# Riots - the fallout



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

So, the predictable knee-jerk reaction is well underway, and we can expect a raft of ill-considered measures to be rushed in, no doubt increasing police powers even further.

But what will the real consequences be? If a contributory factor to the riots has been the ill-judged use of stop and search powers, will there be a rethink of this kind of policy, or will they simply be stepped up even more? What will the police's response be? Will Cameron ever use the phrase 'Big Society' again, and if not, what will replace it?

Is it all bad? Can we just expect more repression as the wider Tory agenda rolls on regardless? Or could something positive come out of this?

Lots of questions and not many answers from me at the moment. I would like to think that somewhere along the line the Tories will do something positive to stop this from happening again. It would seem in their self-interest to do so, whatever the current hard-man rhetoric. What say you?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 11, 2011)

The same thing happened in the wake of the riots 30 years ago iirc. Same tosh about "giving the police more powers", "arming the police", "sending in the troops" etc. The Tories crapped on about "criminality" and "personal responsibility", just like they are now. Same old Tories, same old shite Labour.

SUS laws have been effectively replaced by Stop & Search. If you're a black kid, you're a potential criminal and if you're an Asian kid, you're a potential 'terror' suspect.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 11, 2011)

Just more predictable conservative cock-wankery.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> SUS laws have been effectively replaced by Stop & Search.


Yes, they have. And sus laws were repealed eventually at least partly because they were so socially divisive. Stop & Search is definitely a counterproductive policy in terms of maintaining order, as sus was. Might we see it quietly scaled back once the dust has settled?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

Key points from Cameroon's speech today:





> • Instant messaging services will be reviewed. "We are working with the Police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violenc...e, disorder and criminality," he said.
> 
> • The police will have new powers to order people to remove facemasks. "On facemasks, currently [the police] can only remove these in a specific geographical location and for a limited time," Cameron said. "So I can announce today that we are going to give the police the discretion to remove face coverings under any circumstances where there is reasonable suspicion that they are related to criminal activity."
> 
> ...


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

The police have got all the weaponry and legal powers they could ever use. They might get protection from the current programme of cuts and maybe even more bodies.

Prison places will be in very short supply and I think this will fuel demands for technology based solutions. I predict people being sentenced to be tagged in a new way with a RFID tag inserted under the neck skin forever with a massive network of beacons being installed so several million people (the underclass) can be monitored at all times and for all their lives.

I predict a huge swathe of people being forcibly sterilised too. Perhaps by linking benefits to compliance with Depo Provera style contraceptive implants.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2011)

> Breaking News The e-petition calling for rioters to lose their benefits has reached 100,000 hits and been referred to the Commons backbench committee, the first to do so since the website launched last week.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14488247


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

Asbo's for anyone convicted of an offence in connection with a political demonstration will be rolled out from their current use against just the EDL to almost anyone. Attend another demo ever again and it will be 5 years in nick.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Aug 11, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> The same thing happened in the wake of the riots 30 years ago iirc. Same tosh about "giving the police more powers", "arming the police", "sending in the troops" etc. The Tories crapped on about "criminality" and "personal responsibility", just like they are now. Same old Tories, same old shite Labour.
> 
> SUS laws have been effectively replaced by Stop & Search. If you're a black kid, you're a potential criminal and if you're an Asian kid, you're a potential 'terror' suspect.



The 80s were before my time really - does anybody have any recollections of the reaction to the Brixton and Toxteth riots?


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> The 80s were before my time really - does anybody have any recollections of the reaction to the Brixton and Toxteth riots?


Yeah loads. Maybe bump a thread about them? Save repeating on decent recollections.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Yeah loads. Maybe bump a thread about them? Save repeating on decent recollections.


Where it's relevant, it would be good to see parallels drawn here, though, in that it might give an idea about what will happen this time round. Although those riots were followed by exactly the same immediate response from the government - condemnation and a refusal to acknowledge social conditions that led to them - they were also a catalyst for change in a deeply racist police force, weren't they? Some good did come from the 80s riots. What they most certainly didn't do, though, is weaken the government of the day at all.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

Bigger cages longer chains was the result.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 11, 2011)

I love the way everyone seems to have decided that the rioters all live in council houses, on benefits, from "broken homes".


