely a Goldilocks zone of "just right", but I don't think it's ever been actually found in regards to riots.
So can any British people answer my question on whether or not there is any instituitionalized racism in Scotland Yard?
There isn't. Its kinda stupid to think so.
Or just unknowing. Bear in mind that theres no way Kamikaze could know is there?
To further answer, there probably was back in the day, but there isnt any more. Its not that sort of Institution thankfully.
(although there are rumours of course)
Actually there was a pretty big enquiry (we love those here) into racism in the Met a few years ago.... After the Stephen Lawence murder I believe. I'm not sure thou, I'll have to check it out.....
when the government tries to curtail one of the most basic human rights like reproduction, it sets a horrible precident that history has demonstrated is not the right way to go.
In 1999, an inquiry headed by Sir William Macpherson examined the original Metropolitan police investigation and concluded that the force was "institutionally racist" and has been called 'one of the most important moments in the modern history of criminal justice in Britain'.[4] This led to the publication of the Macpherson Report 1999, which investigated institutional racism within the Metropolitan police.
Although please bear in mind that I'm using my iPhone and that is from Wikipedia. Make of it what you will.....
sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Actually there was a pretty big enquiry (we love those here) into racism in the Met a few years ago.... After the Stephen Lawence murder I believe. I'm not sure thou, I'll have to check it out.....
To be fair whenever someone colored is murdered racism is always brought up, even if there's no reason to think it was racially motivated.
warspawned wrote:Now the Sikhs in Southall are out - good guys
I agree most communities should do this, but it's dangerous also, not just for them but it could spread anarchy even more if we're not careful.
I'm actually agreeing with Sky News ...our politicians have been too slow and seem completely adrift of the reality/mentality of some people - it's like they're surprised after the second day that the violence escalated after little was done to oppose it. They should always ask the question: what would Churchill have done? Hell, even Thatcher would be better for this kind of thing.
And then they get lambasted for going in "heavy" when they should have been handing out fluffy kittens and butterflies.
There's no way to win in a situation like this. If you go in too heavy, you get an outcry of fascism. If you go in too light and the police get beat back, you get outcries of incompetence and demands for "something to be done!"(no actual suggestions of what, just "something!").
There is likely a Goldilocks zone of "just right", but I don't think it's ever been actually found in regards to riots.
Then go in heavy, and when someone complains, take them somewhere quiet and ask them politely why they think the looters should be defended (notice how good im being? no violence to keep the idiots mouth shut ).
Thats my opinion though. Noone has an excuse for looting and if they try to sue, get it thrown out of court (i am not a lawyer, but even i know this isnt possible, im wishlisting a little bit).
romegamer wrote:when the government tries to curtail one of the most basic human rights like reproduction, it sets a horrible precident that history has demonstrated is not the right way to go.
Some people aren't fit to be parents and it's the children that suffer. When young girls are having more and more children just to receive more benefits you know there's a problem.
romegamer wrote:when the government tries to curtail one of the most basic human rights like reproduction, it sets a horrible precident that history has demonstrated is not the right way to go.
Some people aren't fit to be parents and it's the children that suffer. When young girls are having more and more children just to receive more benefits you know there's a problem.
1999. That's pretty recent. Not that those reports are the be all and end all of reality.
The hacking scandal also punched a hole in the perception of integrity about the police.
romegamer wrote:when the government tries to curtail one of the most basic human rights like reproduction, it sets a horrible precident that history has demonstrated is not the right way to go.
Some people aren't fit to be parents and it's the children that suffer. When young girls are having more and more children just to receive more benefits you know there's a problem.
romegamer wrote:when the government tries to curtail one of the most basic human rights like reproduction, it sets a horrible precident that history has demonstrated is not the right way to go.
Some people aren't fit to be parents and it's the children that suffer. When young girls are having more and more children just to receive more benefits you know there's a problem.
I'm probably going to get flamed for this but...why not just cut off the benefits?
romegamer wrote:when the government tries to curtail one of the most basic human rights like reproduction, it sets a horrible precident that history has demonstrated is not the right way to go.
Some people aren't fit to be parents and it's the children that suffer. When young girls are having more and more children just to receive more benefits you know there's a problem.
I'm probably going to get flamed for this but...why not just cut off the benefits?
Because some people actually need them to survive.
romegamer wrote:when the government tries to curtail one of the most basic human rights like reproduction, it sets a horrible precident that history has demonstrated is not the right way to go.
Some people aren't fit to be parents and it's the children that suffer. When young girls are having more and more children just to receive more benefits you know there's a problem.
True, but you cant 'police' life.
China says "challenge accepted".
Please, as if i care what China thinks it can do right now. All they are doing is making it illegal, they arent changing gak.
MrH wrote:He was clearly being sarcastic, although not to stir the pot or anything the majority of looters/rioters are colored, that's just a fact and you shouldn't label people as racist for telling it how it is.
This is true.
Unless a count has been done you can't know that that is true. It is clearly indicative of a racist viewpoint to assume the majority are black.
MrH wrote:Because some people actually need them to survive.
I'm not sure what part of "cut off the benefits" you don't understand. People will find a way to survive whether they have benefits or not.
I'm not sure what to make of that comment, I think you misread something because your reply doesn't make any sense. I'm not sure how I "don't understand" what he meant.
biccat wrote:I'm not sure what part of "cut off the benefits" you don't understand. People will find a way to survive whether they have benefits or not.
Who knows, maybe they'll turn to crime and start looting. God forbid that should ever happen, for whatever reasons.
The problem is a lot of people who need benefits aren't receiving them whereas a lot of people are just abusing the benefits system. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of people out there on benefits that need them. Hell I even know such people.
romegamer wrote:when the government tries to curtail one of the most basic human rights like reproduction, it sets a horrible precident that history has demonstrated is not the right way to go.
Some people aren't fit to be parents and it's the children that suffer. When young girls are having more and more children just to receive more benefits you know there's a problem.
Sure there's a problem, but it does not justify sterilization. Because thats what will happen if you want to stop people from having kids. If not that how else, penalize them after the child is born? That will only hurt them more than simply being born into the bad situation without having a parent heavily fined or in jail would have done. Who is going to decide, who has the right to have children, what a good enough standard of living is, I have known many people who came from impoverished or abusive households and made a great person of themselves. I agree that people having children they cannot support is a huge problem, but not nearly as huge as the precident forced sterilization would set. if the benefits are where the issue is for you, then again, its big government hurting you. Stop the benefits and the people who are according to you having children just for that purpose will stop. State sponsored sterilization is not, and has never been the answer, Not in the U.S.A. during the early 1920's, and not in Nazi Germany.
MrH wrote:He was clearly being sarcastic, although not to stir the pot or anything the majority of looters/rioters are colored, that's just a fact and you shouldn't label people as racist for telling it how it is.
This is true.
Unless a count has been done you can't know that that is true. It is clearly indicative of a racist viewpoint to assume the majority are black.
I'm not assuming anything, I have eyes. I've been watching the news since it started and you can clearly see the vast majority of the looters are colored. I'm not sure why you'd try and dispute that fact?
MrH wrote:He was clearly being sarcastic, although not to stir the pot or anything the majority of looters/rioters are colored, that's just a fact and you shouldn't label people as racist for telling it how it is.
This is true.
Unless a count has been done you can't know that that is true. It is clearly indicative of a racist viewpoint to assume the majority are black.
Which is why I took offense to the post where I did not pick up the sarcasm
UK child benefit is £20.30 for the first child and £13.40 for the second and subsequent, per week. You need to have an awful lot of children to get rich on that, especially since they need feeding and clothing.
I think Child Benefit should be limited at the third child. Going over that is too much.
Unless a count has been done you can't know that that is true. It is clearly indicative of a racist viewpoint to assume the majority are black.
Well can you show a picture at least showing white people looting? I largely don't care what race it is thats doing it. But at the same time every picture I've seen has shown either black or middle eastern people. Thats hardly racism.
MrH wrote:He was clearly being sarcastic, although not to stir the pot or anything the majority of looters/rioters are colored, that's just a fact and you shouldn't label people as racist for telling it how it is.
This is true.
Unless a count has been done you can't know that that is true. It is clearly indicative of a racist viewpoint to assume the majority are black.
I'm not assuming anything, I have eyes. I've been watching the news since it started and you can clearly see the vast majority of the looters are colored. I'm not sure why you'd try and dispute that fact?
Unless a count has been done you can't know that that is true. It is clearly indicative of a racist viewpoint to assume the majority are black.
Well can you show a picture at least showing white people looting? I largely don't care what race it is thats doing it. But at the same time every picture I've seen has shown either black or middle eastern people. Thats hardly racism.
@MrH: While many if not most of the looters shown in the photographs taken of the looting are black, this does not indicate that all of the looters are black, or that all blacks are looters.
I think people are assuming that you're confusing a visible fact (Of the pictures shown, most of the people in them are colored) with an assumed fact (Ergo, most of the looters must be colored as well). I don't think you are, but it's always nice to clarify
darkPrince010 wrote:@MrH: While many if not most of the looters shown in the photographs taken of the looting are black, this does not indicate that all of the looters are black, or that all blacks are looters.
I never said all black people were looters, I never said all the looters were black, I said the vast majority of looters in this case are colored, which is true.
darkPrince010 wrote:@MrH: While many if not most of the looters shown in the photographs taken of the looting are black, this does not indicate that all of the looters are black, or that all blacks are looters.
I think people are assuming that you're confusing a visible fact (Of the pictures shown, most of the people in them are colored) with an assumed fact (Ergo, most of the looters must be colored as well). I don't think you are, but it's always nice to clarify
Wouldn't the majority be defined as the majority of criminals seen on images until further proof?
I don't think it's as bad as it used to be, but I still think there's a cultural hangover of it. Everytime I saw someone getting stopped and searched in London they were young, black, males - and they often didn't like it - I didn't live in a poor or 'criminal hotspot' area mind, so I didn't see it that often. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a general perception of racial/social stereotyping for racial minority youth's, as well as for the police and what they represent. I think both are paranoid of the other to a degree and yet I feel there's elements of truth in both as well.
It's a complicated social issue and there are underlying causes, these looters obviously have developed a mentality towards anarchy, without any sign of empathy and purely materialistic motives. It comes down to poor education, poor family life, the steady break down of community youth projects, lack of self-respect and social discipline etc...It seems to be a cultural thing for them as well and goes beyond racial stereotypes. It's a result of failure on our educational system and many other areas, including punishment for criminality...the list goes on really
Now we're going to have a bunch of politicians argue about it and not understand anything about it with a lot of pooh-poohing going on...fun days
Unless a count has been done you can't know that that is true. It is clearly indicative of a racist viewpoint to assume the majority are black.
Well can you show a picture at least showing white people looting? I largely don't care what race it is thats doing it. But at the same time every picture I've seen has shown either black or middle eastern people. Thats hardly racism.
Exactly.
You didn't see the front page of the Metro this morning.
If you didn't care which race is doing it you wouldn't care about their skin colour.
Kilkrazy wrote:UK child benefit is £20.30 for the first child and £13.40 for the second and subsequent, per week. You need to have an awful lot of children to get rich on that, especially since they need feeding and clothing.
I dont know how the figures work out exactly, but to put it into perspective a little: my ex's brother has 2 children with a 3rd on the way. The eldest was recently diagnosed with ADHD (=more benefits) and when the 3rd child is born they will be receiving somewhere in the region of £32,000 a year. (the wife/fiancee also has epilepsy = benefits for her as well, so not perfectly accurate)
The brother has quit his job and probably wont go back, he doesnt need to.
@MrHyena:Not at all. Photographer bias (Either intentional or not) could cause such a bias. Simply relying on disparate photographs of looting in certain areas of the city does not give you the ability to then build a profile of the looters. While many shown in the photographs are black, ther could be as many if not more looters in other areas that are Caucasian/Asian/whatever; The photographs are simply not of those other areas with different looter demographics.
@MrH: the "All blacks are looters" was hyperbole, and I should have rephrased it to say "most" instead of "all." My apologies.
Unless a count has been done you can't know that that is true. It is clearly indicative of a racist viewpoint to assume the majority are black.
Well can you show a picture at least showing white people looting? I largely don't care what race it is thats doing it. But at the same time every picture I've seen has shown either black or middle eastern people. Thats hardly racism.
Exactly.
You didn't see the front page of the Metro this morning.
If you didn't care which race is doing it you wouldn't care about their skin colour.
I don't care if they're white, black or purple, they're all scum in my eyes. The only reason I even mentioned their color is because others did and people like you are trying to dispute the fact the majority of them are colored, which is silly and just a symptom of extreme political correctness.
Kilkrazy wrote:UK child benefit is £20.30 for the first child and £13.40 for the second and subsequent, per week. You need to have an awful lot of children to get rich on that, especially since they need feeding and clothing.
I dont know how the figures work out exactly, but to put it into perspective a little: my ex's brother has 2 children with a 3rd on the way. The eldest was recently diagnosed with ADHD (=more benefits) and when the 3rd child is born they will be receiving somewhere in the region of £32,000 a year. (the wife/fiancee also has epilepsy = benefits for her as well, so not perfectly accurate)
The brother has quit his job and probably wont go back, he doesnt need to.
That's not statistical evidence, it's an anecdote.
There's a point to be made that it's not suprising that the majority of disaffected youths in an area might be ethnic minorities. You know. Because of racism.
Anyway.
I often think about yob culture and how to combat it. I really am not sure I have any sensible ideas about it. I see parents who will defend their sociopathic offspring to the hilt. I see parents who refuse to believe what kind of behaviour their spawn are up to. I see parents honestly trying their best and still coming up short, whether through unfortunate circumstances, weak will, or fear of being "too harsh". What can't be discounted is the peer effect and I believe the lack of any decent role models.
You can blame the education system, but it can't take the place of parents. You can blame the police or social services, but they can't take the place of parents, either. To my outsider's eyes, England's biggest social problems stem from the deeper than normal divides between economic classes and the disparity in culture and values between them. This leads to a pretty big gulf in understanding and empathy.
I'm pretty sure nothing particularly positive will come of this, policy wise, either.
I don't think it's as bad as it used to be, but I still think there's a cultural hangover of it. Everytime I saw someone getting stopped and searched in London they were young, black, males - and they often didn't like it - I didn't live in a poor or 'criminal hotspot' area mind, so I didn't see it that often. I guess what I'm trying to say is that there is a general perception of racial/social stereotyping for racial minority youth's, as well as for the police and what they represent. I think both are paranoid of the other to a degree and yet I feel there's elements of truth in both as well.
It's a complicated social issue and there are underlying causes, these looters obviously have developed a mentality towards anarchy, without any sign of empathy and purely materialistic motives. It comes down to poor education, poor family life, the steady break down of community youth projects, lack of self-respect and social discipline etc...It seems to be a cultural thing for them as well and goes beyond racial stereotypes. It's a result of failure on our educational system and many other areas, including punishment for criminality...the list goes on really
Now we're going to have a bunch of politicians argue about it and not understand anything about it with a lot of pooh-poohing going on...fun days
It goes both ways. There is probably still some leftover racism; but theres also the current reverse-racism against whites.
I often think about yob culture and how to combat it. I really am not sure I have any sensible ideas about it. I see parents who will defend their sociopathic offspring to the hilt. I see parents who refuse to believe what kind of behaviour their spawn are up to. I see parents honestly trying their best and still coming up short, whether through unfortunate circumstances, weak will, or fear of being "too harsh". What can't be discounted is the peer effect and I believe the lack of any decent role models.
You can blame the education system, but it can't take the place of parents. You can blame the police or social services, but they can't take the place of parents, either. To my outsider's eyes, England's biggest social problems stem from the deeper than normal divides between economic classes and the disparity in culture and values between them. This leads to a pretty big gulf in understanding and empathy.
I'm pretty sure nothing particularly positive will come of this, policy wise, either.
It all relates to the global degradation of human society that is currently happening.
Well, it seems it's a bit more stable in London tonight. Shame it's a bit late but to be quite honest, the Police couldn't have fully intercepted the attacks last night and planned ahead. My thoughts go to all areas affected including Manchester tonight.
And news just in: a police station in Nottingham has been firebombed, not really stated if its on fire or burnt down or anything. This has spread out for sure not but not exactly escalated as people feard it would on day 4.
Juvieus Kaine wrote:Well, it seems it's a bit more stable in London tonight. Shame it's a bit late but to be quite honest, the Police couldn't have fully intercepted the attacks last night and planned ahead. My thoughts go to all areas affected including Manchester tonight.
And news just in: a police station in Nottingham has been firebombed, not really stated if its on fire or burnt down or anything. This has spread out for sure not but not exactly escalated as people feard it would on day 4.
This is a disturbing vid, seems that there is a major political bent to these riots. These girls are so imbued in the thought that the rich are causing austerity. This is very disturbing as they're cheering on mindless violence in the name of "get the rich!". What the hell has happened to the youth of the UK? Granted this isn't all of why the riots are going on, but just senseless looting and rioting because a thug was shot? I'm not buying it. That's a convenient cover and reason, but not the underlying one. This smacks of a class of people so dependent on Government that they know no other way to function. Pure and simple.
I don't know what's worse, that the riots are going on or that the BBC called people defending their homes & businesses as "Vigilantes". Disgusting. Try rioting around here and you're likely to wind up dead or horribly injured for your actions. When did the UK become so neutered?
This is a disturbing vid, seems that there is a major political bent to these riots. These girls are so imbued in the thought that the rich are causing austerity. This is very disturbing as they're cheering on mindless violence in the name of "get the rich!". What the hell has happened to the youth of the UK? Granted this isn't all of why the riots are going on, but just senseless looting and rioting because a thug was shot? I'm not buying it. That's a convenient cover and reason, but not the underlying one. This smacks of a class of people so dependent on Government that they know no other way to function. Pure and simple.
I don't know what's worse, that the riots are going on or that the BBC called people defending their homes & businesses as "Vigilantes". Disgusting. Try rioting around here and you're likely to wind up dead or horribly injured for your actions. When did the UK become so neutered?
I'm quite certain that if you asked those girls what a conservative was, they would look at you like you had three heads. They sound like they're talking about getting back at their father or something.
This is a disturbing vid, seems that there is a major political bent to these riots. These girls are so imbued in the thought that the rich are causing austerity. This is very disturbing as they're cheering on mindless violence in the name of "get the rich!". What the hell has happened to the youth of the UK? Granted this isn't all of why the riots are going on, but just senseless looting and rioting because a thug was shot? I'm not buying it. That's a convenient cover and reason, but not the underlying one. This smacks of a class of people so dependent on Government that they know no other way to function. Pure and simple.
I don't know what's worse, that the riots are going on or that the BBC called people defending their homes & businesses as "Vigilantes". Disgusting. Try rioting around here and you're likely to wind up dead or horribly injured for your actions. When did the UK become so neutered?
