Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
I was watching this short documentary on the Manchester riots in 2011, and it got me thinking about youth and growing up in the UK. The individuals they interviewed presented like they had no hopes, aspirations, or interests. Some of the towns, looked like what I imagine they would have the day after the blitz. I've been to the UK a few times, the last being in 2002, and it barely resembled the places I remember visiting. Made me a bit sad, tbh.
So my question is, are things that bad in the UK? What is it like growing up there?
Just like anything, anywhere... you get extremes. This sounds like one of those documentaries that's out to create a highlight reel of sorts, of the worst of our worst. Manchester is a known "rough spot" (that's a hell of an understatement), and the conditions and community there only serve to mould those growing up there in the same way. I hear similar things about how rough Detroit is - but it's hardly an indication of the US at large.
We haven't changed that much at all since 2002, so what you remember is probably still pretty accurate.
"Hard pressed on my right. My centre is yielding. Impossible to manoeuvre. Situation excellent. I am attacking." - General Ferdinand Foch
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
I am currently 18, and I've spent most of my life in London, I've had much experience with the urban youth through growing up, being a youth myself. Hell, I've even been violently mugged.
Honestly, I agree with the other fellow comments. Every city has its rough elements. Documentaries tend to highlight these certain things and don't really give the viewer a bigger picture. My rather negative experiences in this city have occured in the more urban locations, but other sections of London are quite lovely places. There are worse cities than what the UK posseses.
Well, I'm 21 and I'm from Liverpool, born and raised. Most of my friends have good degrees and/or a great job that pays well, we have great nightlife, and there's no shortage of things to do if you look properly. Every city has it's rough parts, and we do have a few scroungers, but on the whole, I'd never want to have been brought up anywhere else.
If Detroit is to blame for *any* of the US' woes, it's only because they've been dragging their heels about getting round to creating Robocop.
C'mon, guys, seriously. Get to it already!
Tell you what... you sort out Robocop, and in return we promise to bring Robo-Zombie-Churchill along.
"Hard pressed on my right. My centre is yielding. Impossible to manoeuvre. Situation excellent. I am attacking." - General Ferdinand Foch
The UK really has no downtown Detroit (where I've spent time working).
I live near Deptford, South London, lots of unemployment and sadly, as everywhere else, there's a huge amount more inequality. People with no jobs, living not too far from £2m houses with expensive German cars and 4by4s outside every door.
But still a long, long way from Detroit, or West Side Chicago, or the poor areas in LA, San Francisco, Mississippi, you name it. We're a much smaller country, so you could never have huge areas cut off from the mainstream as is the case in the US.
It was done by the BBC, so I thought that perhaps it would be pretty accurate, apparently I was incorrect in my assumption.
You are right, it would have been pretty boring if they were like "these are chavs. they started a riot. they are proper nasty, but the rest of us are splendid!"
They briefly touched on the Ryan Florence incident.
They stated the high number of immigrants and the low number of jobs as probable facotrs for the unrest. So I wasn't sure if these were hot issues in the UK or just the same trite that every single News reporter (regardless of country), reports everytime there is any civil unrest.
They stated the high number of immigrants and the low number of jobs as probable facotrs for the unrest. So I wasn't sure if these were hot issues in the UK or just the same trite that every single News reporter (regardless of country), reports everytime there is any civil unrest.
The London riots started after the police assassinated a suspected drug dealer, falsified evidence that he was armed, and then attacked a 16 year old girl at the peaceful protest about the killing.
Once the London riot was underway the other riots sprang up for lots of reasons, the low number of jobs mentioned, but also hatred of the police, lack of prospects or social mobility and the perceived loss of control by the authorities.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/07/12 06:01:02
Ahhhhh, your comment (and explanation of the prelude to the situation), make sense of this article I read earlier.
The author of the article wrote that the Governement allowed the riots to continue initially, so that after fear and panic had set in, only then would they allow the Police to take charge and seem like the good guys, rushing in to save the day. This served to strengthen the dependence (or appearance thereof) the people have on the government. Whether or not the Government of the UK is that conniving, is unknown to me. Although in this day and age, I don't put anything past the Government of ANY country...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/07/12 06:56:00
aclive wrote: Ahhhhh, your comment (and explanation of the prelude to the situation), make sense of this article I read earlier.
The author of the article wrote that the Governement allowed the riots to continue initially, so that after fear and panic had set in, only then would they allow the Police to take charge and seem like the good guys, rushing in to save the day. This served to strengthen the dependence (or appearance thereof) the people have on the government. Whether or not the Government of the UK is that conniving, is unknown to me. Although in this day and age, I don't put anything past the Government of ANY country...
Here is an interesting documentary on the subject.
I don't know the reasoning behind holding off the police, but like you I wouldn't put it past the establishment to try and pull off such a stupid tactic.
They stated the high number of immigrants and the low number of jobs as probable facotrs for the unrest. So I wasn't sure if these were hot issues in the UK or just the same trite that every single News reporter (regardless of country), reports everytime there is any civil unrest.
The London riots started after the police assassinated a suspected drug dealer, falsified evidence that he was armed, and then attacked a 16 year old girl at the peaceful protest about the killing.
Once the London riot was underway the other riots sprang up for lots of reasons, the low number of jobs mentioned, but also hatred of the police, lack of prospects or social mobility and the perceived loss of control by the authorities.