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 11, 2011)

So let's see, martial law, crackdown on freedom of communication... I imagine it may provoke even further but there's no easy answer, is there? E petitions for a loss of benefits does show there is an emotive knee jerk reaction but I guess that's a sign of the current climate.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 11, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I love the way everyone seems to have decided that the rioters all live in council houses, on benefits, from "broken homes".


 everyone?


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 11, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> everyone?


Masses of people, as directed by the tories.


----------



## trabant (Aug 11, 2011)

TopCat said:


> The police have got all the weaponry and legal powers they could ever use. They might get protection from the current programme of cuts and maybe even more bodies.
> 
> Prison places will be in very short supply and I think this will fuel demands for technology based solutions. I predict people being sentenced to be tagged in a new way with a RFID tag inserted under the neck skin forever with a massive network of beacons being installed so several million people (the underclass) can be monitored at all times and for all their lives.
> 
> I predict a huge swathe of people being forcibly sterilised too. Perhaps by linking benefits to compliance with Depo Provera style contraceptive implants.



In the Running Man movie, wasn't their an neck tag/brace thing that blew up when you went out of a designated zone?


----------



## spliff (Aug 11, 2011)

What is a 'Gang Injunction' ?


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 11, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Masses of people, as directed by the tories.



Are you inferring that the masses are easily manipulated sheep? I'd give them more credit that that


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 11, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Are you inferring that the masses are easily manipulated sheep? I'd give them more credit that that


No I reckon some people actually agree with them in the first place. You know the usual suspects who get hard ons about flogging and hanging etc.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 11, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> No I reckon some people actually agree with them in the first place. You know the usual suspects who get hard ons about flogging and hanging etc.


I don't doubt there are seriously odd people out there who would probably volunteer to do the floggings but hardly masses...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Aug 11, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> The same thing happened in the wake of the riots 30 years ago iirc. Same tosh about "giving the police more powers", "arming the police", "sending in the troops" etc. The Tories crapped on about "criminality" and "personal responsibility", just like they are now. Same old Tories, same old shite Labour.


Well, some good things came out of the Scarman Report. Independent Lay Visitors to Police Stations spring to mind, and their presence certainly had a good knock-on effect, so not all bad.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I love the way everyone seems to have decided that the rioters all live in council houses, on benefits, from "broken homes".


I had this before. Some snarky magistrate looking surprised that I was educated (a bit) and was in employment when in the dock.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> Well, some good things came out of the Scarman Report. Independent Lay Visitors to Police Stations spring to mind, and their presence certainly had a good knock-on effect, so not all bad.


Yes indeed. The lay visitors were instrumental in ensuring those police responsible for deaths in custody were successfully prosecuted.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

Brixton got a Mcdonalds.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

CCTV was rolled out around the UK.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

Brixton tube station got better shops.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

Police got masses of new kit to replace improvised shields (dustbin lids).


----------



## Diamond (Aug 11, 2011)

Maybe it's just me but there seems as if the centre is rapidly shifting rightwards as a direct result of these riots.

There's also this bizarre sense that people are embracing the spectacle of the riot so that they can make that political transition rightwards while being more or less wholly aware that the events don't justify their arguments and conclusions. I suppose what I'm getting at is that there's this sense of complicity in the delusion that society is morally and operationally bankrupt.


----------



## elbows (Aug 11, 2011)

The global media fallout so far is quite illuminating in a variety of different ways.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14494824


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 11, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Prison places will be in very short supply and I think this will fuel demands for technology based solutions. I predict people being sentenced to be tagged in a new way with a RFID tag inserted under the neck skin forever with a massive network of beacons being installed so several million people (the underclass) can be monitored at all times and for all their lives.
> 
> I predict a huge swathe of people being forcibly sterilised too. Perhaps by linking benefits to compliance with Depo Provera style contraceptive implants.



Is this a joke?


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Is this a joke?



No --- I think it's irony.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Is this a joke?