YES!!!!! YES SIR YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!!! 10000000000 FETHING POINTS TO YOU FOR ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION!!!
And not a single ounce of sarcasm there, I promise you!!! I love my country, I love what we've been, I love that we've made mistakes, I love that we've tried to rectify those mistakes, I love what we could be, BUT then you add in people like the girls in this link that you've posted, and the thousands of others that haven't been interviewed, that are just taking advantage of a situation and pretending that it's their right to do so, just because they haven't made something of themselves where others have. I hate that people sit on their arses, waiting for hand outs, and then spit in the face of those that freely give them what they want.
Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned cutting benefits. Whilst I know that it wouldn't work to help improve the situation, following on from the metaphor that I've used above of spitting in the face of those that feed you, maybe it could work...? If you have a child that misbehaves, do you take away their playstation or pocket money until they behave? Does it work? Is it possible that this could work for a nation of people? No I don't think so. Do I think we should at least try? Yes I do. Why? I pay taxes to ensure that our country is run well, the services that we want are operating at peak efficiency, and to an extent so that my fellow country men and I are looked after if we hit a bump on the road of life. I do not want to continue paying someone to have a better life than I have, with nicer possessions than I have, and more fun than I have, if they don't work for themselves.
As it is, this won't happen. So we will continue to pay the looters and rioters their benefits, whilst also paying an increase in taxes to repair the damages that they've done. Know what they'll be doing? Watching Jeremy Kyle on their recently looted 50" plasma screen. (jeremy kyle being a british Jerry Springer, only less funny, and much more annoying forthose that haven't the 'pleasure') whilst spending their job seekers allowance down the pub, whilst not looking for a job.
Part of me wants to walk around executing the looters as I see them. I'm sorry for that part of me, I truely am, but I want my friends and my family to be protected, physically, mentally and financially.
Another part of me wants to sit the looters down, give them a cup of tea and say "come on now, stop this ridiculousness, be all that you can be, start a business and make something of yourself".
Kitch102 needs to stop living in dreamworld again.
Dare I ask what my fellow Dakkites think to my jumbled thoughts?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote:They're just justifying their fun. I've seen it every day in school. It's not a sign of political allegience.
Some food for though-what would the situation in Britain be like now, if, like here in the states, the police had access to submachine guns? Or if the shop owners could legally carry weapons?
It'd be horrible, and a memorial would be built to commemorate the lives lost. Family members would be on TV, crying, saying their so & so didn't deserve to die, they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. The Police would be criticized for taking steps to stop what was happening...
...I don't know what the right thing to do is... My thoughts would be to arm the police with the necessary tools... ie, tear gas, riot shields... ONE OR 2 more lethal weapons (per 'team') if the gak were to hit the fan, and enforce a curfew. Announce that those out after curfew would be challenged by armed police that have the authority to take necessary action. A loose term given as decisions need to be made on the field and not in an office.
But then you have to worry about escalation. Cops pack pistols, looters pack shotguns, we pack semi automatic weaponry, they get black market full autos...
There is no right or wrong way to go about it. My thoughts are that we need a prompt end to the riots / lootings and to live with the decisions made as those being the best possible options available at the time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I do think that a public vote needs to be passed for any future occurences that states the overall public opinion of what level of force should be authorised should this ever happen again
Where are you mate? You got people with you? Stay safe dude
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Some food for though-what would the situation in Britain be like now, if, like here in the states, the police had access to submachine guns? Or if the shop owners could legally carry weapons?
_Tim?
Having thought about this a little more... The cops that shot that gangster were carrying MP5's, so we do have access to them, they're just not on display all the time. I don't believe that this has started as a result of that shooting - people just took advantage of a black man being shot and disguised looting / petty theft as a protest against racial treatment.
This is a disturbing vid, seems that there is a major political bent to these riots. These girls are so imbued in the thought that the rich are causing austerity. This is very disturbing as they're cheering on mindless violence in the name of "get the rich!". What the hell has happened to the youth of the UK? Granted this isn't all of why the riots are going on, but just senseless looting and rioting because a thug was shot? I'm not buying it. That's a convenient cover and reason, but not the underlying one. This smacks of a class of people so dependent on Government that they know no other way to function. Pure and simple.
I don't know what's worse, that the riots are going on or that the BBC called people defending their homes & businesses as "Vigilantes". Disgusting. Try rioting around here and you're likely to wind up dead or horribly injured for your actions. When did the UK become so neutered?
Unemployment for youth sucks and the economy isn't likely to get significantly better either. The police are seen as corrupt/incompetent as well whether its the 1999 Stephen Lawrence case, Murdoch fiasco, or killing this gang member suspect after police shot eachother first (supposedly). The young have-nots are entering a declining Western world if things keep going the way they are unfortunately. The wealthy elite are too busy planning wars overseas for young poor people to fight and giving bankers free out of jail cards and executive bonuses. Sounds cynical but unfortunately pretty close to reality.
And its an excuse to loot stuff and have anarchy in the UK, V for Vendetta, yada yada yada.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:Some food for though-what would the situation in Britain be like now, if, like here in the states, the police had access to submachine guns? Or if the shop owners could legally carry weapons?
_Tim?
There'd be a lot more paperwork, a few more shops around, and more casualties. Maybe the riots would be over sooner, maybe not. Hopefully safety and security comes swiftly for the UK.
I don't think anyone with a brain doubts the police are doing enough. For a public service that has taken the brunt of cuts, recruitment freezes, multiple scandals, accusations of laziness and on top of all that, can expect to come back to a mountain of paperwork for every arrest they make, I think they're doing one hell of a fine job.
I've been waiting for this to happen in America actually. The way the rich have fleeced the poor and middle class, I've been worried about it. It wouldn't bee so bad if they just hit banks and lit all the houses the banks stole from people. Most shopkeepers however are just working slobs like everyone else, its the large corporations that are stripping workers of pay and benefits that need this kind of treatment.
Stormrider wrote:
This is a disturbing vid, seems that there is a major political bent to these riots. These girls are so imbued in the thought that the rich are causing austerity. This is very disturbing as they're cheering on mindless violence in the name of "get the rich!".
To be fair, "Get the rich!" is a message commonly propagated in the course of mindless political violence.
Stormrider wrote:
Granted this isn't all of why the riots are going on, but just senseless looting and rioting because a thug was shot? I'm not buying it.
People riot because their sports team lost, and even sometimes when they won. Its certainly not beyond the pale for judicial actions to cause riots, there was a particularly famous instance in which this occurred in Los Angeles.
Stormrider wrote:
That's a convenient cover and reason, but not the underlying one. This smacks of a class of people so dependent on Government that they know no other way to function. Pure and simple.
I'm confused, how are you linking this to socialism?
Stormrider wrote:
I don't know what's worse, that the riots are going on or that the BBC called people defending their homes & businesses as "Vigilantes". Disgusting. Try rioting around here and you're likely to wind up dead or horribly injured for your actions. When did the UK become so neutered?
See, people have said that several times in this thread, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when American police resorted lethal force in the face of a riot; and it certainly hasn't been sufficiently widespread to make the suffering of either consequence "likely". The use of lethal force in the suppression of rioters is generally the province of authoritarian governments, not liberal democracies.
I think one thing that helped the citizens of L.A. was their right to bear arms. Like I said earlier, armed Korean shopkeepers were able to defend their families and businesses from hordes of violent looters who had been targeting Asian minorities, without the help of the police. I'm not sure how strict gun control is in the U.K., or how many Britts own guns.
Some food for though-what would the situation in Britain be like now, if, like here in the states, the police had access to submachine guns? Or if the shop owners could legally carry weapons?
Probably be similar to what they have now. While the brits used to have a liberal view on firearms -ownership-...that does not automatically convey a permissive view towards their use, even in defense of life and limb.
I'm not sure how strict gun control is in the U.K., or how many Britts own guns.
Extremely strict compared to the US, particularly towards anything that might appear to be a modern combat longarm or most any handgun. Even their olympic team has to leave the borders to practice, last I heard. Not many own them.
romegamer wrote:I think one thing that helped the citizens of L.A. was their right to bear arms. Like I said earlier, armed Korean shopkeepers were able to defend their families and businesses from hordes of violent looters who had been targeting Asian minorities, without the help of the police. I'm not sure how strict gun control is in the U.K., or how many Britts own guns.
They're far more strict that those in the US, though its worth noting that relatively lax gun control also increases the likelihood that the rioters themselves will be armed.
romegamer wrote:I think one thing that helped the citizens of L.A. was their right to bear arms. Like I said earlier, armed Korean shopkeepers were able to defend their families and businesses from hordes of violent looters who had been targeting Asian minorities, without the help of the police. I'm not sure how strict gun control is in the U.K., or how many Britts own guns.
They're far more strict that those in the US, though its worth noting that relatively lax gun control also increases the likelihood that the rioters themselves will be armed.
True. However, When pitted against a desperate person defending their livelyhood, and possibly their family, I think a thug who was looking to steal something without being challeneged will not be willing to risk his life, while the shopkeeper may have no choice.
However, When pitted against a desperate person defending their livelyhood, and possibly their family, I think a thug who was looking to steal something without being challeneged will not be willing to risk his life, while the shopkeeper may have no choice.
To boot, one stands a better chance armed and outnumbered than they do unarmed and outnumbered. The cost of losing is also no higher. Being beaten to death is a better fate than being shot dead only in the minds of people who still have romantic notions of fighting.
Stormrider wrote:
This is a disturbing vid, seems that there is a major political bent to these riots. These girls are so imbued in the thought that the rich are causing austerity. This is very disturbing as they're cheering on mindless violence in the name of "get the rich!".
To be fair, "Get the rich!" is a message commonly propagated in the course of mindless political violence.
Stormrider wrote:
Granted this isn't all of why the riots are going on, but just senseless looting and rioting because a thug was shot? I'm not buying it.
People riot because their sports team lost, and even sometimes when they won. Its certainly not beyond the pale for judicial actions to cause riots, there was a particularly famous instance in which this occurred in Los Angeles.
Stormrider wrote:
That's a convenient cover and reason, but not the underlying one. This smacks of a class of people so dependent on Government that they know no other way to function. Pure and simple.
I'm confused, how are you linking this to socialism?
Stormrider wrote:
I don't know what's worse, that the riots are going on or that the BBC called people defending their homes & businesses as "Vigilantes". Disgusting. Try rioting around here and you're likely to wind up dead or horribly injured for your actions. When did the UK become so neutered?
See, people have said that several times in this thread, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when American police resorted lethal force in the face of a riot; and it certainly hasn't been sufficiently widespread to make the suffering of either consequence "likely". The use of lethal force in the suppression of rioters is generally the province of authoritarian governments, not liberal democracies.
What about the NYC draft riots?, though that was after the police had been completely overpowered, and the Military was called in. For our friends overseas, this is the incident that was seen in the movie "Gangs of New York", not sighting that as historically accurate to the letter, just a good overview.
romegamer wrote:
What about the NYC draft riots?, though that was after the police had been completely overpowered, and the Military was called in. For our friends overseas, this is the incident that was seen in the movie "Gangs of New York", not sighting that as historically accurate to the letter, just a good overview.
It certainly has happened, though the US probably would not have been considered a liberal democracy at the time. Then there's the issue of the Civil War, and the unique pressure it put on the political climate of the time.
Albatross wrote:Manchester city centre is chaos at present - widespread looting and disorder. My missus was in a pub with a friend and they started putting the shutters down so she legged it across town and managed to get beck to our house in the northern suburbs of the city. Worrying times. I am furious.
Do you see more cops now than before Alby? Glad she made it home.
Thanks. I wasn't in the city centre as I was at the studio, but I could hear sirens all night, and I live several miles outside of the centre. Apparently it was total chaos. The restaurant Mrs. Albatross was at had it it's windows smashed up shortly after she left... she got home fine though.
Are the hooligans limited to business areas or are they in residential neighborhoods now?
Looks like it's just business areas - they certainly haven't made it this far to the north of the city.
SOFDC wrote:
To boot, one stands a better chance armed and outnumbered than they do unarmed and outnumbered. The cost of losing is also no higher. Being beaten to death is a better fate than being shot dead only in the minds of people who still have romantic notions of fighting.
I'm not sure that first part is true if the people doing the outnumbering are also armed. In either case the best option is to flee, if the goal is protecting one's life.
In either case, from the perspective of the state, gun ownership during a riot is a liability as it will generally render the riot more difficult to suppress due to the presence of weapons on par with those possessed by the police. Whether or not individuals are able to better defend themselves is basically irrelevant, as individual lives do not matter in the face of regaining order.
Stormrider wrote:
This is a disturbing vid, seems that there is a major political bent to these riots. These girls are so imbued in the thought that the rich are causing austerity. This is very disturbing as they're cheering on mindless violence in the name of "get the rich!".
To be fair, "Get the rich!" is a message commonly propagated in the course of mindless political violence.
Stormrider wrote:
Granted this isn't all of why the riots are going on, but just senseless looting and rioting because a thug was shot? I'm not buying it.
People riot because their sports team lost, and even sometimes when they won. Its certainly not beyond the pale for judicial actions to cause riots, there was a particularly famous instance in which this occurred in Los Angeles.
Stormrider wrote:
That's a convenient cover and reason, but not the underlying one. This smacks of a class of people so dependent on Government that they know no other way to function. Pure and simple.
I'm confused, how are you linking this to socialism?
Stormrider wrote:
I don't know what's worse, that the riots are going on or that the BBC called people defending their homes & businesses as "Vigilantes". Disgusting. Try rioting around here and you're likely to wind up dead or horribly injured for your actions. When did the UK become so neutered?
See, people have said that several times in this thread, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when American police resorted lethal force in the face of a riot; and it certainly hasn't been sufficiently widespread to make the suffering of either consequence "likely". The use of lethal force in the suppression of rioters is generally the province of authoritarian governments, not liberal democracies.
Point 1: Certainly, it's easy to gin up the masses by playing to their jealousy. This is neither new or exciting, just typical class warfare rhetoric.
Point 2: They do indeed riot over inane things such as professional sports. Mayhem has no one true source, but this one seems like a more overt class struggle. It's not helping their case at all. I see most of the sports related riots here in North America are a few fans that are either bombsauced or bombsauced+furious over their team's win/loss and need to go be a bit too exuberant and burning cars/storefronts becomes fun. These people should be ashamed of themselves.
Point 3: I've read a couple articles over the last couple of days (combined with the Student Protests/Riots earlier this year in the UK) about the youth complaining about Government backed college tuition being cut back. I would imagine that the cuts do indeed have some effect on this rash of violence. When the girls talked about the "rich", they're probably referring to austerity. It's been conditioned into them that they're entitled to another person's money and it's rearing it's ugly head now that the money dried up a bit.
Point 4: I'm not referring to the local government, I'm referring to the homeowner and business owner. At least where I live the police would probably not frown upon you defending your property from vagrants. This is particularly true with uninvited home/business invaders. In bigger cities they (local and municipal government) have the attitude that the police should handle everything, nonsense. They can't be on every street corner, at every store, in every house to prevent every crime. Independent initiative in cases like this are needed. Riots are a collection of brave cowards, scare the piss out of one and the rest tend to scatter. No one wants to be the hero unless they're crazy.
SOFDC wrote:
To boot, one stands a better chance armed and outnumbered than they do unarmed and outnumbered. The cost of losing is also no higher. Being beaten to death is a better fate than being shot dead only in the minds of people who still have romantic notions of fighting.
I'm not sure that first part is true if the people doing the outnumbering are also armed. In either case the best option is to flee, if the goal is protecting one's life.
In either case, from the perspective of the state, gun ownership during a riot is a liability as it will generally render the riot more difficult to suppress due to the presence of weapons on par with those possessed by the police. Whether or not individuals are able to better defend themselves is basically irrelevant, as individual lives do not matter in the face of regaining order.
You may argue that they are irrelevant to the police, but it sure as s*** isn't irrelevant to the individual, and that's the point of view I'm taking, although you may be thinking from a different perspective in which case you are absolutely right. I do not agree with your argument of the armed mob, because looters are not fighting for a cause they are willing to die for, which is what they would face against armed police, even if they had weapons to shoot back. The police and the shopkeep are fighting for something, the looters, not so much, you have to remember, this isnt a political popular revolution, its a bunch of thugs out to steal and victimize.
SOFDC wrote:
To boot, one stands a better chance armed and outnumbered than they do unarmed and outnumbered. The cost of losing is also no higher. Being beaten to death is a better fate than being shot dead only in the minds of people who still have romantic notions of fighting.
I'm not sure that first part is true if the people doing the outnumbering are also armed. In either case the best option is to flee, if the goal is protecting one's life.
In either case, from the perspective of the state, gun ownership during a riot is a liability as it will generally render the riot more difficult to suppress due to the presence of weapons on par with those possessed by the police. Whether or not individuals are able to better defend themselves is basically irrelevant, as individual lives do not matter in the face of regaining order.
The rooters in LA learned in a quick hurry it was a bad idea to assault homes and businesses where the owners were armed and not shy about using their guns. Those places ended up faring far better than their unarmed equivelents because the people were defending their families, lives, and livelihoods, while the rioters were just looking for easy pickings.
I wish I was over there shoulder to shoulder with you British Dakkites right now. Nothing pisses me off more than oxygen thieves like these looters.
SOFDC wrote:
To boot, one stands a better chance armed and outnumbered than they do unarmed and outnumbered. The cost of losing is also no higher. Being beaten to death is a better fate than being shot dead only in the minds of people who still have romantic notions of fighting.
I'm not sure that first part is true if the people doing the outnumbering are also armed. In either case the best option is to flee, if the goal is protecting one's life.
In either case, from the perspective of the state, gun ownership during a riot is a liability as it will generally render the riot more difficult to suppress due to the presence of weapons on par with those possessed by the police. Whether or not individuals are able to better defend themselves is basically irrelevant, as individual lives do not matter in the face of regaining order.
The rooters in LA learned in a quick hurry it was a bad idea to assault homes and businesses where the owners were armed and not shy about using their guns. Those places ended up faring far better than their unarmed equivelents because the people were defending their families, lives, and livelihoods, while the rioters were just looking for easy pickings.
I wish I was over there shoulder to shoulder with you British Dakkites right now. Nothing pisses me off more than oxygen thieves like these looters.
Yes, I have mentioned the Korean shopkeepers several times in this thread, I totally agree with you.
Stormrider wrote:
This is a disturbing vid, seems that there is a major political bent to these riots. These girls are so imbued in the thought that the rich are causing austerity. This is very disturbing as they're cheering on mindless violence in the name of "get the rich!".
To be fair, "Get the rich!" is a message commonly propagated in the course of mindless political violence.
Stormrider wrote:
Granted this isn't all of why the riots are going on, but just senseless looting and rioting because a thug was shot? I'm not buying it.