Flat out greed was also a large contributing factor. Looting was a major part of the riots. I think a fair amount of people were there purely for the theiving opportunities - like the footage of the guy who got his jaw broken. He got punched, ended up sat down and confused and people were walking up to him and just taking things out of his bag.
Its because ordinance is still a word.
However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.
Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.
Ordnance is high caliber explosives.
No 'I' in ordnance.
Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.
Flat out greed was also a large contributing factor. Looting was a major part of the riots. I think a fair amount of people were there purely for the theiving opportunities - like the footage of the guy who got his jaw broken. He got punched, ended up sat down and confused and people were walking up to him and just taking things out of his bag.
Which stems from 30 years of 'greed is good' mentality added to Dickensian levels of inequality and non-existent social mobility for those involved.
Also, the looting didn't really happen on the first day, but was more a reaction to the lack of policing.
Flat out greed was also a large contributing factor. Looting was a major part of the riots. I think a fair amount of people were there purely for the theiving opportunities - like the footage of the guy who got his jaw broken. He got punched, ended up sat down and confused and people were walking up to him and just taking things out of his bag.
Which stems from 30 years of 'greed is good' mentality added to Dickensian levels of inequality and non-existent social mobility for those involved.
Also, the looting didn't really happen on the first day, but was more a reaction to the lack of policing.
Yeah you're right, as soon as the police didn't show people got braver...and then stole. and then wondered why the government went after then with cctv footage and convictions.
And in at least 1 case that I know of, a guy got jailed for suggesting a riot in his local town on facebook.
Its because ordinance is still a word.
However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.
Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.
Ordnance is high caliber explosives.
No 'I' in ordnance.
Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.
They stated the high number of immigrants and the low number of jobs as probable facotrs for the unrest. So I wasn't sure if these were hot issues in the UK or just the same trite that every single News reporter (regardless of country), reports everytime there is any civil unrest.
The London riots started after the police assassinated a suspected drug dealer, falsified evidence that he was armed, and then attacked a 16 year old girl at the peaceful protest about the killing.
Once the London riot was underway the other riots sprang up for lots of reasons, the low number of jobs mentioned, but also hatred of the police, lack of prospects or social mobility and the perceived loss of control by the authorities.
And the fact it was a bit of a laugh and night out for many people.
Flat out greed was also a large contributing factor. Looting was a major part of the riots. I think a fair amount of people were there purely for the theiving opportunities - like the footage of the guy who got his jaw broken. He got punched, ended up sat down and confused and people were walking up to him and just taking things out of his bag.
Which stems from 30 years of 'greed is good' mentality added to Dickensian levels of inequality and non-existent social mobility for those involved.
Also, the looting didn't really happen on the first day, but was more a reaction to the lack of policing.
Yeah you're right, as soon as the police didn't show people got braver...and then stole. and then wondered why the government went after then with cctv footage and convictions.
And in at least 1 case that I know of, a guy got jailed for suggesting a riot in his local town on facebook.
Yes, he got a number of years in prison for a drunken facebook post, while child abusers and those who embezzle millions get off without any sentence at all.
Its because ordinance is still a word.
However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.
Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.
Ordnance is high caliber explosives.
No 'I' in ordnance.
Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.
aclive wrote: Ahhhhh, your comment (and explanation of the prelude to the situation), make sense of this article I read earlier.
The author of the article wrote that the Governement allowed the riots to continue initially, so that after fear and panic had set in, only then would they allow the Police to take charge and seem like the good guys, rushing in to save the day. This served to strengthen the dependence (or appearance thereof) the people have on the government. Whether or not the Government of the UK is that conniving, is unknown to me. Although in this day and age, I don't put anything past the Government of ANY country...
Here is an interesting documentary on the subject.
I don't know the reasoning behind holding off the police, but like you I wouldn't put it past the establishment to try and pull off such a stupid tactic.
Not quite correct.
Actually it was to allow the Law to be changed to allow bystanders (who the rioters would pretend to be as soon as the rozzers got close) to be charge with instigating/taking part in the riots by their presence. This was done with all party support and through the House of Lords in a Day. This change allowed the police to detail and charge anyone in certain riot areas to allow them to clear the streets and deal with the hardcore of offenders. Once they were in custody video evidence was studied and bigger charges brought where possible the remainder were released with a fine. Actually good work in the circumstance.
The Police are not without fault though. There was some dalliance at the start of the Riots (particularly in London) where the Police stayed their hand in favour of letting the situation resolve itself and kettleing, when they should have been deploying police in greater numbers and horses.
Me I would have gone back in time and got the Territorial Support unit from the 80's on scene to dish out some beatings to the little pricks, after a groin height barrage of baton rounds of course. If it was good enough for the Irish it was good enough for Londoners.
How do you promote your Hobby? - Legoburner "I run some crappy wargaming website "
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Its because ordinance is still a word.
However, firing ordinance at someone isn't nearly as threatening as firing ordnance at someone.
Ordinance is a local law, or bill, or other form of legislation.
Ordnance is high caliber explosives.
No 'I' in ordnance.
Don't drown the enemy in legislation, drown them in explosives.
"Hard pressed on my right. My centre is yielding. Impossible to manoeuvre. Situation excellent. I am attacking." - General Ferdinand Foch 
I'd base all our country's woes based on that city alone.