No, not in any way whatsoever. No joke, no irony, my prediction for the future.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 11, 2011)

TopCat said:


> No, not in any way whatsoever. No joke, no irony, my prediction for the future.



I assumed you were having a laugh, as you're not, all I can say is get a grip!


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> The 80s were before my time really - does anybody have any recollections of the reaction to the Brixton and Toxteth riots?


yup; absolutely ZERO change to the economic policies which part-caused them, minor imrpovements in the police...and the tories won a GE 2 years later.
this lot will be hard-pushed to find another falklands though, and I really can't see anyone invading the Isle Of Wight or Bermuda


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

In 81, the economic policies did change. They had to because they were failing, and Thatcher abandoned the madness that was monetarism.

I see some parallels with today and the tories' insistence on their programme of austerity - another mad policy based on zero empirical evidence that it can work. I'm going to predict that the next quarter's economic figures will be either flat again or slightly down. This will be blamed on the riots, but that will mean a whole year of near-zero growth. They won't be able to blame the riots when the quarter after that shows no growth too, and as the pay-freezes kick in against a background of price increases for basics, we may well see a change in the current plans for austerity. I still cling to some hope about a lot of the tory plans, even including the student fees. If they haven't actually happened yet, it is still not inevitable that they will happen.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 11, 2011)

Let's be honest there was shedloads of hot-air in Parliament today, but I don't think there will be any major changes in policing.

OK, they may get the right to unmask protesters, which is fairly logical whether you agree with it or not.

Same with turning off mobile phone masts within given areas during extreme troubles.

Baton rounds were already available to use, the police didn't want to use them.

Water canon on stand-by, the police have made it clear they don't think water cannon would have been useful.

At least, Disco Dave ruled out troops on the streets, which sort of surprised me at this point in time, even if neither him nor the police want that.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> I assumed you were having a laugh, as you're not, all I can say is get a grip!


Not today, maybe not tomorrow but not far off.

What's worse is the cunts in the populace who will support such measures.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Same with turning off mobile phone masts within given areas during extreme troubles.
> .


That's a half-arsed idea and I doubt it will ever be done. Imagine an ill person not able to phone for an ambulance. It would be an idiotic thing to do - a declaration of war on a whole area, not just the area's rioters.

I do agree, though that most of what was said today was hot air. It was an inevitable parading of their righteous anger.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a half-arsed idea and I doubt it will ever be done. Imagine an ill person not able to phone for an ambulance. It would be an idiotic thing to do - a declaration of war on a whole area, not just the area's rioters.


They would rather they stayed on so they can use the location data to pinpoint participants.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

TopCat said:


> They would rather they stayed on so they can use the location data to pinpoint participants.


Well yes. There's that as well.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's a half-arsed idea and I doubt it will ever be done. Imagine an ill person not able to phone for an ambulance. It would be an idiotic thing to do - a declaration of war on a whole area, not just the area's rioters.



I think they *could* justify such a risk against any advantage of taking such action.



TopCat said:


> They would rather they stayed on so they can use the location data to pinpoint participants.



Well, you can't *pinpoint* someone to an exact specific location as far as I am aware and you certainly can't prove they were participants rather than by-standers by location data.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> I think they *could* justify such a risk against any advantage of taking such action.
> 
> Well, you can't *pinpoint* someone to an exact specific location as far as I am aware and you certainly can't prove they were participants rather than by-standers by location data.


They just get a list of all people using the nearest mast and correlate this list against known offenders and then kick their doors in looking for looty booty.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Well, you can't *pinpoint* someone to an exact specific location as far as I am aware and you certainly can't prove they were participants rather than by-standers by location data.


You match the records against the CCTV footage and use that to identify people. It's a bit like the way you can identify someone on the tube using a combination of CCTV and Oyster card data.

I don't know the details of how they will be doing it, but you can bet there will be hundreds of coppers working on this right now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> I think they *could* justify such a risk against any advantage of taking such action.
> 
> Well, you can't *pinpoint* someone to an exact specific location as far as I am aware and you certainly can't prove they were participants rather than by-standers by location data.


don't you remember the investigation into the killing of jill dando, when they worked out there were something like 5,000 mobile calls in the area at the time? don't you remember part of the reason whatsisface from soham was caught was because he switched on the phone of one of the girls? don't you think phone tracing will have improved since then?