People riot because their sports team lost, and even sometimes when they won. Its certainly not beyond the pale for judicial actions to cause riots, there was a particularly famous instance in which this occurred in Los Angeles.
Stormrider wrote:
That's a convenient cover and reason, but not the underlying one. This smacks of a class of people so dependent on Government that they know no other way to function. Pure and simple.
I'm confused, how are you linking this to socialism?
Stormrider wrote:
I don't know what's worse, that the riots are going on or that the BBC called people defending their homes & businesses as "Vigilantes". Disgusting. Try rioting around here and you're likely to wind up dead or horribly injured for your actions. When did the UK become so neutered?
See, people have said that several times in this thread, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when American police resorted lethal force in the face of a riot; and it certainly hasn't been sufficiently widespread to make the suffering of either consequence "likely". The use of lethal force in the suppression of rioters is generally the province of authoritarian governments, not liberal democracies.
What about the NYC draft riots?, though that was after the police had been completely overpowered, and the Military was called in. For our friends overseas, this is the incident that was seen in the movie "Gangs of New York", not sighting that as historically accurate to the letter, just a good overview.
Indeed, these riots were in our most authoritarian time in our history. The North was a pretty close to a dictatorship.
Stormrider wrote:
This is a disturbing vid, seems that there is a major political bent to these riots. These girls are so imbued in the thought that the rich are causing austerity. This is very disturbing as they're cheering on mindless violence in the name of "get the rich!".
To be fair, "Get the rich!" is a message commonly propagated in the course of mindless political violence.
Stormrider wrote:
Granted this isn't all of why the riots are going on, but just senseless looting and rioting because a thug was shot? I'm not buying it.
People riot because their sports team lost, and even sometimes when they won. Its certainly not beyond the pale for judicial actions to cause riots, there was a particularly famous instance in which this occurred in Los Angeles.
Stormrider wrote:
That's a convenient cover and reason, but not the underlying one. This smacks of a class of people so dependent on Government that they know no other way to function. Pure and simple.
I'm confused, how are you linking this to socialism?
Stormrider wrote:
I don't know what's worse, that the riots are going on or that the BBC called people defending their homes & businesses as "Vigilantes". Disgusting. Try rioting around here and you're likely to wind up dead or horribly injured for your actions. When did the UK become so neutered?
See, people have said that several times in this thread, but I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when American police resorted lethal force in the face of a riot; and it certainly hasn't been sufficiently widespread to make the suffering of either consequence "likely". The use of lethal force in the suppression of rioters is generally the province of authoritarian governments, not liberal democracies.
What about the NYC draft riots?, though that was after the police had been completely overpowered, and the Military was called in. For our friends overseas, this is the incident that was seen in the movie "Gangs of New York", not sighting that as historically accurate to the letter, just a good overview.
Indeed, these riots were in our most authoritarian time in our history. The North was a pretty close to a dictatorship.
Totally agreed. A turbulent time in the country's history, to be sure, but that's what makes us American. Sorry, ranting.
Stormrider wrote:
Point 2: They do indeed riot over inane things such as professional sports. Mayhem has no one true source, but this one seems like a more overt class struggle. It's not helping their case at all. I see most of the sports related riots here in North America are a few fans that are either bombsauced or bombsauced+furious over their team's win/loss and need to go be a bit too exuberant and burning cars/storefronts becomes fun. These people should be ashamed of themselves.
I would say that an overt class struggle is far more legitimate reason to loot and burn than professional sports. I mean, plenty of revolts against the state have been driven by class struggle, at least in part. Its certainly no worse than rioting over national pride, or a desire to oust a supposedly unjust regime.
Stormrider wrote:
Point 3: I've read a couple articles over the last couple of days (combined with the Student Protests/Riots earlier this year in the UK) about the youth complaining about Government backed college tuition being cut back. I would imagine that the cuts do indeed have some effect on this rash of violence. When the girls talked about the "rich", they're probably referring to austerity. It's been conditioned into them that they're entitled to another person's money and it's rearing it's ugly head now that the money dried up a bit.
Its not really a matter of entitlement so much as sociopolitical institution which they have begun accustomed to that is being taken away. You would see a similar reaction if the American government decided to repeal the 1st or 2nd Amendment, and end its legal protection of the rights to speak freely and bear arms. Indeed, some of the Tea Party protests over healthcare, while not riots in any sense, were extremely vitriolic and intensely focused on political institutions that the healthcare bill was said to be ending, or negatively impacting.
Stormrider wrote:
Point 4: I'm not referring to the local government, I'm referring to the homeowner and business owner. At least where I live the police would probably not frown upon you defending your property from vagrants. This is particularly true with uninvited home/business invaders. In bigger cities they (local and municipal government) have the attitude that the police should handle everything, nonsense. They can't be on every street corner, at every store, in every house to prevent every crime. Independent initiative in cases like this are needed. Riots are a collection of brave cowards, scare the piss out of one and the rest tend to scatter. No one wants to be the hero unless they're crazy.
Strictly speaking, people taking matters into their own hands during a riot is the sort of vigilantism that exacerbates the problem of returning order to the affected area. It is one thing to defend yourself and your property, but going out and directly confronting rioters essentially just makes you another rioter, and therefore another problem because police entering the area will not differentiate between the two. This is a situation in which the police actually should handle everything, because it is the role of the police to maintain order, which also includes enforcing the law.
I don't agree that rioters are brave cowards however, unless their motive is looting. People angry enough to riot do not generally make sufficiently rationale decisions to be referred as cowards.
Stormrider wrote:
Point 2: They do indeed riot over inane things such as professional sports. Mayhem has no one true source, but this one seems like a more overt class struggle. It's not helping their case at all. I see most of the sports related riots here in North America are a few fans that are either bombsauced or bombsauced+furious over their team's win/loss and need to go be a bit too exuberant and burning cars/storefronts becomes fun. These people should be ashamed of themselves.
I would say that an overt class struggle is far more legitimate reason to loot and burn than professional sports. I mean, plenty of revolts against the state have been driven by class struggle, at least in part. Its certainly no worse than rioting over national pride, or a desire to oust a supposedly unjust regime.
Stormrider wrote:
Point 3: I've read a couple articles over the last couple of days (combined with the Student Protests/Riots earlier this year in the UK) about the youth complaining about Government backed college tuition being cut back. I would imagine that the cuts do indeed have some effect on this rash of violence. When the girls talked about the "rich", they're probably referring to austerity. It's been conditioned into them that they're entitled to another person's money and it's rearing it's ugly head now that the money dried up a bit.
Its not really a matter of entitlement so much as sociopolitical institution which they have begun accustomed to that is being taken away. You would see a similar reaction if the American government decided to repeal the 1st or 2nd Amendment, and end its legal protection of the rights to speak freely and bear arms. Indeed, some of the Tea Party protests over healthcare, while not riots in any sense, were extremely vitriolic and intensely focused on political institutions that the healthcare bill was said to be ending, or negatively impacting.
Stormrider wrote:
Point 4: I'm not referring to the local government, I'm referring to the homeowner and business owner. At least where I live the police would probably not frown upon you defending your property from vagrants. This is particularly true with uninvited home/business invaders. In bigger cities they (local and municipal government) have the attitude that the police should handle everything, nonsense. They can't be on every street corner, at every store, in every house to prevent every crime. Independent initiative in cases like this are needed. Riots are a collection of brave cowards, scare the piss out of one and the rest tend to scatter. No one wants to be the hero unless they're crazy.
Strictly speaking, people taking matters into their own hands during a riot is the sort of vigilantism that exacerbates the problem of returning order to the affected area. It is one thing to defend yourself and your property, but going out and directly confronting rioters essentially just makes you another rioter, and therefore another problem because police entering the area will not differentiate between the two. This is a situation in which the police actually should handle everything, because it is the role of the police to maintain order, which also includes enforcing the law.
I don't agree that rioters are brave cowards however, unless their motive is looting. People angry enough to riot do not generally make sufficiently rationale decisions to be referred as cowards.
There is no legitimate reason to loot the shops of people in your own community to get back at the state.
In LA people calling for help from the police were often told that they were on their own for a while. I'd call that liscence to do what it took to defend themselves and property.
romegamer wrote:I do not agree with your argument of the armed mob, because looters are not fighting for a cause they are willing to die for, which is what they would face against armed police, even if they had weapons to shoot back. The police and the shopkeep are fighting for something, the looters, not so much, you have to remember, this isnt a political popular revolution, its a bunch of thugs out to steal and victimize.
Not everyone riots in order to loot. In fact, considering how much property destruction tends to go on, I would say that its a fairly minor motive. Indeed, you can pick out the areas in which looting is more widespread by the absence of fighting and burning things. Those people tend to operate on the edges of the riot in order to make a quick profit, and generally avoid violence. The rioters themselves, the angry violent people, are less concerned with theft than breaking things and causing harm to others. They're not usually armed, at least not uniformly, but I think it would be a mistake to think that they won't fight and kill people, even when presented with resistance, especially early in a riot.
romegamer wrote:I do not agree with your argument of the armed mob, because looters are not fighting for a cause they are willing to die for, which is what they would face against armed police, even if they had weapons to shoot back. The police and the shopkeep are fighting for something, the looters, not so much, you have to remember, this isnt a political popular revolution, its a bunch of thugs out to steal and victimize.
Not everyone riots in order to loot. In fact, considering how much property destruction tends to go on, I would say that its a fairly minor motive. Indeed, you can pick out the areas in which looting is more widespread by the absence of fighting and burning things. Those people tend to operate on the edges of the riot in order to make a quick profit, and generally avoid violence. The rioters themselves, the angry violent people, are less concerned with theft than breaking things and causing harm to others. They're not usually armed, at least not uniformly, but I think it would be a mistake to think that they won't fight and kill people, even when presented with resistance, especially early in a riot.
The looters in LA couldn't get away from armed resistance fast enough.
Ghandi, defeated the most powerful empire on earth in his struggle for freedom, without leading any riots, looting, or burning. Martin Luther King Junior did the same. I wish people could learn from their example.
romegamer wrote:
There is no legitimate reason to loot the shops of people in your own community to get back at the state.
Well, if your purpose is just to get back at the state, then you might do such a thing in order to make it look weak, and so shake public support for them. The reality is that it tends to be a matter of simply being angry at the society, and everything that is part of it. Additionally, being a member of what we call a community in common parlance doesn't mean a community is actually there. For example, live in a Central Illinois college town, but the community of which I am a part is only a small section of it. I'm not part of the community that constitutes the townies, or even undergraduate students, and I'm sure those groups would further breakdown into even small communities organized around smaller institutions.
romegamer wrote:
There is no legitimate reason to loot the shops of people in your own community to get back at the state.
Well, if your purpose is just to get back at the state, then you might do such a thing in order to make it look weak, and so shake public support for them. The reality is that it tends to be a matter of simply being angry at the society, and everything that is part of it. Additionally, being a member of what we call a community in common parlance doesn't mean a community is actually there. For example, live in a Central Illinois college town, but the community of which I am a part is only a small section of it. I'm not part of the community that constitutes the townies, or even undergraduate students, and I'm sure those groups would further breakdown into even small communities organized around smaller institutions.
If that is the case then you destroy the store and merchandise, like at the Boston Tea Party. You don't take home the big screen T.V. and plug it in your living room. To me it's petty theft, plain and simple.
romegamer wrote:Ghandi, defeated the most powerful empire on earth in his struggle for freedom, without leading any riots, looting, or burning. Martin Luther King Junior did the same. I wish people could learn from their example.
The thing about MLK and Ghandi is that everyone seems to forget that, while they advocated nonviolence, they were both simply parts of larger movements that were not so inclined. These more violent groups, like the Black Panthers and the Sepoys, were also important to the successes achieved by Ghandi and MLK.
Nonviolence almost never works in isolation, because ultimately they're just dissenters until violent resistance labels them as "good dissenters."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
romegamer wrote:
If that is the case then you destroy the store and merchandise, like at the Boston Tea Party. You don't take home the big screen T.V. and plug it in your living room. To me it's petty theft, plain and simple.
Why is theft preferable to the destruction of property? In both cases you deprive the original owner of his things.
romegamer wrote:Ghandi, defeated the most powerful empire on earth in his struggle for freedom, without leading any riots, looting, or burning. Martin Luther King Junior did the same. I wish people could learn from their example.
The thing about MLK and Ghandi is that everyone seems to forget that, while they advocated nonviolence, they were both simply parts of larger movements that were not so inclined. These more violent groups, like the Black Panthers and the Sepoys, were also important to the successes achieved by Ghandi and MLK.
Nonviolence almost never works in isolation, because ultimately they're just dissenters until violent resistance labels them as "good dissenters."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
romegamer wrote:
If that is the case then you destroy the store and merchandise, like at the Boston Tea Party. You don't take home the big screen T.V. and plug it in your living room. To me it's petty theft, plain and simple.
Why is theft preferable to the destruction of property? In both cases you deprive the original owner of his things.
I do not think it is preferable, my point is that, if your aim was to strike out angrily at society, you don't steal one item that is all you can carry, then run off back to where you came from.
And I would argue that MLK was the large movement, and the the black panthers were a violent minority of it. His actions such as the bus boycott almost exclusively got real results, and he had meaningful communication with the president. Malcom X did not.
I think it should also be stated that both MLK and Gandhi were killed while pursuing their agendas, IMO that says a lot about the fate of non violent protests. You might get your point across, you might even win out in the end, but a whole lot of people are going to die or get hurt in the process.
I think they should of deployed a regiment that had just come back from a tour of Afghanistan to help the police. Hmmm, lets see, blokes who'd seen action and probably seen mates die, v the scum who have contributed nothing.
I love how people are saying "Oooh they should be tougher with the rioters!"
If I was a copper, why the feth would I fire an AEP round (baton gun) in a riot situation? If it goes even slightly wrong and somebody is killed (and it will happen, that 41mm piece of hard plastic can kill someone) then I will receive no support at all from the media, politicians, senior police officers or ill informed members of the public. I will be tried by the media and I can kiss goodbye to my job/pension/liberty.
They are even making out that the fething scumbag that got shot was a "selfless family man" who "doted on his children" despite all the evidence to the contrary.
Leftie pinkos caused this mess, an alarming number of people I know on facebook are still chirping on about the bankers instead of condemning the people responsible.
I hope London, Manchester and Birmingham get absolutely anhilated. Hundreds of millions of pounds worth of damage. I hope that decent people who naively sit to the left of centre and chirp on about human rights all the time lose absolutely everything.
Only then, can we start to get gak done. And by getting gak done, I mean bust out the water cannons, the CS gas and the baton guns and start mashing some heads.
I do wonder if we will see a drop in crime across London over the next couple of months as the criminal scum types who piled in to the riots end up arrested and charged. Looking forward to some analysis of all this delicious social data in a couple of years time!
It also seems that at some point yesterday, after they made their announcement about helping the police with their enquiries, the Blackberry site was hacked.
It 's all been fixed/brushed away now, I believe there's a few sites here and there mirroring ( is that the term ?) what it did look like
the message, from one " @TeaMp0isoN_ "
read
Dear Rim;
You Will _NOT_ assist the UK Police because if you do innocent members of the public who were at the wrong place at the wrong time and owned a blackberry will get charged for no reason at all, the Police are looking to arrest as many people as possible to save themselves from embarrassment…. if you do assist the police by giving them chat logs, gps locations, customer information & access to peoples BlackBerryMessengers you will regret it, we have access to your database which includes your employees information; e.g – Addresses, Names, Phone Numbers etc. – now if you assist the police, we _WILL_ make this information public and pass it onto rioters…. do you really want a bunch of angry youths on your employees doorsteps? Think about it…. and don’t think that the police will protect your employees, the police can’t protect themselves let alone protect others….. if you make the wrong choice your database will be made public, save yourself the embarrassment and make the right choice. don’t be a puppet..
(Un)Fortunatly(?) unlike the states we don't have caches of weapons meaning that the rioters aren't armed but similarly we cannot defend ourselfs. Thankfully the civilised Southamption and oxfordshire seem largely unscaythed. Oxfordshire is rich so that makes sense but 'chavhamption' has large areas of poverty and anti-social behaviour - I am genuinely surprised that there's no riots.
(Un)Fortunatly(?) unlike the states we don't have caches of weapons meaning that the rioters aren't armed but similarly we cannot defend ourselfs. Thankfully the civilised Southamption and oxfordshire seem largely unscaythed. Oxfordshire is rich so that makes sense but 'chavhamption' has large areas of poverty and anti-social behaviour - I am genuinely surprised that there's no riots.
What "revolution" is starting?
Nothing is starting. These feth heads will trash things for a week, and then everything goes back to normal.
What are you saying? Are you "pro" acting like a fething idiot and looting shops?
Also, there are plenty of poor people and there's plenty of scum in Oxford and Oxfordshire. Luckily, the Oxfordshire police seem to be a little better prepared, and have prevented any idiots from trying anything.
As I said, if your a copper and you hit someone with a baton, your a fool.
Photographed by a reporter? Trial by media, disciplined. fethed.
The smart thing to do is go and make a cup of tea and ignore them, and thats exacrtly what happened.
The people that are whinging about the "lack of action" on the part of the police, are the very same people that complain about the rights of victims, complain about police brutality.
Its illogical. You cant have your cake and eat it.
Thatchers puppets would have beat the gak out of these oiks and stopped the problem inside 20 minutes!
But no no.. 13 years of liberals in charge and now policemen aren't allowed to defend themselves for fear of reprisals.
Take the gloves off, crush the rioters, and slap the backs of the officers when they got photographed smashing someone's face in with a truncheon and this problem will go away.
I live in 'Call me Dave's constituency, and there was talk of looting there last night. Went for a walk at around 11pm..... Nothing, not a soul except for the stragglers being kicked out of the pubs.
sarpedons-right-hand wrote:I live in 'Call me Dave's constituency, and there was talk of looting there last night. Went for a walk at around 11pm..... Nothing, not a soul except for the stragglers being kicked out of the pubs.
Considering I saw a local newspaper there which was comparing people 'urinating and having sex on trees (?)' to being 'like World War 3,' this doesn't surprise me all that much. I'm not sure what looting would constitute. The battle for Armageddon perhaps?
Kilkrazy wrote:At the student protests and various other recent protest marches the police used high density kettling tactics against mainly law-abiding citizens who were trying to exercise their democratic rights.
Unsurprisingly there was an outcry against that.
Locking down an actual riot is a completely different situation and the police reaction to these riots has been "low key" at best.
I agree with this post 100 %. It's behind the surface of that stance taken by the authorities that truly bothers me.
It will be interesting to see some of the research done after this is all said and done. Specifically, how the role of the internet and social networking sites on prolonging the rioting.
Looks like Strathclyde Police aren't taking any chances, just passed two patrol cars and a fully loaded Riot van all in my tiny little town. A bit weird considering theres not been a hint of trouble in Scotland. Wish we had that kind of police presence two weeks ago when a scrapyard and two cars were torched within 50 yards of my house.
Now that the rain has come I think the trouble will die out, scum dont like water. The worrying thing about all this is the precedence it sets for the future, if enough scumbags go out on the rob theres not much the Police can do to stop them.
These riots are appalling, and I really wish there was a way to help. Britain has stood by the USA for so long that it just breaks my heart to see all this upheaval. I've met a lot of good Brits while in Iraq, and you don't deserve this.
My areas been pretty alright, we had a scare yesterday and the entire High Street was put into lock down after some shop windows were smashed. The Police hung around for a while but Putneys a pretty boring place, safe from looters!
People have been killed now. Seriously, time for some martial law.
What happened to you England? You used to be hardcore. If this was some trouble making Irishmen you would have sent in tanks by now.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:People have been killed now. Seriously, time for some martial law. What happened to you England? You used to be hardcore. If this was some trouble making Irishmen you would have sent in tanks by now.
We were given exactly zero choice between 3 frankly useless Party leaders....IMO at least.
Im waiting for the Queen to bitchslap 'just call me Dave' and take control herself.....pleasepleaseplease
KamikazeCanuck wrote:People have been killed now. Seriously, time for some martial law.
What happened to you England? You used to be hardcore. If this was some trouble making Irishmen you would have sent in tanks by now.
I don't think the British government has EVER put tanks on the streets of Northern Ireland. I do agree that the military should have been deployed by now, if only to relieve some of the pressure from the police.
In other news: Holy gak. Manchester looked a right mess this morning. Also, just got back from Ikea, where me and the missus just got turfed out because of 'approaching trouble' (according to staff). The missus wanted to stop and look at lamps as we were leaving. Because she's a brain surgeon.
The army put tanks onto Belfast streets during Operation Motorman in 1972. However you need to read the word 'tank' as meaning mobile roadblock, decoy and impervious observation post not as overkill fire support or house crusher.
IDF they are not.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:People have been killed now. Seriously, time for some martial law.
What happened to you England? You used to be hardcore. If this was some trouble making Irishmen you would have sent in tanks by now.
I don't think the British government has EVER put tanks on the streets of Northern Ireland.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:People have been killed now. Seriously, time for some martial law.
What happened to you England? You used to be hardcore. If this was some trouble making Irishmen you would have sent in tanks by now.
I don't think the British government has EVER put tanks on the streets of Northern Ireland.
Pretty sure you're wrong on that.
I didn't know about that ONE occasion, because it was only ONE occasion, by the looks of it. And they were converted tanks used as demolition vehicles.
Not that you knew any of this of course, you were just peddling the misguided stereotype of evil moustache-twirling pantomime villain Brits ruthlessly crushing the valiant Micks. Which is total crap.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:People have been killed now. Seriously, time for some martial law.
What happened to you England? You used to be hardcore. If this was some trouble making Irishmen you would have sent in tanks by now.
I don't think the British government has EVER put tanks on the streets of Northern Ireland.
Pretty sure you're wrong on that.
I didn't know about that ONE occasion, because it was only ONE occasion, by the looks of it. And they were converted tanks used as demolition vehicles.
Not that you knew any of this of course, you were just peddling the misguided stereotype of evil moustache-twirling pantomime villain Brits ruthlessly crushing the valiant Micks. Which is total crap.
Actually you are the one making the assumption now. I even know the regiment. The Royal Scottish Dragoons. I was on vacation over there recently and that regiment has it's own museum in Edinburgh Castle covering everything from punching Napolean in the face to patrolling Northern Ireland. And they were there more than once.
If I owned the company that made those pepper spray paint ball rounds, I'd be sending crates to England right now. Just think of the exposure you could get. Yes there is a very small chance that they could be lethal, but it's pretty slim. I really don't understand why they haven"t used tear gas yet!
KamikazeCanuck wrote:People have been killed now. Seriously, time for some martial law.
What happened to you England? You used to be hardcore. If this was some trouble making Irishmen you would have sent in tanks by now.
I don't think the British government has EVER put tanks on the streets of Northern Ireland.
Pretty sure you're wrong on that.
I didn't know about that ONE occasion, because it was only ONE occasion, by the looks of it. And they were converted tanks used as demolition vehicles.
Not that you knew any of this of course, you were just peddling the misguided stereotype of evil moustache-twirling pantomime villain Brits ruthlessly crushing the valiant Micks. Which is total crap.
Actually you are the one making the assumption now. I even know the regiment. The Royal Scottish Dragoons. I was on vacation over there recently and that regiment has it's own museum in Edinburgh Castle covering everything from punching Napolean in the face to patrolling Northern Ireland. And they were there more than once.
Technically Alby is correct because the Dragoons are mechanised infantry, and they dont use tanks.
A warrior AFV is NOT a tank.
A Warrior weighs what, 25 tonnes? A challenger 2 is a tank, and they weigh about 65 tonnes.
Basically tanks are for killing tanks, AFVs are not classed as tanks. So In northern ireland we deployed APCs and AFVs, but not tanks, because it would be largely pointless.
KamikazeCanuck wrote:People have been killed now. Seriously, time for some martial law.
What happened to you England? You used to be hardcore. If this was some trouble making Irishmen you would have sent in tanks by now.
I don't think the British government has EVER put tanks on the streets of Northern Ireland.
Pretty sure you're wrong on that.
I didn't know about that ONE occasion, because it was only ONE occasion, by the looks of it. And they were converted tanks used as demolition vehicles.
Not that you knew any of this of course, you were just peddling the misguided stereotype of evil moustache-twirling pantomime villain Brits ruthlessly crushing the valiant Micks. Which is total crap.
Actually you are the one making the assumption now. I even know the regiment. The Royal Scottish Dragoons. I was on vacation over there recently and that regiment has it's own museum in Edinburgh Castle covering everything from punching Napolean in the face to patrolling Northern Ireland. And they were there more than once.
Technically Alby is correct because the Dragoons are mechanised infantry, and they dont use tanks.
A warrior AFV is NOT a tank.
A Warrior weighs what, 25 tonnes? A challenger 2 is a tank, and they weigh about 65 tonnes.
Basically tanks are for killing tanks, AFVs are not classed as tanks. So In northern ireland we deployed APCs and AFVs, but not tanks, because it would be largely pointless.
mattyrm wrote: Alright, armoured cavalry, but the point is they don't drive MBTs an MBT is a Challenger or an Abrams.
No, the Challenger is their main fighting vehicle. Trust me, there was several pictures of Challenger Tanks rolling down the street in Belfast in the regimental museum. Anyways, we're getting off-topic so let's steer this back to The Troubles II: Home Island edition.
Actually, they couldn't have been Challengers they are too new. Must have been Centurions. Anyways, like I said off-topic.
I'm still really surprised it hasn't all kicked off in Bradford yet. The army should deffinately have been deployed to help support the police, this government needs to stop being so damn soft on criminals. To me if you break the law of the country then you forfeit any right to be defended by that countries laws and law enforcement agencies. So you choose to loot a shop, a police officer or damn it even owner of said shop chooses to smash your skull in, well tough you have no recourse. This country has gone to hell in a hand basket thanks to it being continually lead by a bunch of incompetant cretins who couldn't organise a booze up in a brewery. I hope everyone is safe and that it all ends soon.
You will not see the Army in on this one I'm afraid.
The deployment of the Army would mean a public flogging (by media) for the Govt. I would also imagine that it might lead to the sooner than expected return to government of the soft as gak pansies that tied the hand of the police so much over the last 12 year period.
@ KamikazeCanuck - despite what you say you saw - I am almost certain there have never been Challengers deployed on the streets of Belfast.
mattyrm wrote: Send the Marines in, we covered the no good fething firemen, lets cover the no good fething police.
Might have to kill a few, but I guarantee my commando could have London quiet inside 6 hours, we can insert via the Thames and chop the head off the snake!
Am I the only one who hears Jason Statham's voice when I read Matty's posts?
There is one major issue from these riots that needs to be sorted once and for all and it is this: An Englishman's home is his castle.
Once and for all, the law needs to make clear that people have the right to use whatever means neccessary to defend ther homes,shops, and family, from marauding gangs of thugs, especially in the case of arson. If somebody tries to burn your house, and you smack him off the chops with a baseball bat, and he ends up with brain damage, then too bad.
I apologise for getting war-wacky, as I'm not normally like this. But these people bleating on about poverty and lack of opportunity make me sick sometimes. I come from a poor background, and I experienced poverty in the 1980s with the poll tax. But I never resorted to crime. I was determined to better myself with hard work and staying on at school. Things turned out well. Rant over!
mattyrm wrote: Alright, armoured cavalry, but the point is they don't drive MBTs an MBT is a Challenger or an Abrams.
No, the Challenger is their main fighting vehicle. Trust me, there was several pictures of Challenger Tanks rolling down the street in Belfast in the regimental museum. Anyways, we're getting off-topic so let's steer this back to The Troubles II: Home Island edition.
Actually, they couldn't have been Challengers they are too new. Must have been Centurions. Anyways, like I said off-topic.
Kilkrazy wrote:The Scimitar is a reconnaissance tank.
Its an armoured recon vehicle, or an AFV, its not a tank. A tank is an MBT such as a challenger or an abrams. I dont want to sound like a pedantic fether, but there is a big difference between a 20 tonne AFV like a Scimitar or a Warrior and an enormous weapon of death that fires depleted uranium shells. To a layman any AFV looks like a tank obviously, so its not a foolish mistake at all to make, but.. techincally its not a tank.
As I said, we took tanks to Iraq because they had tanks (T55,T62 etc) and tanks exist primarily to take out other tanks.
We took AFVs to NI, but because the IRA/UDF etc dont have tanks, it seems illogical to take MBTs there. Plus, they weigh in excess of 65 tonnes, they would probably annihilate all the roads.
Once you have done a bit of AFV recognisiton you can tell them all apart very easily, the size difference is pretty obvious though.. I had friends who could ping AFVs from miles away, some only by the sound they made, but the main armament is the first thing i used to look for.
Troy wrote:If I am reading correctly its about 9.00PM there now. Whats the situation like? News is sayign the London stuff is more under control now.
London is pretty much ok now from what i've seen, mainly because of the increased number of police also probably because of nothing left to loot. just finished work and there was 6 vans, 3 armoured, around 4 cars, loads of police walking around with quite a few wearing full riot gear. Thankfully they've managed to regain control, yesterday was a bit tense but they managed to disperse all the youths around mine without any violence. Places are still closing a bit earlier for safety reasons, just incase.
Took a walk over to Croydon, alot is cleared up but man it's upsetting looking at Reeves corner. If it wasn't for the people rallying together everywhere for the cleanup i would be completely ashamed to be part of the same country as those that did this. Just hope the rest of the country also gets everything a little more calm.
Seems tonight is calm from all the news reports. Feel very sorry now for the parents of the 3 blokes killed in the road collision in Birmingham. BUt yeah tonight is quiet. Eltham seems to have a mild disturbance but otherwise, little going.
Looks like the worst has passed off, just as I thought actually. Riots were really bad on day 3 and the Government acted. Now it's died down so someone can cry out it was too late. Bit debateable that one.
And it's funny - me in Northamptonshire and I heard 3-4 police cars in the afternoon... which is strange since my area is so dull nothing happens ever Guess I get lucky.
mattyrm wrote:Its an armoured recon vehicle, or an AFV, its not a tank. A tank is an MBT such as a challenger or an abrams. I dont want to sound like a pedantic fether, but there is a big difference between a 20 tonne AFV like a Scimitar or a Warrior and an enormous weapon of death that fires depleted uranium shells. To a layman any AFV looks like a tank obviously, so its not a foolish mistake at all to make, but.. techincally its not a tank.
Seriously tho, the argument "we didn't take tanks into Ireland, they were armored recon vehicles" seems a little pedantic. Most people think of a "tank" as a treaded vehicle with a turret-mounted cannon, and that's what the Scimitar is. So while it might not be technically accurate to call it a "tank," the UK did send armored fighting vehicles into Ireland.
Anyway, I read this and laughed. Incredibly frustrating and sad, yet strangely hilarious to watch the left try to defend these cretins.
mattyrm wrote: Alright, armoured cavalry, but the point is they don't drive MBTs an MBT is a Challenger or an Abrams or something.
You can visually see the difference though, things like Scimitars and Warriors and APCs and such are far lighter and smaller than MBTs
That's because a Challenger is a Main Battle Tank. This is a type of tank built for armour and gun power, so naturally it's bigger than a light recon tank.
Heavy tanks are useless in built up areas because they keep falling through the road into cellars and culverts due to their weight.
Ironically, I was PMing Matty to try to not derail the thread into a discussion on the use of British Armour in Northern Ireland. Mission Failed. Anyway, like I was saying to him most people are laymen like me and when they see a Scimitar there going to think "Oh, a friggin' tank, time to leave" not "pfff, clearly this is a recon tank or light tank not a main battle tank. No worries".
I think the most interesting line of the article was this:
"It's like the old days. It's bringing the community spirit back. Even though it's a sad way to do it, it's bringing the community together"
Although the looters have no excuse, and the rioters went overboard on the damage and destruction they caused, the core reason for the riots (Not the death of the scummy crack dealer, but the racial/socioeconomic divides and disadvatadges that have fostered this environment of outrage) is unfortunately legitimate.
While I understand the Dakkaites from the UK are understandably upset and concerned about these events, after your ruling party started cutting programs for people who need them the most, are you really that surprised that those same people are angry?
If these riots make you question the wisdom of further government cuts to people in bad socioeconomic conditions, have they achieved their base goal (Excluding the looting and excessive destruction, as stated above)?
Your government is to blame for setting up the conditions to foster events like these (As I'm sure, without changes in policy, these types of outbreaks will occur again), and while individual actions of some (Possibly many, but not all) of the rioters are reprehensible, the overall cause for the riots is really not from the rioters themselves.
I hope all of you over there stay safe, but please bear in mind that many of the people that were incensed to participate in this violence had absolutely no control over the fiscal policies and program cuts that further injured their socioeconomic outlooks. Be angry at the individuals who step over the line as well as the reasons that urged them to do so.
The theory that it's the Gov't falls over when you look at how many people affected by cuts did not riot, because it would achieve nothing more than further cuts in order to pay for repairs, and wouldn't exactly make investors feel great about their shares in stores that could be up in flames by the end of the night.
I don't think it's possible to say people aren't pissed off by the amount of cuts and job losses and all that crap the Gov't is trying to use to save money, and that a lot of people were questioning these choices way before the rioting started, but it's difficult to justify riots based on it when significant portions of the country who were also affected by them, did not participate in rioting.
I won't blame the Gov't for the rioting, I blame the people that saw a young man's death as a chance to strike terror into the hearts of innocent people whenever they took to the streets and shopping centres of major cities, and loot, burn and destroy whatever they found in their way.
I don't see how burning some poor guy's car or how torching a family business that's been going for 5 generations, is getting back at the Gov't; the whole attempted justification of the rioting is just bullfaeces; they simply chose a shaky topic and based it on that. If the war in the Middle East had recently come to the fore, then no doubt the rioting would be because of that, because it's the easiest way of explaining it all away.
Yes, the Gov't has cut all sorts, but how large of a percentage of those affected by them took to the streets and decided a raid on England' major cities would suddenly sort it all out? Unless these people can pull thick wads of £50s out of their hoodies, there isn't much that rioting will achieve other than yet more bills.
Oy. I think I opened a wonderful can of flaming-hate-worms...
I agree the people burning buildings/cars and looting are scumbags, and have no political motivation besides get-rich-quick and feth-the-government. It's unfortunate that they make up a large percentage of the rioters, and I hope the popo/military sort them out and stop the arson/looting.
However, the underlying cause of the riot was not profit, or anger over the death of a single crack dealer (Just like WWI was not solely caused by the death of the Archduke Ferdinand). These issues have been simmering for at least a decade, and recently inflamed by the cuts to the programs that affect them. This was not an overnight "They cut our programs, lets burn their houses" kind of thing. Other people in this thread have mentioned the L.A. Riots, and these were not only caused by the shooting of the African-American shoplifter by the Korean storeowner.
The rioting you're seeing is not an organized movement to disrupt the government and scare the populace, but rather the affected population of people in the areas rioting suddenly seeing a way to publically display their dissent (And, unfortunately in many cases, make a quick buck or perform some vandalism on those they think were screwing them). When you have an area affected by an issue and without a strong, organized community, the populations response will be chaotic and unorganized (Sorta like a... riot?).
As for the comment about other areas not rioting, if my neighborhood and all our houses are robbed, but my neighbors are not as upset about it as I am, does that de-legitimize my anger at the robbery? I'm sorry, but simply stating that "These people have no right to riot because no-one else is rioting" is complete BS. This suggests that some people opinions are of greater value than others, which devalues the person making the differing opinion.
I agree the government probably has very little room to change it's fiscal bills, but hopefully these riots will force them to possibly reconsider in the future slashing programs designed to prevent the environment that encouraged these riots in the first place.
Any of the rioters I have seen interviewed have been totally incoherant when trying to explain why it is justified. They blame everything from rich people to immigrants. We're not talking about a politically sophisticated demographic here. Talk of it being caused by cuts and so on (I mean, caused directly) is just media spin from those parties that oppose the cuts. I mean, the government doesn't have the money for the services. We either increase taxes or cut spending. (Whole nother debate for another day.)
I don't claim to know the entire reason for the riots, but it is my opinion that it has more to do with the policies of labour and the general attitude of many in britain with regard to social programs than anything the conservatives have done. If it was just about cuts it'd be easy to fix. It does far deeper than that, and I think in many ways it's unfixable.
Edit to add:
Well, that argument makes more sense. But the thing is, the UK spends quite a lot on social programs, and achieves very little in the way of social cohesivenes. The police are pretty soft from what I see, and life is generally pretty good for poorer people. Education is getting better all the time as well.
I feel like the biggest social problem in britain is the embeddedness of the class system. Like, it starts at 11 when kids are split off into different schools based on "ability". No 11 year old has fully developed cognitively, so that is just a bollocks reason to segregate kids and generally just propogates the class system.
Da Boss wrote:Any of the rioters I have seen interviewed have been totally incoherant when trying to explain why it is justified. They blame everything from rich people to immigrants. We're not talking about a politically sophisticated demographic here. Talk of it being caused by cuts and so on (I mean, caused directly) is just media spin from those parties that oppose the cuts. I mean, the government doesn't have the money for the services. We either increase taxes or cut spending. (Whole nother debate for another day.)
I don't claim to know the entire reason for the cuts, but it is my opinion that it has more to do with the policies of labour and the general attitude of many in britain with regard to social programs than anything the conservatives have done. If it was just about cuts it'd be easy to fix. It does far deeper than that, and I think in many ways it's unfixable.