----------



## 1%er (Aug 11, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> don't you remember the investigation into the killing of jill dando, when they worked out there were something like 5,000 mobile calls in the area at the time? don't you remember part of the reason whatsisface from soham was caught was because he switched on the phone of one of the girls? don't you think phone tracing will have improved since then?


Phone tracking in the UK is very advanced, its also a growing business for phone companies. Just search for "phone tracking uk" in google, their all at it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2011)

1%er said:


> Phone tracking in the UK is very advanced, its also a growing business for phone companies. Just search for "phone tracking uk" in google, their all at it.


exactly


----------



## dylans (Aug 11, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Not today, maybe not tomorrow but not far off.
> 
> What's worse is the cunts in the populace who will support such measures.


So I am curious as to precisely why you think these events have been positive in any way? Positive implies that the balance of forces after the event has moved in our favour (by "our" I mean to the left) But what do we have?

A clamor for more law and order across the country. A narrative of blame aimed at the welfare state. Ethnic conflict, especially between Asians and Blacks (most apparent in Birmingham). A further demonisation of the unemployed and single parents. A police force that is demanding impunity from prosecution and an end to police spending cuts. The police brutality that sparked all this, all but forgotten.

I think these events have been a disaster for working class communities on every level and the primary victims of these events have been Asian people. The hand of the right has been massively strengthened. I don't see anything postive about these events at all.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2011)

dylans said:


> A police force that is demanding impunity from prosecution and an end to police spending cuts.


immunity from prosecution: what's this?


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You match the records against the CCTV footage and use that to identify people. It's a bit like the way you can identify someone on the tube using a combination of CCTV and Oyster card data.



Yes, of course, but if you have a few hundred or even thousands kicking-off in an area, and you know they are encouraging others to come on down, or organising where to move onto next - there comes a point at which switching off local phone masts could be an advantage.

If that is done, it doesn't in some way erase the 'digital footprint' of any of the mobiles active* in that area prior to the switch-off, so you still have those records. If loads more people turn-up whilst the masts are off, you could switch them back on for a few moments to update that 'digital footprint', and off again before they have been much use for communication.

* by active, I mean switched-on, they do not need to actually be used to leave a 'digital footprint'.


----------



## treelover (Aug 11, 2011)

Clapham Junction: the Aftermath
http://london.indymedia.org/articles/9924

Some interesting photos, really sad, baffling as to some of the shops they trashed....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Yes, of course, but if you have a few hundred or even thousands kicking-off in an area, and you know they are encouraging others to come on down, or organising where to move onto next - there comes a point at which switching off local phone masts could be an advantage.
> 
> If that is done, it doesn't in some way erase the 'digital footprint' of any of the mobiles active* in that area prior to the switch-off, so you still have those records. If loads more people turn-up whilst the masts are off, you could switch them back on for a few moments to update that 'digital footprint', and off again before they have been much use for communication.
> 
> * by active, I mean switched-on, they do not need to actually be used to leave a 'digital footprint'.



tbh I don't know enough about it to argue the finer details. It's not the most pressing issue facing us, though, as I'm sure you'd agree. (And yes, I know it was me who picked up on it!)


----------



## treelover (Aug 11, 2011)

'As social war erupts in the UK, we torched a BBC Radio transmission mast in the early hours of August 11th 2011. The mast was located in the Bedminster Down area of Bristol and is managed by Arquiva.
 Strength to all those in the prisons and all those fighting the pigs on the streets. 

For permanent attack. 

International ELF-FAI
*International ELF-FAI'*

*not sure if i can post this, but there are sure some crazy people in bristol....*


----------



## 1%er (Aug 11, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Yes, of course, but if you have a few hundred or even thousands kicking-off in an area, and you know they are encouraging others to come on down, or organising where to move onto next - there comes a point at which switching off local phone masts could be an advantage.
> 
> If that is done, it doesn't in some way erase the 'digital footprint' of any of the mobiles active* in that area prior to the switch-off, so you still have those records. If loads more people turn-up whilst the masts are off, you could switch them back on for a few moments to update that 'digital footprint', and off again before they have been much use for communication.
> 
> * by active, I mean switched-on, they do not need to actually be used to leave a 'digital footprint'.