Have to say this covers most of the salient points
Excommunicate Traitoris wrote:I'm still really surprised it hasn't all kicked off in Bradford yet. The army should deffinately have been deployed to help support the police, this government needs to stop being so damn soft on criminals. To me if you break the law of the country then you forfeit any right to be defended by that countries laws and law enforcement agencies. So you choose to loot a shop, a police officer or damn it even owner of said shop chooses to smash your skull in, well tough you have no recourse. This country has gone to hell in a hand basket thanks to it being continually lead by a bunch of incompetant cretins who couldn't organise a booze up in a brewery. I hope everyone is safe and that it all ends soon.
Agreed - I'm all for a bit of police brutality on the law-breaker scumbags.
Juvieus Kaine wrote:Seems tonight is calm from all the news reports. Feel very sorry now for the parents of the 3 blokes killed in the road collision in Birmingham. BUt yeah tonight is quiet. Eltham seems to have a mild disturbance but otherwise, little going.
Looks like the worst has passed off, just as I thought actually. Riots were really bad on day 3 and the Government acted. Now it's died down so someone can cry out it was too late. Bit debateable that one.
And it's funny - me in Northamptonshire and I heard 3-4 police cars in the afternoon... which is strange since my area is so dull nothing happens ever Guess I get lucky.
Hopefully you're right and it's all died down, sometimes it makes me embarrassed to be British with a sad minority letting the country down. Good to see the Police biting back and busting looters in their homes.
Da Boss wrote:Any of the rioters I have seen interviewed have been totally incoherant when trying to explain why it is justified. They blame everything from rich people to immigrants. We're not talking about a politically sophisticated demographic here. Talk of it being caused by cuts and so on (I mean, caused directly) is just media spin from those parties that oppose the cuts. I mean, the government doesn't have the money for the services. We either increase taxes or cut spending. (Whole nother debate for another day.)
I don't claim to know the entire reason for the riots, but it is my opinion that it has more to do with the policies of labour and the general attitude of many in britain with regard to social programs than anything the conservatives have done. If it was just about cuts it'd be easy to fix. It does far deeper than that, and I think in many ways it's unfixable.
Edit to add:
Well, that argument makes more sense. But the thing is, the UK spends quite a lot on social programs, and achieves very little in the way of social cohesivenes. The police are pretty soft from what I see, and life is generally pretty good for poorer people. Education is getting better all the time as well.
I feel like the biggest social problem in britain is the embeddedness of the class system. Like, it starts at 11 when kids are split off into different schools based on "ability". No 11 year old has fully developed cognitively, so that is just a bollocks reason to segregate kids and generally just propogates the class system.
"It was good fun yeah! Course it is yeah! Free wine..." "Its the governments fault.. er.... conservatives? Uh? Who? I dunno?" "whoever it is!"
These lackwits are doing crime for gaks and giggles, nothing else. The pinko's saying its the governments fault are exactly what has caused the problem in the first place. Hand wringing, do-gooding, staggeringly narrow minded lefty apologists.
We have teachers who cant discipline kids, parents who cant discipline their children, and policemen who cant be firm with criminals thanks to this horse gak. This "its never your fault" mentality.
What a crock of gak. They did this simply because they could, most of them cant spell "politics" much less have any fething interest in it. They don't know the difference between their arses and their elbows let alone the complex machinations of international politics and economics. They just do it because they can, and people who have no idea invent the reasons why.
It would make me laugh if it wasnt so pathetic and dangerous.
Middle class idiots are sitting at home drinking fair trade tea and wearing gak jumpers and saying "Oh yeah.. the kids are rioting because of a perverted social ethos, which elevates personal freedom to an absolute" and "the kids.. they just feel they are being continuously dispossessed in a society rich with possession" or "the kids worship the pernicious culture of hatred around rap music which glorifies violence and loathing of authority and exalts trashy materialism" etc etc etc etc
Ahtman wrote:That comic is about as honest and true to life as a Jack Chick comic strip. Helps to demonize people one doesn't agree with though, I suppose.
Well, its supposed to be funny, its from an adult comic called Viz, its not actually supposed to be taken seriously.
But people similar to that really do exist. Beardy, tye dye shirt wearing Guardian reading dick heads who wring their hands and hug trees and go on holidays to India and pay blokes with bigger beards to tell them how to sit properly. And they play their phone ring tones in the silent carriages on the train and the songs are always pan pipes, and they drink strange things from Starbucks with funny names and have 20/20 vision but still wear glasses with no lenses in and read about Feng Shui and call sexism "sexual apartheid" and eat Garlic muesli.
darkPrince010 wrote:Oy. I think I opened a wonderful can of flaming-hate-worms...
I agree the people burning buildings/cars and looting are scumbags, and have no political motivation besides get-rich-quick and feth-the-government. It's unfortunate that they make up a large percentage of the rioters, and I hope the popo/military sort them out and stop the arson/looting.
However, the underlying cause of the riot was not profit, or anger over the death of a single crack dealer (Just like WWI was not solely caused by the death of the Archduke Ferdinand). These issues have been simmering for at least a decade, and recently inflamed by the cuts to the programs that affect them. This was not an overnight "They cut our programs, lets burn their houses" kind of thing. Other people in this thread have mentioned the L.A. Riots, and these were not only caused by the shooting of the African-American shoplifter by the Korean storeowner.
The rioting you're seeing is not an organized movement to disrupt the government and scare the populace, but rather the affected population of people in the areas rioting suddenly seeing a way to publically display their dissent (And, unfortunately in many cases, make a quick buck or perform some vandalism on those they think were screwing them). When you have an area affected by an issue and without a strong, organized community, the populations response will be chaotic and unorganized (Sorta like a... riot?).
As for the comment about other areas not rioting, if my neighborhood and all our houses are robbed, but my neighbors are not as upset about it as I am, does that de-legitimize my anger at the robbery? I'm sorry, but simply stating that "These people have no right to riot because no-one else is rioting" is complete BS. This suggests that some people opinions are of greater value than others, which devalues the person making the differing opinion.
I agree the government probably has very little room to change it's fiscal bills, but hopefully these riots will force them to possibly reconsider in the future slashing programs designed to prevent the environment that encouraged these riots in the first place.
So...where do they get the money to stop slashing these areas?
darkPrince010 wrote:I think the most interesting line of the article was this:
"It's like the old days. It's bringing the community spirit back. Even though it's a sad way to do it, it's bringing the community together"
Although the looters have no excuse, and the rioters went overboard on the damage and destruction they caused, the core reason for the riots (Not the death of the scummy crack dealer, but the racial/socioeconomic divides and disadvatadges that have fostered this environment of outrage) is unfortunately legitimate.
While I understand the Dakkaites from the UK are understandably upset and concerned about these events, after your ruling party started cutting programs for people who need them the most, are you really that surprised that those same people are angry?
I'm surprised that you credit them with that amount of political nous. You obviously haven't met them. These aren't just the poor people of England, up in arms about government cuts, and what those cuts might mean for them and their families. Those people were the VICTIMS of the rioting, The people who perpetrated these acts are lower than that - the rioters are from the underclass, poor people that are brought up on a diet of junk-food, casual sex, crime and irresponsibility. It's a generational problem. There is a sector of society that has effectively been told for the last 13 years that their actions have no consequences, that every crappy decision that they make is someone else's fault, and that somehow the rest of us 'owe' them. They have been convinced that WE have let THEM down. The upshot of all this is that they don't really care about anything but fulfilling their most base desires, and misguided liberals have provided them with a playbook of excuses should they be brought to book for their actions: 'It's the economy/cuts/bankers, innit?'
If these riots make you question the wisdom of further government cuts to people in bad socioeconomic conditions, have they achieved their base goal (Excluding the looting and excessive destruction, as stated above)?
Their base goal was the acquisition of material goods at no cost, and the the momentary alleviation of boredom, nothing more. You're making excuses for the rioters.
Your government is to blame for setting up the conditions to foster events like these (As I'm sure, without changes in policy, these types of outbreaks will occur again), and while individual actions of some (Possibly many, but not all) of the rioters are reprehensible, the overall cause for the riots is really not from the rioters themselves.
An interesting commentary from the Torygraph to which I found myself nodding. It's long but the basic point is that not two years ago our MPs were stealing thousands of pounds from the public (albeit lawfully thanks to a system of their creation) to pay for the sort of items that have been looted from shops over the last week.
All stealing is wrong, rioting is wrong. People of all class should know right from wrong. But if our leaders don't display moral character, can they rightfully villify anyone else who doesn't?
The Daily Telegraph wrote:David Cameron, Ed Miliband and the entire British political class came together yesterday to denounce the rioters. They were of course right to say that the actions of these looters, arsonists and muggers were abhorrent and criminal, and that the police should be given more support.
But there was also something very phony and hypocritical about all the shock and outrage expressed in parliament. MPs spoke about the week’s dreadful events as if they were nothing to do with them.
I cannot accept that this is the case. Indeed, I believe that the criminality in our streets cannot be dissociated from the moral disintegration in the highest ranks of modern British society. The last two decades have seen a terrifying decline in standards among the British governing elite. It has become acceptable for our politicians to lie and to cheat. An almost universal culture of selfishness and greed has grown up.
It is not just the feral youth of Tottenham who have forgotten they have duties as well as rights. So have the feral rich of Chelsea and Kensington. A few years ago, my wife and I went to a dinner party in a large house in west London. A security guard prowled along the street outside, and there was much talk of the “north-south divide”, which I took literally for a while until I realised that my hosts were facetiously referring to the difference between those who lived north and south of Kensington High Street.
Most of the people in this very expensive street were every bit as deracinated and cut off from the rest of Britain as the young, unemployed men and women who have caused such terrible damage over the last few days. For them, the repellent Financial Times magazine How to Spend It is a bible. I’d guess that few of them bother to pay British tax if they can avoid it, and that fewer still feel the sense of obligation to society that only a few decades ago came naturally to the wealthy and better off.
Yet we celebrate people who live empty lives like this. A few weeks ago, I noticed an item in a newspaper saying that the business tycoon Sir Richard Branson was thinking of moving his headquarters to Switzerland. This move was represented as a potential blow to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, because it meant less tax revenue.
I couldn’t help thinking that in a sane and decent world such a move would be a blow to Sir Richard, not the Chancellor. People would note that a prominent and wealthy businessman was avoiding British tax and think less of him. Instead, he has a knighthood and is widely feted. The same is true of the brilliant retailer Sir Philip Green. Sir Philip’s businesses could never survive but for Britain’s famous social and political stability, our transport system to shift his goods and our schools to educate his workers.
Yet Sir Philip, who a few years ago sent an extraordinary £1 billion dividend offshore, seems to have little intention of paying for much of this. Why does nobody get angry or hold him culpable? I know that he employs expensive tax lawyers and that everything he does is legal, but he surely faces ethical and moral questions just as much as does a young thug who breaks into one of Sir Philip’s shops and steals from it?
Our politicians – standing sanctimoniously on their hind legs in the Commons yesterday – are just as bad. They have shown themselves prepared to ignore common decency and, in some cases, to break the law. David Cameron is happy to have some of the worst offenders in his Cabinet. Take the example of Francis Maude, who is charged with tackling public sector waste – which trade unions say is a euphemism for waging war on low‑paid workers. Yet Mr Maude made tens of thousands of pounds by breaching the spirit, though not the law, surrounding MPs’ allowances.
A great deal has been made over the past few days of the greed of the rioters for consumer goods, not least by Rotherham MP Denis MacShane who accurately remarked, “What the looters wanted was for a few minutes to enter the world of Sloane Street consumption.” This from a man who notoriously claimed £5,900 for eight laptops. Of course, as an MP he obtained these laptops legally through his expenses.
Yesterday, the veteran Labour MP Gerald Kaufman asked the Prime Minister to consider how these rioters can be “reclaimed” by society. Yes, this is indeed the same Gerald Kaufman who submitted a claim for three months’ expenses totalling £14,301.60, which included £8,865 for a Bang & Olufsen television.
Or take the Salford MP Hazel Blears, who has been loudly calling for draconian action against the looters. I find it very hard to make any kind of ethical distinction between Blears’s expense cheating and tax avoidance, and the straight robbery carried out by the looters.
The Prime Minister showed no sign that he understood that something stank about yesterday’s Commons debate. He spoke of morality, but only as something which applies to the very poor: “We will restore a stronger sense of morality and responsibility – in every town, in every street and in every estate.” He appeared not to grasp that this should apply to the rich and powerful as well.
The tragic truth is that Mr Cameron is himself guilty of failing this test. It is scarcely six weeks since he jauntily turned up at the News International summer party, even though the media group was at the time subject to not one but two police investigations. Even more notoriously, he awarded a senior Downing Street job to the former News of the World editor Andy Coulson, even though he knew at the time that Coulson had resigned after criminal acts were committed under his editorship. The Prime Minister excused his wretched judgment by proclaiming that “everybody deserves a second chance”. It was very telling yesterday that he did not talk of second chances as he pledged exemplary punishment for the rioters and looters.
These double standards from Downing Street are symptomatic of widespread double standards at the very top of our society. It should be stressed that most people (including, I know, Telegraph readers) continue to believe in honesty, decency, hard work, and putting back into society at least as much as they take out.
But there are those who do not. Certainly, the so-called feral youth seem oblivious to decency and morality. But so are the venal rich and powerful – too many of our bankers, footballers, wealthy businessmen and politicians.
Of course, most of them are smart and wealthy enough to make sure that they obey the law. That cannot be said of the sad young men and women, without hope or aspiration, who have caused such mayhem and chaos over the past few days. But the rioters have this defence: they are just following the example set by senior and respected figures in society. Let’s bear in mind that many of the youths in our inner cities have never been trained in decent values. All they have ever known is barbarism. Our politicians and bankers, in sharp contrast, tend to have been to good schools and universities and to have been given every opportunity in life.
Something has gone horribly wrong in Britain. If we are ever to confront the problems which have been exposed in the past week, it is essential to bear in mind that they do not only exist in inner-city housing estates.
The culture of greed and impunity we are witnessing on our TV screens stretches right up into corporate boardrooms and the Cabinet. It embraces the police and large parts of our media. It is not just its damaged youth, but Britain itself that needs a moral reformation.
So what caused the riots then? Were thousands of people suddenly in the streets vandalizing and stealing simply because a cop shot an (un?)armed crack dealer, and no underlying reasons at all? Sir, I call bull gak on that as well.
The rioters who are stealing/looting are base individuals. At no point will I deny they're scum-of-the-earth. The crimes they commit are their own responsibility and no-one else's. But the question is why they're lacking in moral scruples and guidelines that would normally prevent this behavior?
Is it the parent's fault for failing to instill these values?
A parent could be a veritable Gandhi, but if they're trying to instill positive values on kids in an area where drug trafficking and crime is prevalent, and where the only legal authorities view them with suspicion and hostility due to extralegal factors, how effectively do you think those values will stick, especially for teenagers who have a higher chance of rebelling against social norms/values even without environmental and socioeconomic influences?
Was it the teachers fault to not instill these values into these youth?
How can a teacher who has limited time to teach also attempt to instill values in youth at the same time. True, there's some ability to do so, but to completely replace parental social conditioning would require exponentially more time than teachers have with their students, and would cut into what little one-on-one teaching they are currently getting.
Was it the community's fault for not instilling the values in the youth?
Your government has been cutting already slim social programs for at-risk youth like these, so it's little wonder the few remaining youth centers have their resources spread thin, resulting in that they can either help a few people all of the time, or all of the people part of the time, but resources prevent them from helping all of the at-youth kids all of the time.
The lack of community and social morality is devoid because of these issues, and as much as you’d like to deny it, the Government cutting from social programs and teacher/school pay impacts the non-parental sources of social morality for these youth. I’m not at all surprised that this has occurred in the UK, and am simply waiting for similar events to happen in the U.S. thanks to fething with our social programs, courtesy of the Tea Party and our previous President.
The people on the street are for the most part ignorant/uncaring as to the “political motivations.” They’re not out to “feth the government” beyond nicking someone’s TV or tossing a Molotov onto a car. But the “political motivation” for these riots is the motivation created by government neglect of the affected people, not individual agendas. The only “goal” of the rioters is attention and monetary gains/destructive pleasure, and it was my mistake to try and say the riot would have an overall goal. However, I would hope that this does force wiser fiscal and policy decisions in the future, to prevent the environment that started these riots.
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Flashman: Interesting article. Goes to show there are fewer and fewer role models around these days...
I think we can wring our hands and try find solutions to cultural problems as much as we like, but at the end of the day, there will always be hacked off people for any number of reasons and occasionally these feelings will boil over into the kind of behaviour we've seen over the last week.
You would need a monumental shift in the way the world works for this to change.
There will always be hacked-off people: The trick is to minimize the number of them if at all possible
As for major changes, this is unfortunately true. Maybe if we can somehow slingshot more people who grew up in these conditions into positions of power where they would have a vested interest in changing said conditions, but that's very unlikely
darkPrince010 wrote:So what caused the riots then? Were thousands of people suddenly in the streets vandalizing and stealing simply because a cop shot an (un?)armed crack dealer, and no underlying reasons at all? Sir, I call bull gak on that as well.
I didn't say that there were no underlying reasons. I gave reasons. Much of it, especially here in Manchester, is simply copy-cat behaviour. They do it because they can.
The rioters who are stealing/looting are base individuals. At no point will I deny they're scum-of-the-earth. The crimes they commit are their own responsibility and no-one else's. But the question is why they're lacking in moral scruples and guidelines that would normally prevent this behavior?
I feel I've attempted to answer that too. You can't offer people financial inducements to live a better life - how can value anything when you haven't had to work for it? 'Signing on' (the dole) is a badge of pride for these kids - I should know, I was one of them. I grew up in precisely the sort of environment you are pontificating about.
Regarding the kind of monumental global change required to resolve these kind of problems, Picard says it better than I do...
Jean Luc Picard wrote:The economics of the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century. The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity.
...doesn't really explain why people are constantly buying things in Star Trek though, like when Kirk offers to buy Uhura a drink in the last film...
Darkprince, stop blaming government cuts for this. You're as bad as the Labour ministers who - guess what - blame the other cuts. Gee, I wonder why? Oh that's right - they're spendabholics hellbent on appeasing Unions and wasting money on everything that is pointless then stuttering as they try and justify it.
The country has been somewhat destroyed by the previous government we had. Oh the glorious days of Mr Blair and Mr Brown. Mr Bliar is a goddamn suckup to the EU and wants to be glorified so bad he would rather be called kKng of Europe. He was obsessed with the EU and let in all these funny laws that now hinder the people of the UK from so much as lifting a finger to the illdoings of others. And then there's Mr Brown - the white scottish cyclops who did very little to even change anything, just sat there looking gormless and confused for the mess he was left with.
So we vote and get the other parties in and what a #explicit# surprise - the single time the current government does something, everyone shouts at them for doing it. I'm sorry, but we cannot blame the current government for this. But hey, they stuck their hands up and said today "we got it wrong, the ploice didn't read the situation right, and we will make changes". First thing mentioned? "Will the PM reconsider the Police cuts planned in 3-4 years time?" That was repeated several times in different wording by multiple MP's. Why the cuts? To save money. Why save money? for the monstrous debt we have? Why do we have such a debt? Guess who gave it to us.
As most sensible MP's said, this is not Government related. This was opportunists took advantage of a peaceful protest and created utter carnage for pure greed. They have no repsect for the police, the justice system, their neighbours, businesses - heck anything that would say to them "you shouldn't be doing that". They have either been taught wrong or, in the events of adults, do not respect the systems. It is wrong. They should all be put behind bars. If I had my way I would have dressed as a Khorne Beserker and ransacked the Mobs screaming praises to Khorne while heads rolled down streets. But that's just as degrading (while it would be amusing yet freaky to watch on TV).
This whole matter has me infuriated. I'm 19. I will be branded like these stupid #explicit# as a violent mindless thug who wants to vandalise and steal and burn. I'm furious with this and I get more furious with people declaring the current Government is at fault for the entire matter.
... Staying on topic, tonight seems to be even quieter so I think the riots are settled for now. Does help with all the arrests made.
@Albatross: Your post didn't offer any explanation for the rioting beyond "They simply are bad people, doing abd people things. It's their own fault they're doing these bad people things."
The reasoning I gave is why there's the Generational Gap you mentioned (By which I assume you mean gap between their morales and principles and those of the previous generation): They are having all the support networks that would normally provide the morality to prevent such a gap cut or reduced by the government and corrupted by an environment caused in many cases by government policies and practices.
The government was not just cutting benefits (Which I personally belive should be reduced slightly or at least more thoroughly stated to prevent loopholes and abuses) but also cutting non-monetary aid such as the youth shelters/support systems I mentioned.
I appreciate that you're from this environment, but can you really say that you and your friends wouldn't have turned out for the most part as upstanding individuals (As I'm assuming you are) if it weren't for strong parental, teacher, and/or community support?
Automatically Appended Next Post: @Juvieus: Don't worry. I'm 21, so I'd be branded a thug/looter/miscreant just as quickly.
I'm not saying the rioters are innocent, or justified in their actions. But I am saying that the reason people in their position are more likely to riot like this is more of the fault of the government then the people who are rioting. Governments didn't start the riots, but they did create a social vacuum in these areas where disregard for the law has taken root. Government isn't telling them to steal TVs or burn cars, but it sure as wasn't encouraging programs to tell these people as kids that doing this is wrong.
And I'm glad stuff is quieting down. I was afraid this shitstorm would last longer.
Da Boss wrote:Any of the rioters I have seen interviewed have been totally incoherant when trying to explain why it is justified. They blame everything from rich people to immigrants. We're not talking about a politically sophisticated demographic here. Talk of it being caused by cuts and so on (I mean, caused directly) is just media spin from those parties that oppose the cuts. I mean, the government doesn't have the money for the services. We either increase taxes or cut spending. (Whole nother debate for another day.)
I don't claim to know the entire reason for the riots, but it is my opinion that it has more to do with the policies of labour and the general attitude of many in britain with regard to social programs than anything the conservatives have done. If it was just about cuts it'd be easy to fix. It does far deeper than that, and I think in many ways it's unfixable.
Edit to add:
Well, that argument makes more sense. But the thing is, the UK spends quite a lot on social programs, and achieves very little in the way of social cohesivenes. The police are pretty soft from what I see, and life is generally pretty good for poorer people. Education is getting better all the time as well.
I feel like the biggest social problem in britain is the embeddedness of the class system. Like, it starts at 11 when kids are split off into different schools based on "ability". No 11 year old has fully developed cognitively, so that is just a bollocks reason to segregate kids and generally just propogates the class system.
I disagree on the idea that the class system is embedded in the concept of splitting children according to talent at 11. Intelligence has been shown to be a roughly 50/50 mix of genetics and upbringing. As such, genetic talent is there regardless, and parental influence and surroundings will have already formed a very solid basis for the upbringing factor. By the age of 11, a persons rough intelligence (aka, studiousness, and general mental agility) will already be set. Sure, they may not be capable of cogitating in the same way as an adult, but that does not mean that placing a child in a lower set academically will suddenly degrade the childs capacity to gain an adult's level of cogitation in the future, nor reduce the basic intelligence gleaned from genetic factors or upbringing.
Class quite simply has nothing to do with it. The simple fact is that by 11, somebody's intelligence level is already set to a huge, if not complete extent. Not only that, placing a child who has a higher level of intelligence in with those of lower intelligence does not mean that the kids of lower intelligence suddenly become smarter, rather it holds back those of greater potential. If a child is capable of completing a piece of work in half an hour, and another child would take two hours for the same piece, surely it is far more productive to both to give the first child more work to do in that hour and a half they would otherwise be sitting around in?
The concept of separation into sets at 11 is based around that concept. Class has little to nothing to do with it. It is inherently a system based on merit. The days where children were viewed as being complete tabula rasa's with identical potential and intelligence died out back in the 70's, in the same way that the concept of intelligence being solely down to genetic factors died out forty years previous to that. Set separation propagates no class system other than that in which the more intelligent tend to get better jobs and higher pay. And to be frank, bar turning everything communist, that's always going to be the case.
Intelligence has been shown to be roughly 50:50 genetics and environment? By who, exactly, and using what methodology. Intelligence is poorly defined and the tests we use to measure it are biased and flawed, favouring particular types of intelligence over others. Yes, genetics have something to do with it, but the level of stratification in UK society is above and beyond that genetic variation, in my opinion. What has a much bigger effect is home environment. If kids are getting looked after properly at home, they'll be reading and writing and doing maths at a much higher level than neglected children. Placing a child in a lower set does all sorts of negative things to them. It knocks their confidence, kills their motivation, and realigns their self image into a negative one. They'll see school work as something that is "not for them". Not only that, but by setting rigorously, as you go further down they lose the positive effect from their peers. Broaden that into a systemic picture and you get schools where results are low and nobody thinks it's strange because all the "smart" kids who did better on their SATs or whatever are in a different school. The teachers in these schools become burnt out, staff turnover is higher, time is spent more on control and less on education. If you want, I can see if I still have access to the research papers that document all of the things I am talking about. Putting kids in a top set or better school simply magnifies what they already have- and generally what they have comes to them from their upbringing. Middle and upper class kids will get more exposure to intellectual pursuits and more support of them than working class kids. This advantage is then magnified by going to a better school whereas the environmental disadvantage of a poor school is magnified for the working class kids.Class has everything to do with it, because the values of your home life and the amount of money you have determines in many ways what sort of chances for extra curricular learning you will have, how much help you will have with your homework and how much encouragement you will get in your schoolwork.
Once a kid is in a lower set, it is nearly impossible for them to move out. This is generally due to logistical reasons, but the fact is there is very little movement between sets. The other factor is motivation. If you're the best kid in your school on a C, and your parents are delighted with you because no one in your family has ever done so well before, you're not going to be motivated to work harder to get a B or an A. A kid of the same ability in a school filled with peers who are doing better will have massive motivation to work harder. The school environment is a huge incentive.
I think you should really examine your thesis that the system is based on merit- it has an ugly flip side. If the successful are successful because they are intelligent and hard working, then the unsuccessful are unsuccessful because they are stupid and lazy. I think we both know the world is more complicated than that. I'm not by any margin saying that genetics don't have a part to play. But without the right environment to stimulate that genetic potential, someone will never reach it. The streaming of kids benefits the middle and upper class kds far more than it does the working class. I'm telling you this as someone who has previously taught in a disadvantaged working class school in Ireland, and is now teaching in a heavily setted comprehensive in the UK.
I do feel very strongly on this issue- but I accept that any solutions will be radical and probably deeply unpopular. If I had my way, I'd assign children to schools randomly within a certain catchment, to ensure the maximum amount of diversity within the schools, and I would only set very loosely and with a lot of flexibility.
Obviously, in cases where there are specific learning disabilities, other arrangements must be made.
Working class children tend to be exposed to a much less stimulating mental environment from infancy. This retards their social and mental development in various ways.
Middle class children tend to be stimulated, encouraged and given all sorts of chances to develop their intellect. For example, I bought all the Jolly Phonics materials for my daughter before she entered primary school. We played the CDs on car outings and played the games with her.
This lack of this sort of influence means that many working class children get to the age of seven with reading difficulties, and the age of eleven as functional illiterates.
By that stage they require serious remedial education to bring them up to speed. Instead they are sat at the back of the class and are unable to learn anything. Bored and frustrated, they are either permanently truanting or have been excluded due to bad behaviour within a few years.
Such people have absolutely no job prospects beyond seasonal fruit picking, in modern society. Those are the kind of people who made up the majority of the rioters.
This doesn't deny that there are over-privileged thickos and middle-class people who have joined in rioting.
Interestingly, BBC Breakfast news had an interview this morning with a chap whose shop was burned down by the thugs on Monday. He made what I thought was a very salient point regarding the so-called socio-economic excuses being trotted out to explain the riots. He ran a charity that was involved in setting up schools and providing education for poor Asian kids in Vietnam, Laos, that sort of thing. When asked if the riots could be blamed on socio-economic deprivation, he looked a bit peeved and said 'most of the rioters have iPhones, are well fed and have a roof over their heads as well as living in a society that offers them ample opportunity to better themselves. That's not being poor or deprived'.
He then went on to compare them to the Asian kids who really do show a drive and determination to better themselves when presented with the opportunity and education. Kind of makes me think we have lost our way a bit in this country; that certain elements of society demand that the country suddenly owes them a living. The idea that you educate yourself and work hard to better your circumstances seems to be slipping away. I don't know what the solution is but I can't help agreeing with Cameron when he says that certain sections of society are sick and broken.
filbert wrote:Interestingly, BBC Breakfast news had an interview this morning with a chap whose shop was burned down by the thugs on Monday. He made what I thought was a very salient point regarding the so-called socio-economic excuses being trotted out to explain the riots. He ran a charity that was involved in setting up schools and providing education for poor Asian kids in Vietnam, Laos, that sort of thing. When asked if the riots could be blamed on socio-economic deprivation, he looked a bit peeved and said 'most of the rioters have iPhones, are well fed and have a roof over their heads as well as living in a society that offers them ample opportunity to better themselves. That's not being poor or deprived'.
He then went on to compare them to the Asian kids who really do show a drive and determination to better themselves when presented with the opportunity and education. Kind of makes me think we have lost our way a bit in this country; that certain elements of society demand that the country suddenly owes them a living. The idea that you educate yourself and work hard to better your circumstances seems to be slipping away. I don't know what the solution is but I can't help agreeing with Cameron when he says that certain sections of society are sick and broken.
Exactly. How the feth can you riot about deprivation when your organising the riots on blackberrys and Iphone 4?
I love saying I told you so, and If everyone thought like me, the country would be in better shape. Its got nothing to do with a lack, and everything to do with an abundance. These little gaks have more money for clothes/fags/booze than I do. And I work for a living.
They have a sense of entitlement thanks to pinkos and hippies and Guardian readers raising them that way. They think they are entitled to everything that I own.
feth em.
Give them less, not more.
Slash the dole in half, give them food stamps so they cant get booze and fags as easily. Stop all child support once you get past 2 children, boot them out of their fething houses and if anyone breaks the law lock them up for twice as long. Starve the scum into submission. Leave the civilised people on the streets and leave the scum to rot in the cells. Problem fixed.
In short, cancel fething Christmas!
My life is better, your life is better. feth the fething fethers!
filbert wrote:Interestingly, BBC Breakfast news had an interview this morning with a chap whose shop was burned down by the thugs on Monday. He made what I thought was a very salient point regarding the so-called socio-economic excuses being trotted out to explain the riots. He ran a charity that was involved in setting up schools and providing education for poor Asian kids in Vietnam, Laos, that sort of thing. When asked if the riots could be blamed on socio-economic deprivation, he looked a bit peeved and said 'most of the rioters have iPhones, are well fed and have a roof over their heads as well as living in a society that offers them ample opportunity to better themselves. That's not being poor or deprived'.
He then went on to compare them to the Asian kids who really do show a drive and determination to better themselves when presented with the opportunity and education. Kind of makes me think we have lost our way a bit in this country; that certain elements of society demand that the country suddenly owes them a living. The idea that you educate yourself and work hard to better your circumstances seems to be slipping away.
Very true.
I don't know what the solution is but I can't help agreeing with Cameron when he says that certain sections of society are sick and broken.
mattyrm wrote: give them food stamps so they cant get booze and fags as easily
I had a similar idea that instead of some benefits people should be given food credit cards that could be spent in Asda, Tescos etc but not on alcohol or cigarrettes.
Unfortunately, you have to wonder whether the treasury could survive without all the tax it gets from sales on alcohol, tobacco etc.
mattyrm wrote: give them food stamps so they cant get booze and fags as easily
I had a similar idea that instead of some benefits people should be given food credit cards that could be spent in Asda, Tescos etc but not on alcohol or cigarrettes.
Unfortunately, you have to wonder whether the treasury could survive without all the tax it gets from sales on alcohol, tobacco etc.
Theyd still be able to get them, they would stand outside Morrisons and sell you their £50 voucher for £25 in desperation.
I would get my shopping cheaper and they would have even less money for food as they buy their precious booze and fags and scratch cards and micro chips.
darkPrince010 wrote:@Albatross: Your post didn't offer any explanation for the rioting beyond "They simply are bad people, doing abd people things. It's their own fault they're doing these bad people things."
Don't be a smart-arse. I didn't post anything like that, you patronising tosser. What I posted, if you'd bothered to read it, was:
There is a sector of society that has effectively been told for the last 13 years that their actions have no consequences, that every crappy decision that they make is someone else's fault, and that somehow the rest of us 'owe' them. They have been convinced that WE have let THEM down. The upshot of all this is that they don't really care about anything but fulfilling their most base desires, and misguided liberals have provided them with a playbook of excuses should they be brought to book for their actions: 'It's the economy/cuts/bankers, innit?'
To be honest, I think most of your posts in this thread seem to bear this viewpoint out. You're very quick to absolve the rioters of a large share of the blame for their actions, and frankly, I find it disgusting. People like you are the problem, because you provide people who don't wish to take responsibility for their lives with a set of ready excuses.
The reasoning I gave is why there's the Generational Gap you mentioned (By which I assume you mean gap between their morales and principles and those of the previous generation
For someone so smug, I would have expected you to be able to read a little better. I didn't say anything about a 'generation gap', I said that these riots where the manifestation of a generational problem. There is a generation of kids who grow up in households where no-one works - their exemplars are parents who are content to loaf around on benefits and game the system. They drink heavily, take drugs and feed their children (and babies) junk-food for breakfast lunch and dinner. These kids have parents who had babies whilst in secondary school, but it was OK because the state fed them and housed them. They have irresponsibility bred into them. Again, I'm speaking from personal experience, but also the experience of my mother, who is a youth development worker. I grew up amongst that sort of work (hell, I was in a lot of the programs myself - free babysitting...), and I can tell you, the best it does is put a band-aid on the problem. The very worst kids treat such schemes with contempt, believe me.
The government was not just cutting benefits (Which I personally belive should be reduced slightly or at least more thoroughly stated to prevent loopholes and abuses) but also cutting non-monetary aid such as the youth shelters/support systems I mentioned.
Central government doesn't do that. For the most part, such programs fall under the remit of local authorities - i.e City or Borough councils. Guess which are the some of the worst offenders for cutting front-line services? That's right, Labour-run councils. And why? Fancy having a guess? It's OK, I'll tell you - they aren't motivated to make sensible cuts, because they aren't in power. If they remove front-line services, and the area goes to gak, they can blame the Coaliton AND make the required savings, so it's a win-win.
I appreciate that you're from this environment, but can you really say that you and your friends wouldn't have turned out for the most part as upstanding individuals (As I'm assuming you are) if it weren't for strong parental, teacher, and/or community support?
Who says I'm an upstanding individual? I made terrible choices, but d'you know what? I owned them. They were nobody's fault but mine.
Holy cow, like 12 pages since I last posted so I've only skimmed the last couple of pages.
My father moved to this country as a non-English speaking immigrant in 1963. He grew up in Hackney and Haringay (and in fact still does a lot of work with failing schools there). Large parts of my family and family friends still live and work in these areas and the surrounds (like Enfield). Some of them are even undesirables (though I have no idea if any were involved in this, more likely they would have turned out with the rest of the Turks to defend the area to get their fix of trouble for the week).
Anyway.... people keep trying to blame it on the Tory cuts or the last Labour government and that's wrong. These places have been poor and deprived for 50+ years, this is not a new phenomenon. What has now happened is we have 2-3 generations of children and parents that don't aspire to be better*, do not aspire to want better for their children, and on top of that there's a general reduction in the teaching of behaviour and discipline from public bodies such as schools, and the cycle of gang culture reinforced by it's glamorisation in the media and the failure of the legal system to remove bad eggs from the area that probably do more teaching (and not the good kind) than the children learn at school if they turn up and bang - undesirable subculture.
Anyway, my point is this has been going on for a very, very long time and whilst Tory policy or the police action may have been the final straw, they aren't the root cause, and they aren't really relevant to the solutions IMO.
*He and his brothers "got out" because his step-dad put his foot down at 16 and told him he was going to college.
EDIT: and good on the above poster for pointing out that most of the areas these stem from are (and have always been) Labour run areas, so a lot of the blame falls on the leaders of these communities as well.
Da Boss wrote:Intelligence has been shown to be roughly 50:50 genetics and environment? By who, exactly, and using what methodology.
Interestingly enough, this has been a bone of contention/debate between me and a friend of mine who studies Psychology for some time, so I've done a bit more research into it than the standard, 'I read something on the internet or in the paper' approach to internet debating. I've had several conversations with various qualified academics in both the Biology and Psychology departments, and read a few academic papers on the subject. I wouldn't claim to be an expert in either field, far far from it, however my knowledge is relatively well informed I would think. Of course, if you can cite sources claiming differently, I would actually be very interested, as said, this is a regular topic of discussion over afternoon tea for me!
Intelligence is poorly defined and the tests we use to measure it are biased and flawed, favouring particular types of intelligence over others.
It is true that intelligence is a nebulous subject to define, and that smartness (or academic intelligence) is generally measured over and above that of brightness (or general mental acuity). However, there are certain things which it is possible to analyse as a general indicator of intelligence, from memory capacity, to analytical capability. When you claim all tests used to measure it are biased, I think that you're generally referring to such indicators as IQ tests, which I would agree are generally about as accurate as a height/weight for judging how obese someone is (i.e., not very, it gets the gist but is rather lacking).