There is a system in the UK I think it is called "priority one" where only certain phones can access the network, these phones are given to emergency services personal. From what I understand many police communications are made via mobile phone because much of their radio network is not secure.


----------



## dylans (Aug 11, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> immunity from prosecution: what's this?



I was reading a few police blogs last night. And again and again, the line is that they stood by and watched looting because they were intimidated by past events such as Ian Tomlinson. That they could end this riots in one stroke but their hands were tied out of fear of repercussions if they did "what needed to be done"



> The next 48 hours are vital for British policing.
> If we fail to protect the law-abiding public once more, we will cease to exist in our present form, and rightfully so.
> We could end these riots very quickly.
> 
> ...





> At the briefing, *many of my officers wanted cast-iron guarantees from Silver Command that no individual officers would be suspended and prosecuted if we use force and a rioter became seriously injured.*
> This was not forthcoming. There are at least 12 County forces here now,*‘Remember Tomlinson’ was being whispered everywhere at the FCP*.



This is a narrative I think we will hear more and more. This time with the support of a scared and intimidated population crying for order


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 11, 2011)

1%er said:


> Phone tracking in the UK is very advanced, its also a growing business for phone companies. Just search for "phone tracking uk" in google, their all at it.



And they all offer the chance to 'allow you to see their approximate location', the key word being approximate.


----------



## 1%er (Aug 11, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> And they all offer the chance to 'allow you to see their approximate location', the key word being approximate.


In a city like London that would be fairly close because the masts are so close.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbh I don't know enough about it to argue the finer details. It's not the most pressing issue facing us, though, as I'm sure you'd agree. (And yes, I know it was me who picked up on it!)



I can certainly see certain advantages under certain circumstances to restrict mobile coverage, but you are right there's no point going into the finer details about it on this thread.

Anyway, I assume everyone else was pleased that Disco Dave ruled out troops on the streets? Did that surprise anyone else or just me?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

I would have been very surprised by any suggestion of troops on the streets. That's admitting that you can't cope. It's admitting weakness.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would have been very surprised by any suggestion of troops on the streets. That's admitting that you can't cope. *It's admitting weakness.*



There is an aspect of honesty though. They couldn't cope.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Aug 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> yup; absolutely ZERO change to the economic policies which part-caused them, minor imrpovements in the police...and the tories won a GE 2 years later.
> this lot will be hard-pushed to find another falklands though, and I really can't see anyone invading the Isle Of Wight or Bermuda



No I mean the reaction last time from the media and public. Was it the mix of fury and puzzlement that we have now?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> No I mean the reaction last time from the media and public. Was it the mix of fury and puzzlement that we have now?



Pretty much.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Aug 11, 2011)

There's a good article here by Dave HIll:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...s-taboo-against-intelligent-debate?CMP=twt_fd



> The first casualties of urban riots are blameless people robbed of their livelihoods, their homes, their peace of mind, even their lives - nothing should come before easing their pain and striving to ensure that such barbarity is never again inflicted. The next casualty, cowering right behind, is the willingness of people in power and authority to get an intellectual grip on why those riots occurred, in order help prevent a repetition.
> 
> The starkest examples in recent days have been provided by Conservative Party politicians. Michael Gove's performance on Newsnight was definitive. Fellow guest Harriet Harman's mild observation that the causes of the riots are "complex" produced a barked tirade of rigid sanctimony - the first refuge of the right in denial. The politician responsible for children's education presented himself as stoutly opposed to mental reasoning of any kind.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

dylans said:


> So I am curious as to precisely why you think these events have been positive in any way? Positive implies that the balance of forces after the event has moved in our favour (by "our" I mean to the left) But what do we have?
> 
> A clamor for more law and order across the country. A narrative of blame aimed at the welfare state. Ethnic conflict, especially between Asians and Blacks (most apparent in Birmingham). A further demonisation of the unemployed and single parents. A police force that is demanding impunity from prosecution and an end to police spending cuts. The police brutality that sparked all this, all but forgotten.
> 
> I think these events have been a disaster for working class communities on every level and the primary victims of these events have been Asian people. The hand of the right has been massively strengthened. I don't see anything postive about these events at all.