Yet there have been several more reputable tests than that on the origins of intelligence performed. Identical twins are usually an apt research subject, as they are about as genetically identical one can get in research subjects. There was a particular case where one scientist measured the intelligence (through several methods, from mental calculation capacity, to general knowledge, to more study related things) of identical twins raised in different surroundings and social circumstances. He found that something along the lines of eighty percent of identical twins, despite coming from completely different backgrounds and circumstance since birth, were of on par intelligence. This dropped to about seventy percent for un-identical twins, about fifty percent for siblings, and there was no correlation whatsoever between people who were unrelated.
Whilst one study can never be given too much weight in this field, there was another study published last month (in the Molecular Biology journal I think? I might be hazy on the name) indicating general intelligence (defined in the same way:- analytical skills, mental agility, etc) was down to the inter-relations of several hundred different genes.
Generally speaking, it is widely accepted now that genetics do actually play significant part in determining one's intelligence and mental potential. Not everything, but a significant part.
What has a much bigger effect is home environment. If kids are getting looked after properly at home, they'll be reading and writing and doing maths at a much higher level than neglected children.
I agree. That's the where the 50% upbringing side comes into the equation.
Placing a child in a lower set does all sorts of negative things to them. It knocks their confidence, kills their motivation, and realigns their self image into a negative one. They'll see school work as something that is "not for them".
Quite possibly. However, the flip side of the coin is where everyone gets given a degree regardless of actual merit involved, because someone might get hurt feelings. The fact is, when you start taking that line of reasoning, you have to apply it to things like football teams, where you HAVE to pick the morbidly obese child for the team, in case you hurt their feelings. Everyone gets a degree, because 'Everyone should go to University'. You end up with a system where academic merit is valueless, as no-one is allowed to stand out, in case it damages the self esteem of people not as talented as them.
The fact is, at the end of the day, some people are stronger than others, some more attractive, some smarter. It's the way of the world. When you start trying to force everyone into line, and telling all kids that they are all identical, and everyone's a winner, when they are generally so clearly not, you're setting them up for falls later on in life, and leading them to believe something that is generally not true.
That's not to say that what you're saying is without merit. I believe the system should be dedicated to shuffling a child to wherever their talents are. If they're good with their hands, open up the vocational colleges and polytechnics, and give them more hands on work. If a child is fat, you wouldn't try and make them sports stars, why make non-academic people feel like they have to go to University and college?
Not only that, but by setting rigorously, as you go further down they lose the positive effect from their peers.
See, I strongly disagree here. Coming out of a schooling system in Africa three years in advance of my peers at the age of 12, and moving to a school generally accepted as alright over here had a horrendously detrimental effect on my capability to study. There was no positive effect on my schoolwork, rather, being situated in the same classroom as loudmouthed and disruptive children made my own results suffer accordingly. Despite being able to do simultaneous equations at 12, my previously intense education went down the pot when placed into the same room as children who swore loudly at the teachers, and did no work. The influence tended to be more of one directional thing. I found those kids with a decent upbringing or work ethic did well, those who didn't, didn't. They just had a detrimental effect on everybody else.
However, I'm only mentioning those who did not wish to learn, those 'problem children'. There were of course, other children, some not as good at maths as others, some not as good at science as others, and so on. This is because sticking everyone together regardless of talent, academic suitability, background, or anything at all in common, is not the ideal solution here. You'll see what I'd give as a good example of a system further down my answer.
Broaden that into a systemic picture and you get schools where results are low and nobody thinks it's strange because all the "smart" kids who did better on their SATs or whatever are in a different school. The teachers in these schools become burnt out, staff turnover is higher, time is spent more on control and less on education.
This is because certain schools end up with all the problem children that are expelled from many others. You end up with teachers trying to teach Geography to kids who don't know, and don't care. I generally agree. However, if this were 100% the case, you'd have schools made up only of the brightest and best students, which is not quite the case. The fact is, you get schools that have a higher proportion of good to bad students (slanted in either direction), but every school has its share of people who are neither particularly, and are there because they live close or whatever.
If you want, I can see if I still have access to the research papers that document all of the things I am talking about.
No, I know that what you're saying is generally pretty accurate. I also know you work in a school, and know a fair bit about these things, as well as being quite intelligent yourself. No need for burden of proof.
Putting kids in a top set or better school simply magnifies what they already have- and generally what they have comes to them from their upbringing.
This is bad why? Surely promoting talent is a good thing?
Middle and upper class kids will get more exposure to intellectual pursuits and more support of them than working class kids.
This is where I disagree. Strongly. Being working class is no barrier to intellectual pursuits. Ever heard of the Ashington Group? Especially in this day and age, where schools have libraries, EMA, and the government provides the means to carry on with their education, regardless of wealth. Add this to the fact that my parents are working class, and I've done alright for myself.
I think you're confusing work ethic and general upbringing with class here. Being working class does not mean you have to be ill-educated, mistreated by your parents, smoke forty packets of fags a day, and live in Mcdonalds.
This advantage is then magnified by going to a better school whereas the environmental disadvantage of a poor school is magnified for the working class kids.
Again, I think you're confusing class with upbringing. I won't deny that those with lots of money have access to better schooling, but there ways and means to address this issue, but shuffling kids into the same set and telling them they're all identical is not the solution here.
Class has everything to do with it, because the values of your home life and the amount of money you have determines in many ways what sort of chances for extra curricular learning you will have, how much help you will have with your homework and how much encouragement you will get in your schoolwork.
So.....you're saying that all teachers look at the working class children and actively deny them help?
More the case that teachers look at problem children and want nothing to do with them. I doubt you'll find a teacher around who would deny a not particularly bright, but hard working child extra help. And if you did, they clearly shouldn't be teachers. I don't think that was quite what you meant to get across, but re-reading that statement, that's all I can get from it.
Once a kid is in a lower set, it is nearly impossible for them to move out. This is generally due to logistical reasons, but the fact is there is very little movement between sets.
Aha! Now we're on common ground! I believe the system should be reformed to make transition between sets easier. Definitely. No doubt. That is one of the damaging things about placing children in sets, and it should be rectified. Otherwise you're placing the children in a slot, and telling them that they have to stay there because its where they belong, as opposed to telling them if they work harder, they'll get into a better one.
The other factor is motivation. If you're the best kid in your school on a C, and your parents are delighted with you because no one in your family has ever done so well before, you're not going to be motivated to work harder to get a B or an A. A kid of the same ability in a school filled with peers who are doing better will have massive motivation to work harder. The school environment is a huge incentive.
I kind of agree, but don't at the same time. A teacher should also be involved in motivating a child to do well academically, possibly as much as a parent. Other students? Not so much. Its not their problem. Retarding the development of one student to promote growth in another is not the solution. I think the key is the school environment to a large extent, definitely, but lumping children in the same class has many cons and few pros.
I think you should really examine your thesis that the system is based on merit- it has an ugly flip side. If the successful are successful because they are intelligent and hard working, then the unsuccessful are unsuccessful because they are stupid and lazy. I think we both know the world is more complicated than that.
Definitely. My personal belief is that everyone should be encouraged wherever their talents lie. You wouldn't make a fish fly, why make a fat kid run, or a dyslexic kid into Shakespeare? The academic system should be based on merit, because if it isn't, it removes all incentive to stand out from the crowd for the brighter ones. The solution is to provide alternate routes to making a living and wellbeing for those not good in certain fields and endeavours. Forcing children into the same set doesn't make kids bad at mathematics good at mathematics, it just makes them feel inadequate in comparison to their classmates, or become disruptive, because they don't want to be there.
I'm not by any margin saying that genetics don't have a part to play. But without the right environment to stimulate that genetic potential, someone will never reach it.
I agree.
The streaming of kids benefits the middle and upper class kds far more than it does the working class. I'm telling you this as someone who has previously taught in a disadvantaged working class school in Ireland, and is now teaching in a heavily setted comprehensive in the UK.
And I'm disagreeing as someone who has experienced both modes of education. Streaming in private schools, and shuffling in comprehensives. One encouraged me to learn, and made use of what I was capable of. One degraded my capacity for those things. I'll leave you to guess which.
I do feel very strongly on this issue- but I accept that any solutions will be radical and probably deeply unpopular. If I had my way, I'd assign children to schools randomly within a certain catchment, to ensure the maximum amount of diversity within the schools, and I would only set very loosely and with a lot of flexibility.
I disagree that 'diversity' is what lumping everyone together achieves. It smacks more of 'conformity' to me. It's hammering down the nails that stick up, and telling everyone they get a prize. I personally, would prefer an academic system that makes everyone a nail that sticks up in the given field/talent, and promotes every student in achieving their maximum potential.
Ketara: Good arguments, I appreciate them. I may not get to reply til much later as I'm off up to dublin today, but I want to acknowledge that that was thought provoking. I will ruminate on it and tackle my own pet psychologist (everyone should have one) this evening about it.
Cheers.
I would tend to agree that being from a poorer background does not always mean that you do not have access to education. Both my parents are teachers in a not too brilliant area and I work in Student Financial Aid.
In terms of support offered I find that it is often the students from middle income families who have to stuggle the most in terms of paying for university as they are not elligable for the same support as poorer families (I regulaly see students with support packages that total more than my annual gross wage) and can in turn not as easily afford to support their children especilly if they have multiple dependants.
I believe that it does come down to work ethic in the main, my parents both came from quite poor backgrounds and worked hard for what they have now and this set of values has been passed onto me.
I think that you have to look at why people think it is acceptable to have their young children running around unsupervised at night joining in with this sort of despicable action. To me at least this is the crux of the matter parents that don't give a gak about their kids who then grow up with the same attitude and pump out more sprogs that compound the situation. You cannot expect schools/the state to do the job that parents should be doing in the first place.
Just because you are poor(or rich or whatever) dosen't give you the excuse to be a terrible person. Likewise these idiots can wail about wanting repect as much as they want, they won't get it because they have failed to understand that respect is earned.
mattyrm wrote: give them food stamps so they cant get booze and fags as easily
I had a similar idea that instead of some benefits people should be given food credit cards that could be spent in Asda, Tescos etc but not on alcohol or cigarrettes.
Unfortunately, you have to wonder whether the treasury could survive without all the tax it gets from sales on alcohol, tobacco etc.
Theyd still be able to get them, they would stand outside Morrisons and sell you their £50 voucher for £25 in desperation.
I would get my shopping cheaper and they would have even less money for food as they buy their precious booze and fags and scratch cards and micro chips.
We both win.
Something similar is floated around think tanks from time to time. One of the proposals was to use vouchers for child support only. The basic reasons for that are:
1. Just someone is on benefits doesnt mean they are a scrounger, this sends the wrong message.
- Besides the system is allowed to penalise unworthy claimants, so any extant claimant is someone for whome no proof of lack of worth is forthcoming, and thus deserves the benefit of the doubt (sic) in common law.
2. People who deserve benefits have a reasonable entitlement to spend their money how they wish.
3. Food stamps etc might cause a stigma that is unwarranted.
4. If some people on the same benefit as others got stamps and others deemed more worthy or responsible got cash it would be discriminatory.
5. This unfairly penalises people who are responsible claimants but like to drink or smoke in moderation.
6. The underworld would more likely benefit from vouchers for cash sales rather than chancers outside supermarkets, it would fuel a black economy and it could/would get nasty.
7. There will be quite reasonable items on a persons list that is not available at qualifying supermarkets.
8. This will discourage local trade in favour of big chain stores able to support a voucher scheme (see below).
9. This will penalise rural persons who cannot access a big chain store easily.
10. Can a claimant spend their money at McDonalds? If not why not. McDonalds could possdible afford ther logistic cost of joining the voucher scheme. But how about a kebab shop that is too small to qualify.
The reasons why child support was looked into in seperation.
1. While it is not fair to judge what someone (who we must assume by default is a genuine claimant) can spend their JSA/income support money on, it is perfectly acceptable for society to demand that child support is spent on the children.
2. Child support cannot be denied and is by far the easiest benefit to swindle, the more kids you have the easier it is to feed and cloth them all on a decreasing fraction of child benefit.
- This might lead to the question, why not cut child benefit for multiple kids? This cannot be achieved because the rate calculated is a fair assessment of what is needed (at least from the governments point of view) if one gave a feth about the childs welfare. Three kids equals three times the cost. Only scum parents gwet the 'discount' because tins of beans, toast and chips are cheap and plentiful, cloths can be hand be down between kids in the family and this leaves lots of child benefit left over for fags and booze.
3. There is no justifyable stigma going to the checkout with child benefit stamps, working parents get them too.
4. No you shouldnt spend child benefit on kebabs and McDonalds, home cooked meals are strongly encouraged. If parents wants to 'treat' the kids to McDonalds they can do it out of their own wages or JSA.
However even with this in place there were bigger problems.
1. Polit schemes were tried for vouchers for some benefits in the past, and they were a failure, mainly through reluctance for shops to get on board. Only one supermarklet agreed to take the vouchers. I cannot remember which one.
- The principle reason for this is because getting cash in the till and getting vouchers the treasury will refund on are two different things. IIRC it took three months for the vouchers to be redeemed. I suppose this could be speeded up but I wouldnt hold my breath on that.
2. Frankly while being realistic and cynical at the same time. Supermarkets will be dead against any voucher. They get the majorty of benefit money anyway in white label goods and budget alcohol anyway so there is nothing in it for them but an administrative cost and a delay in funds. Of course the big supermarklets could afford that, but they just arent intrested in being altruistic. Last time they baulked at the idea, I do not see that changing.
3. Only large supermarkets could afford to get on board, smaller units could not afford the extra administration, especially corner shops etc.
4. If you allow the system to be 'adminstration lite' to enable smaler outlserts to join in then many will take child vouchers run barcodes for packets of nappies though the till and fill the bag with special brew and fags. This would be rife.
Now at this point I should add that a refinement was proposed that involved giving claimants a special swipecard into which qualifying benefits were paid into. This would solve the speed of refund problem, however this was considered 'too costly', mainly for set up and administration costs and partly because of security. A government swipecard is the government's problem with card crime being what this is it would be a huge powderkeg.
Personally I think a child benefit swipecard would still work, given a run in time but it was a minority opinion. Swipe cards could be voluntary in return for negotiating a discount in certain 'mother and child' stores so it could be trickled in at a managable rate before making it mandatory for all claimants once the teething problems were sorted.
Even so all a dodgy outlet needs tgo do is to cut out some barcodes from common valid child items and swipe them instead of the other stuff being purchased, possibly with a surcharge included: "we swipe the barcode from nappies costing £3.50 for the bottle of cider costing £2.99 ok". I cant think of a way around that except expensive and vigiliant policing.
Orlanth wrote:The reasons why child support was looked into in seperation.
1. While it is not fair to judge what someone (who we must assume by default is a genuine claimant) can spend their JSA/income support money on, it is perfectly acceptable for society to demand that child support is spent on the children.
2. Child support cannot be denied and is by far the easiest benefit to swindle, the more kids you have the easier it is to feed and cloth them all on a decreasing fraction of child benefit.
- This might lead to the question, why not cut child benefit for multiple kids? This cannot be achieved because the rate calculated is a fair assessment of what is needed (at least from the governments point of view) if one gave a feth about the childs welfare. Three kids equals three times the cost. Only scum parents gwet the 'discount' because tins of beans, toast and chips are cheap and plentiful, cloths can be hand be down between kids in the family and this leaves lots of child benefit left over for fags and booze.
3. There is no justifyable stigma going to the checkout with child benefit stamps, working parents get them too.
4. No you shouldnt spend child benefit on kebabs and McDonalds, home cooked meals are strongly encouraged. If parents wants to 'treat' the kids to McDonalds they can do it out of their own wages or JSA.
What about daycare, transport to school, opticians, rent or morgage for larger living space, school lunch money or any of the countless other things which is required to bring up a child but can't be bought with a stamp at asda or tesco?
We should be sorting out the muppets who abuse the system not penalising those who don't.
Orlanth wrote:2. People who deserve benefits have a reasonable entitlement to spend their money how they wish.
Why?
If you are appealing to the government for money to live on, how is it wrong for the government to limit what you can purchase with that money? When you come asking for money for food, what is wrong with the government insisting that you spend that money on food rather than cigarettes, booze, DVD rentals, or toy soldiers? Basically, if you're not using it for food, then you didn't really need the benefit in the first place.
To back up Orlanth on this, the UK does have a system of stamps or vouchers for asylum seekers, and it has demonstrated the various pernicious results that he covered.
I think that point 2 is moot considering all the practical disadvantages of the system.
Something not mentioned but possibly relevant, or not, depending how much of a bleeding heart liberal one may be, is that part of the purported purpose of benefits is to ease a transition back to normal working, earning and spending life. (That's why it is called Job Seeker's Allowance.)
It is the principle used to re-habilitate long-term prisoners back into civvie life. They are sent out for short periods, wearing proper clothes and allowed to spend their pocket money in shops as a normal person.
The Big Issue works along the same lines. Instead of just begging, the sellers have to engage in business transactions to get their cash.
This would mandate the payment of benefits in money rather than vouchers.
Orlanth wrote:The reasons why child support was looked into in seperation.
1. While it is not fair to judge what someone (who we must assume by default is a genuine claimant) can spend their JSA/income support money on, it is perfectly acceptable for society to demand that child support is spent on the children.
2. Child support cannot be denied and is by far the easiest benefit to swindle, the more kids you have the easier it is to feed and cloth them all on a decreasing fraction of child benefit.
- This might lead to the question, why not cut child benefit for multiple kids? This cannot be achieved because the rate calculated is a fair assessment of what is needed (at least from the governments point of view) if one gave a feth about the childs welfare. Three kids equals three times the cost. Only scum parents gwet the 'discount' because tins of beans, toast and chips are cheap and plentiful, cloths can be hand be down between kids in the family and this leaves lots of child benefit left over for fags and booze.
3. There is no justifyable stigma going to the checkout with child benefit stamps, working parents get them too.
4. No you shouldnt spend child benefit on kebabs and McDonalds, home cooked meals are strongly encouraged. If parents wants to 'treat' the kids to McDonalds they can do it out of their own wages or JSA.
What about daycare, transport to school, opticians, rent or morgage for larger living space, school lunch money or any of the countless other things which is required to bring up a child but can't be bought with a stamp at asda or tesco?
We should be sorting out the muppets who abuse the system not penalising those who don't.
No it works. This is sorting out the muppets, starting with the 'I want' mupperts who wont look at how things were done and still could be done.