A considered post and I thank you for it.

But, any rebelliousness by working class people leads to more of the repressive measures that are being dished out/will be dished out. I for one find it depressing that in the absence of any roads to emancipation, people just swallow the day to day shit that the state dish out. I hope and trust that these events will strike fear in the hearts of the moneyed and their lackeys the police. That these events have not lead to utopia is hardly surprising. Should people not rebel unless all their possible goals can be realised in one fail swoop?


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Aug 11, 2011)

Tag things don't work as I lived next door to one... not only was he seventeen and the girlfriend was sixteen neither were working. They would throw rubbish out of the window so my neighbour had to pick up their crap. They both shout at one another every day which you could hear through the 1980s build walls. The Police would be around every day when I was as work according to one of the neighbours working from home. The Police would be around twice over the weekend. The couple would both beat each other up, the sixteen year old leave only to come back a half a hour later. The sixteen year old girl stabbed her boyfriend in the arm so the ambulance would turn up plus the Police corp. The home was completely trashed, The list goes on and on and what worse the seventeen year old boy's father was a Copper...

So that all is going to happen... cheers... and there's no prison spaces...

It's a sad day and fu*kers the M.Ps that is...

Oh and an after thought the girl went back to her mother the boy ended back inside in jail and given an asbo.. hmm well I haven't seen him yet...


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> Tag things don't work as I lived next door to one... not only was he seventeen and the girlfriend was sixteen neither were working. They would throw rubbish out of the window so my neighbour had to pick up their crap. They both shout at one another every day which you could hear through the 1980s build walls. The Police would be around every day when I was as work according to one of the neighbours working from home. The Police would be around twice over the weekend. The couple would both beat each other up, the sixteen year old leave only to come back a half a hour later. The sixteen year old girl stabbed her boyfriend in the arm so the ambulance would turn up plus the Police corp. The home was completely trashed, The list goes on and on and what worse the seventeen year old boy's father was a Copper...
> 
> So that all is going to happen... cheers... and there's no prison spaces...
> 
> ...



What's the relevance of this crap?


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Aug 11, 2011)

yeah top cat what is the relevance of this crap all this looting etc... you tell me... smash the rich etc...


----------



## treelover (Aug 11, 2011)

'The left - in its broadest sense - has to face an alarming reality. The right is now hegemonic on the main political issues of the day: the economy, social issues and law-and-order. As the right taps into a reservoir of anger and resentment in our divided society, it is harder than ever for the left to get a hearing on practically anything. Those who will suffer most will be those who the left exists to represent.'

good article by Owen Jones who is rapidly becoming a very effective voice of the left...
http://www.labourlist.org/the-riots-are-a-catastrophe


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Aug 11, 2011)

lopsidedbunny said:


> yeah top cat what is the relevance of this crap all this looting etc... you tell me... smash the rich etc...



it's like stating _I_ was mugged yesterday _therefore_ the whole of society is collapsing under the weight of crime


----------



## treelover (Aug 11, 2011)

'This is *David Batty* - I'm taking over the live blog for the rest of the evening. You can follow me on Twitter @David_Batty
A student has today been jailed for six months for looting a £3.50 case of water from Lidl in Brixton, which seems to support the analysis provided by the Guardian datablog that magistrates appear to be taking a hard line with those convicted of riot-related offences. Nicholas Robinson, 23, was walking back from his girlfriend's house in Brixton in the early hours of Monday morning when he saw the store on Acre Lane being looted.

Camberwell magistrates court heard the electrical engineering student took the opportunity to go in and help himself to a case of water because he was "thirsty".
But when the police came in, at around 2.40am, he discarded the bottles and attempted to flee the scene. He was caught and arrested by officers at the scene.
PA reports that there were gasps from the public gallery as district judge Alan Baldwin handed down the maximum penalty he could to Robinson, who has no previous convictions, for his part in the "chaos"

student gets six months for looting!


----------



## Stoat Boy (Aug 11, 2011)

For me the most interesting outcome of these riots is not neccessarily the back lash against the rioters because its hardly new is it ? Underclass encounter the perfect storm of circumstances and go on the rampage for a night or two before getting beaten back to their slums and resuming their self-destructive little lives whilst the respectable working class demand they get the shit beaten out of them.

What I find interesting is the reaction of communities to it, and especially the vigliante groups that sprung up. I find it facisnating that the Sikhs in Southall on Tuesday were being praised as being community minded by all and sundry but within 24 hours there is TV footage being shown of them walking around with swords and the like and condemnation. Ditto with the reaction in Eltham last night (where incidentally it seems that they enjoyed a lot of community support).

Its as though the Government are not only trying to restor order over the scummy urban types who rioted but also wanting to clamp down on people who felt abandoned by them on Monday night. For me thats the story. I admit that it felt odd on Monday night knowing that if I dialed 999 that help was probably not going to arrive and I think that a lot of people felt similar and that if the disorder had carried on at that level then the actual clashes between local groups and rioters would be the thing that actually created the bigger issues from those at the top.

And I also wonder how much consideration is given to what might happen if we get a similar event within a few weeks. Will people just sit back and watch events unfolding on TV like we did on Monday or will a reaction, fueled through the same social networks that are being held partly responsible for the rioting, bring people onto the streets on the same evening with all the potential problems that brings ?

I find this constant bleating about 'community' to be rather vomit inducing and I do wonder if those who are constantly promoting community action as the way forward are perhaps realising that the old adage of being careful of what you wish for coming true is a lot truer than they thought ?


----------



## 2hats (Aug 11, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Same with turning off mobile phone masts within given areas during extreme troubles.



No need to turn anything off. GSM networks provide network access levels (set in the SIM or the handset, AFAIK).

(From distant memory...) There are 15: 0-9 for Joe Public, higher levels for emergency services, members of the cabinet, PM, network engineers. Users at level 0-9 can be shut out of the system whilst still able to make 999/112/911 calls. Cell base stations will still log handset data (ID, positional information).


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

Stoat Boy said:


> I find this constant bleating about 'community' to be rather vomit inducing and I do wonder if those who are constantly promoting community action as the way forward are perhaps realising that the old adage of being careful of what you wish for coming true is a lot truer than they thought ?



What annoys me more is that those bleating it have neglected the notion of 'community' for so long. Evidence, withdrawing funding, devaluing, undermining and not supporting community based initiatives progressively for decade...promotion of the individualist, I am alright Jack-be like me ideology.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Not today, maybe not tomorrow but not far off.
> 
> What's worse is the cunts in the populace who will support such measures.



the way in would be to use the rfid chip as neccesary for claiming any social security, paying court fines, renting property and paying council tax.

Thats how I would do it if I were a tyrant in the dystopian future


----------



## treelover (Aug 11, 2011)

I'm absolutely certain that if they happen again, people will not be passive, but will indeed go on the streets to 'protect thier manor' the Uk is changing and we just don't know what will be the outcome, but as Owen jones says it won't be positive, the far right will certainly try to milk the situation...


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> the way in would be to use the rfid chip as neccesary for claiming any social security, paying court fines, renting property and paying council tax.
> 
> Thats how I would do it if I were a tyrant in the dystopian future


 
Hush ---- ---they may be reading this !!!

It seems obvious to me that the fallout from this will be increased repression & surveillence ----which will, in turn, fuel further discontent.

The "easy" way out ---- a jolly good war ---- 

I'm feeling pessimistic, but I'll get over it.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 11, 2011)

this is something i wrote on fb (like "part 2" to my previous comment) about the possible "fallout", which may be completely paranoid but i don't care tbh(im taking Past Carings advice!)

------

OK so, the second part of my note is going to talk about the character of the state and the police response, and how it has changed and is changing during this period.