Opticians costs for children are handled by NHS for a start. All of the rest except fuel for the 4x4 on school runs can be included in a voucher system, for that go back to the old system. Parents do a rota have one mum go around one day a week and pick up kids from five houses, or one day in three from three. This was how it was done before we got the 'my entitlement must be met - now!' dogma. School lunch money can be replaced by food satchels, besides give a kid a pack lunch and he/she gets a lunch not top up money to txt all day in the classroom.
Besdies stamp should be available at more places than asda and tescos.
@Albatross: Snide remarks aside, your arguement boils down to "The reason these people are doing these bad things is entirely their own fault, because they have irresponsibility/immorality from growing up in an irresponsible/immoral environment." If it's drastically different from this, please correct this "patronising tosser."
My arguement is that the government is partly to blame for creating/allowing such an environment. Simply arguing that its their own fault for living in such an environment is absurd: No-one has a choice in where they're born, and usually have very little say in where they grow up as a child. The rioters are completely to blame for their actions; Several times in the previous post I mentioned that. However, I also mentioned (Yay reading comprehension!) that the reason the rioters have grown up in areas that instill poor values is not their fault.
And as for you making terrible choices, what stopped you from making worse ones? What made you realise that mugging/theft/arson were bad things, and not acceptable by society at large. I'd hazard a guess (given your post) that you had strong support from your mother; How would you have grown up without her moral guidelines and influences? Would you have been as well-adjusted as you are today? Or would you have been as violent or criminal as the rioters that were in the streets?
Orlanth wrote:2. People who deserve benefits have a reasonable entitlement to spend their money how they wish.
Why?
If you are appealing to the government for money to live on, how is it wrong for the government to limit what you can purchase with that money? When you come asking for money for food, what is wrong with the government insisting that you spend that money on food rather than cigarettes, booze, DVD rentals, or toy soldiers? Basically, if you're not using it for food, then you didn't really need the benefit in the first place.
I tell you why.
I will give you a near future specific.
A. Many soldiers jobs are about to go. Even the officers will have hard trouble getting work. To quote an officer I know he claimed to have seventeen years of management experience in an interview.
'You are just what we need. Where?'
'Her Majesty's armed forces.'
At this point they didnt want to know.
Soldiers dont easily get jobs excepting certain positions in the security industry. Their work experience counts for suprisingly little. So they go on JSA.
Now someone does tours gets shot at, gets given a P45 and cannot get a job becvause he has few or no 'valid' skills. You tell me this person doesnt deserve to spend the c£65 on whatever he chooses. So he should bow his head in shame not drink not smoke forfeit any hobby he has and buy from a select product list in a supermarket.
How about this one then.
B. Those with a mental health history. Not a real screaming nutter that needs locking up, nor one 'dangerous' enough to be formally sectioned and getting Incapacity benefit. Just mentally ill enough to be fairly unemployable. There are lots of people in that category. The NHS glosses over milder cases that need help but threaten nothing but thier own career prospects, they cannot afford to fully treat everyone. Up to a point I can understand this, but employers dont see that, they see JSA not Incap. They see regular unenmployed not a formal mental health case with attached benefits and entitlements and kickbacks to someone taking on a disadvantaged person into the workforce.
Its a grey area and a suprisingly big one. Its not these peoples fault. People with mild aspergers, attention of motivation disorders (genuine ones not the neglected chav upbringing variants), mad enough to make them unemployable because they compete directly with the fully sane, while not mad enough to get sectioned and be on the list of people the state has a duty of care for.
Some of these people may even be fully recovered but with ten or twenty year career gaps that the employment advisors cannot hope to gloss over. People with ten or more years of benefit claims dont get jobs anywhere, and employers are not interested in the whys, wherefores or if the person is deserving or a chance or not.
C. How about the large numbers of people who cannot get work because of the recession. Made redundant and competing with people far younger. They exist in their thousands and are getting worried.
Its not their fault the bankerss and squandering politicians fethed our economy and they lost their jobs. There are a lot of quite employable people now twelve months plus on the DSS in my town are they scum who should be only allowed to buy subsistence goods from selected shops?
darkPrince010 wrote:@Albatross: Snide remarks aside, your arguement boils down to "The reason these people are doing these bad things is entirely their own fault, because they have irresponsibility/immorality from growing up in an irresponsible/immoral environment." If it's drastically different from this, please correct this "patronising tosser."
Not quite. My argument is that yes, they pretty much get irresponsibility on the tit, but no, absolving them of even more responsibility by blaming their behaviour on cuts to social welfare is not going to help. That's like giving a drowning man a drink of water, in my opinion.
And you'll have to forgive my annoyance - waking up to find my city has been smashed up by looters, and then having to listen to people making excuses for the people who did it, will do that to a person.
My arguement is that the government is partly to blame for creating/allowing such an environment.
Not the current government.
Simply arguing that its their own fault for living in such an environment is absurd: No-one has a choice in where they're born, and usually have very little say in where they grow up as a child.
...but they do have the same basic opportunities that every other child has, and can choose to better themselves, should they wish. You can't really judge the UK by the standards of the US - 'poverty' here is nothing like poverty there. Every child in the UK has access to decent, affordable healthcare, it's easier and more affordable to get a university education and welfare payments are enough to live on. To keep repeating the same patterns as the generation that precedes you is a personal choice - these kids have societal input on how to behave, and what is expected of them, if they are to become responsible citizens. The problem is, at the moment there is no price for failure. So why should they give a feth?
It's also worth pointing out that not all of the rioters were from deprived backgrounds, as others have noted. It's responsibility that is deficient, not social mobility. The tools are there if one wishes to use them. I did.
The rioters are completely to blame for their actions; Several times in the previous post I mentioned that. However, I also mentioned (Yay reading comprehension!) that the reason the rioters have grown up in areas that instill poor values is not their fault.
Yes, but you attributed their actions, in part, to this. So which is it? Are they completely to blame or not?
I have no sympathy or empathy for those out rioting - its wrong and they need to be punished for it.
On the other hand nothing was done to those in the finincial services who directly caused (and continue to cause) devestation and misery on a world wide scale except giving them bonuses, pay offs and new jobs in other companies(especaily at the top) - all at the expense of various countries tax payers - no sign of any punishment for any of them which is also IMO wrong.
Kilkrazy wrote:To back up Orlanth on this, the UK does have a system of stamps or vouchers for asylum seekers, and it has demonstrated the various pernicious results that he covered.
Why they say 'its been tried and doesnt work'. I partly agree but still think a case for child benefit to be paid on a limited accessibility swipecard is valid.
Kilkrazy wrote:
I think that point 2 is moot considering all the practical disadvantages of the system.
Which particular point two. There were three in that post.
Kilkrazy wrote:
Something not mentioned but possibly relevant, or not, depending how much of a bleeding heart liberal one may be, is that part of the purported purpose of benefits is to ease a transition back to normal working, earning and spending life. (That's why it is called Job Seeker's Allowance.)
It is the principle used to re-habilitate long-term prisoners back into civvie life. They are sent out for short periods, wearing proper clothes and allowed to spend their pocket money in shops as a normal person.
The Big Issue works along the same lines. Instead of just begging, the sellers have to engage in business transactions to get their cash.
This would mandate the payment of benefits in money rather than vouchers.
interesting point, and not one covered.
Partly because it is agreed that giving someone 100% of all benefits on a voucher system would be unfair. So a claimant will have some cash.
Furthermore cash required to orientate people into a monetary society need not be large, in fac t it is better if it is not. Childrens pocket money should be restricted heavily even if the parents are well to do. Children learn the value of money and discipline better if they have only a few pounds. Adults are no different, the amount of money needed to orientate someone need not be all they need to live on but only a small fraction of that. In either case the principle is there to learn, unlimited purchase options vs limited puirchase power.
Your own analogy confirms this, day release prisoners are IIRC given only enough for the day and return to the prison environment, so the training funds are not synonymous with the means by which continued survival is attained.
If someone really does not deserve benefits and the system knows it can cut off the benefits, simple as that. There is no need to restrict the spending profile. If a claimant brings in no proof of looking for work the Jobcentre can suspend their benefit, this can and does happen. Of course its easir to conceal a dodgy claim than to expose one, but unless we get rid of burden of proof before punishment can be administered then that is something you just have to accept will happen.
@Albatross: Don't worry. I know the feeling of previous governments up your country...
As for the parts about welfare/education/healthcare, that's actually a really good point... I was going off of poverty and motivations here in the US, and I guess I didn't realize how much better you guys have it over there across the pond. I would like to revamp my opinions then, and suggest it's probably because of poor role models and a benefits system that is lax enough to allow them to be unemployed with no consequences.
As for the rioters, I'm of the opinion that the rioters are completely responsible for their actions and crimes, but the government is responsible for creating an atmosphere that tolerates or encourages criminal behavior. Filtered through realizing that your benefits sytem is way better than ours, that's significantly lessened as a motivation (And is actually making me a bit more mad at the looters) but I still believe it has some part in influencing that negative environment. Maybe not as large of a part as previously thought, but a part.
Orlanth wrote:Now someone does tours gets shot at, gets given a P45 and cannot get a job becvause he has few or no 'valid' skills. You tell me this person doesnt deserve to spend the c£65 on whatever he chooses. So he should bow his head in shame not drink not smoke forfeit any hobby he has and buy from a select product list in a supermarket.
If he's begging money from the government and not able to work, then yes. Ever hear the phrase "beggers can't be choosers"?
Orlanth wrote:B. Those with a mental health history. Not a real screaming nutter that needs locking up, nor one 'dangerous' enough to be formally sectioned and getting Incapacity benefit. Just mentally ill enough to be fairly unemployable. There are lots of people in that category.
Are they capable of working? Then they shouldn't be allowed to spend their money on "whatever they want." Go out and get a job.
However, if they can't work, then it's a different story.
Orlanth wrote:C. How about the large numbers of people who cannot get work because of the recession. Made redundant and competing with people far younger. They exist in their thousands and are getting worried.
Its not their fault the bankerss and squandering politicians fethed our economy and they lost their jobs. There are a lot of quite employable people now twelve months plus on the DSS in my town are they scum who should be only allowed to buy subsistence goods from selected shops?
Never said they're "scum," simply that when you ask for charity you should use it for the purpose that it's intended.
If you asked me for $20 for gas, I would give it to you. If you asked me for $20 for gas and walked into the corner store and bought a bunch of liquor, I'd be a little PO'd. This is no different.
Kilkrazy wrote:To back up Orlanth on this, the UK does have a system of stamps or vouchers for asylum seekers, and it has demonstrated the various pernicious results that he covered.
Why they say 'its been tried and doesnt work'. I partly agree but still think a case for child benefit to be paid on a limited accessibility swipecard is valid.
Kilkrazy wrote:
I think that point 2 is moot considering all the practical disadvantages of the system.
Which particular point two. There were three in that post.
.
The one about the government dictating to benefit claimants what they should do with their social security.
It seems pointless given that it depends on the various control measures which have so many practical difficulties.
Albatross wrote:
I'm surprised that you credit them with that amount of political nous. You obviously haven't met them. These aren't just the poor people of England, up in arms about government cuts, and what those cuts might mean for them and their families. Those people were the VICTIMS of the rioting, The people who perpetrated these acts are lower than that - the rioters are from the underclass, poor people that are brought up on a diet of junk-food, casual sex, crime and irresponsibility. It's a generational problem. There is a sector of society that has effectively been told for the last 13 years that their actions have no consequences, that every crappy decision that they make is someone else's fault, and that somehow the rest of us 'owe' them. They have been convinced that WE have let THEM down. The upshot of all this is that they don't really care about anything but fulfilling their most base desires, and misguided liberals have provided them with a playbook of excuses should they be brought to book for their actions: 'It's the economy/cuts/bankers, innit?'
You called it right. It's about about time people took responsibility for their own actions and stopped blaming the government/society for their own failings. Yeah sometimes life is s**t and deals you a bad hand. 'Fraid you've just got to get on a deal with it, instead of looking for excuses. F***ing feckless halfwits, press them into service as cannon fodder!
darkPrince010 wrote:@Albatross: Don't worry. I know the feeling of previous governments up your country...
As for the parts about welfare/education/healthcare, that's actually a really good point... I was going off of poverty and motivations here in the US, and I guess I didn't realize how much better you guys have it over there across the pond. I would like to revamp my opinions then, and suggest it's probably because of poor role models and a benefits system that is lax enough to allow them to be unemployed with no consequences.
Agreed! Woah, I never saw THAT coming! Let's be pals now, k?
As for the rioters, I'm of the opinion that the rioters are completely responsible for their actions and crimes, but the government is responsible for creating an atmosphere that tolerates or encourages criminal behavior. Filtered through realizing that your benefits sytem is way better than ours, that's significantly lessened as a motivation (And is actually making me a bit more mad at the looters) but I still believe it has some part in influencing that negative environment. Maybe not as large of a part as previously thought, but a part.
biccat wrote:
If he's begging money from the government and not able to work, then yes. Ever hear the phrase "beggers can't be choosers"?
Veterans, out of work people who wish to contribute and the mentally ill should not be written off as 'beggars'.
biccat wrote:
However, if they can't work, then it's a different story.
Is it? What is the moral difference between soeone who cannot get a job because noone will employ him and someone who will not get a job because they lack ability to accomplish any job effectively.
biccat wrote:
If you asked me for $20 for gas, I would give it to you. If you asked me for $20 for gas and walked into the corner store and bought a bunch of liquor, I'd be a little PO'd. This is no different.
But they arent asking for anything specific, they are asking for something to live on, long term. This means more than just enough food to exist. While the benefits rates are not set to leave much for luxuries, if people save in some areas they can spend in others. This can be done responsibly or irresposibly. People are not mentally ill or ex veterans for a week or two, its months years or a lifetime. Are these people no longer fit to enjoy a quality of life that you would prohibit them from purchasing anything other than items to continue a bare subsistent living? You think you should have the right to make that call?
SlaveToDorkness wrote:If I was the one supporting them? HELL yes.
Do you go up to the police and tell them what they should do because you pay their salary as well? You are looking at an impersonal thing in personal terms. At what point does the disconnect begin where it stops being your money and starts being the states?
SlaveToDorkness wrote:When it dissatisfies me enough to do something about it. If the Police aren't adequately keeping the peace in my neighborhood I go down and tell them.
That isn't the same thing as going to a person and telling them how to spend money/coupons/stamps they received from the state. So really you just want to go down to the welfare office and leave something in the suggestion box. Your initial statement makes it sound as if you were going to go over to individuals in receipt of assistance and tell them what to do, not go to the governing office and lodge a complaint.
You think you should have the right to make that call?
What I think I should have the right to do is a far cry from being able to do so.
telling them what to do should be a responsibility of the State that is supporting them. If they don't like it they should probably find some other means of getting what they want.
Besides of course, hooding, bricking, and running.
biccat wrote:
If he's begging money from the government and not able to work, then yes. Ever hear the phrase "beggers can't be choosers"?
Veterans, out of work people who wish to contribute and the mentally ill should not be written off as 'beggars'.
If they're asking the government for money, then yes, they're beggars. What would you call them?
If you're talking about a veterans stipend or pension, then it's a different story.
You seem to think that other people have the right to demand money from the taxpayers. I disagree. No one has the right to demand money from me unless it is in exchange for goods or services.
Orlanth wrote:
biccat wrote:
However, if they can't work, then it's a different story.
Is it? What is the moral difference between soeone who cannot get a job because noone will employ him and someone who will not get a job because they lack ability to accomplish any job effectively.
The moral difference is that those who are unable to work have a right to sustenance as an element of our humanity. Simply the inability to provide for yourself should not damn one to starvation and homelessness.
However, those who have the ability to work are responsible for their own life. If there is no physical or mental deficiency, these people are no different than those who do work day-to-day in order to pay for the freeloaders.
Orlanth wrote:
biccat wrote:
If you asked me for $20 for gas, I would give it to you. If you asked me for $20 for gas and walked into the corner store and bought a bunch of liquor, I'd be a little PO'd. This is no different.
But they arent asking for anything specific, they are asking for something to live on, long term. This means more than just enough food to exist. While the benefits rates are not set to leave much for luxuries, if people save in some areas they can spend in others. This can be done responsibly or irresposibly. People are not mentally ill or ex veterans for a week or two, its months years or a lifetime. Are these people no longer fit to enjoy a quality of life that you would prohibit them from purchasing anything other than items to continue a bare subsistent living? You think you should have the right to make that call?
They are asking for something specific, they're asking for something to live on. That means food, shelter and water. You don't need cigarettes, booze or luxuries to live.
As for what right I have to make that call, as long as I'm the one paying for the benefits, then I have a right to direct how they're paid out and if people don't like the terms, or don't want to abide by them, then they have the right to refuse the benefits.
In fact, the more important question is: what right do you have to money from me and give it to someone else? Do you think the rioters have the right to break into someone's house and take food from their refrigerator? If not, what gives them the right to elect someone who will order the police to do the same thing? What service have they provided to me that gives them an entitlement to the money that I earn by my own hard work?
This is a really difficult one to decide. Should our money that goes on benefits be spent on booze and fags? As you're never going to stop this (unless the government gives out coupons instead of money that can only be spent on certain things) its a bit of a moot point. What is relevant is that these people who are in all fairness probably quite poor, have a moral choice "shall we loot shops or not?" Whilst they think their position of poverty gives them an excuse to break the law- in fact it doesn't. I recently had the privilege of going on holiday to Africa - Kenya. Some of these people are REALLY poor, they live in tin huts, have to go down to the river to get water/wash, but they aren't rioting about it. It's just people taking advantage of a situation that they think they can get away with. Fortunately in many cases, the Police have proved this is not going to be the way of things. As for the family that are possibly going to be 'rehomed/evicted' because one member of the family has been looting - should somebody suffer because one person has done wrong? Not in my book, this is the kind of justice that gives justice in the UK a bad name, punishing the innocent? Whatever next?
The idea that unemployed people are beggars is demeaning and takes us back to the Georgian times of the workhouse.
Society set up social security for the benefit of people who fall on hard times. It could happen to any of us given the current economic circumstances.
If claimants commit a crime I think the idea of penalising their social security is worth consideration. People should understand they have responsibilities as well as rights. I don't think people in prison collect social security anyway, but it could be a good penalty for someone on a non-custodial sentence.
The council tenancy contract requires the tenant not to commit nor allow their family to commit crimes. The same clause is found in private tenancy contracts.
What Police need are two things. A Fear weapon, and a way to prevent this kind of open violence. The Fear weapon should not be the risk of a severe beating. I would propose an Armoured Lion unit. That's right, trained, riot armoured Lions, organized into packs of five that are simply let loose on a group of rioters. Or, a Helicopter armed with flamethrowers. On prevention, chain gangs. Chain them up, and put them to work repairing the damage. On techniques, simply drive them to an open area, cut off the escapes, push them into a tight group, pull them out one at a time and arrest them. Simples.
wasn't encouraging programs to tell these people as kids that doing this is wrong.