I think that there are a number of issues here and I will straight away be controversial by saying, that I think we are seeing the end of the concept of Western liberal democracy. By that I don't mean that we're going to be a dictatorship or that fascism is around the corner but I think in the next period we will see the state in most Western countries becomeing (or trying to become) a lot less like what we're used to, and a lot more like the behaviour of the state apparatus in a country like Russia or Turkey. These aren't dictatorships, but they're not exactly democracies either (and due to the economic climate, the "screws" on democracy are being tightened there too).

There were some theories about the cack-handed police response to the riots (in which now at least 3 people have died) on various sites on the internet, speculating about how the police may have deliberately held back from intervening in looting because of the possibility of job cuts and the fear of losing their jobs, leading to a desire to hold back and therefore show that there are not enough police on the streets in order to prepare for the coming social unrest. This is in huge contrast to the over-the-top and brutal way that they have behaved elsewhere, for example on political protests.

And the police leaders are right, the government cannot seriously think of cutting their numbers or worsening their conditions at the same time as other austerity measures are being introduced. This is one reason I think, and have thought for a while, that the government may have to reverse some, or possibly even most, of the cuts that it is planning, at least for the moment. The riots have proved enormously damaging to the government, in that they have shown them losing control of the street, on current levels of police, so who knows what will happen when these numbers are cut?

The people who are now calling for the army to be brought in or further militarisation of the police are IMO grossly irresponsible and not only for the usual reasons. There is already a huge distrust and even hatred of the police in many parts of the country. Can you imagine how this would be intensified if police were allowed to routinely carry guns or use water cannons or any other methods, and the hatred and fear which would develop. Would this lead to people respecting the law or listening to what the police told them? No it would not. In America, where the police all have guns, are notorious for brutality, and where the country even has the death penalty in some regions, a murder takes place every thirty minutes. The day Britain sent the army on its own citizens would be the day that revolution started. The fact that this was actually being contemplated shows the point which we are currently at.

Also, once militarisation on this level has occurred it's not going to be so easily reversed. It's not like the riots will end, and that's it, back to normal. We have not seen the last of these riots, or for that matter a huge increase in serious crime. And even if the riots end, do you think that the police, especially in London, will just give their powers up again and that'd be it. Some of the "punitive" measures currently proposed, such as Greenwich council evicting looters and possibly their families no matter what the nature of their offence or what they've stolen is, almost seem designed to provoke more riots, and vastly worsen the source of the problem, a huge and growing underclass of people who have no stake in society, many of whom have already been in prison and don't give a fuck about being "punished" anyway. These measures will also make it harder for people who want to get out of that class and start a living, to get out of it - for example the housing minister has said that looters will find that their eligibility for housing will suffer as a result. Is that more or less likely to make the person start looting again if they aren't able to find a job or a house? you work it out.

This leads me to believe that some of the "punitive" measures aren't even intended as punishments, because it is obvious that they would not work, but perhaps almost as a way of provoking further actions of this kind and softening public opinion to when they do eventually introduce them. Perhaps they will not even be carried out, and it is just a way of talking tough, and also introducing such rhetoric into the increasingly authoritarian public discourse.

Up until now we have taken for granted the fact that in the UK we can more or less say whatever we want, that we can (usually) go on demonstrations and organise in other ways. But in my opinion this period is coming to an end and we will soon no longer be able to take this for granted any more. The political and social freedom we've become accustomed to in the West goes hand in hand with economic "freedom" and a relatively stable society without huge levels of inequality. But as we can see, society is no longer stable, and the living conditions of millions are worsening, even well-off middle class and upper middle class people (whose living conditions are still miles better, to say the least, than the majority of others). Millions of people have faced job cuts and pay freezes, and others live in constant threat of losing their jobs. Prices constantly go up and wages stay the same. As we can see with the riots a huge number of people are completely disconnected from society's values, work, or having any sort of prospect of having an honest living, and many are too far gone to be "helped". We don't live in a society which can really be called stable any more, and it is getting worse.

The ironic thing is that the conditions which have created the relative stability of the the UK (for example the levels of social protection) are now unsustainable (or at least, unsustainable under capitalism, with the constant quest to make the country "competitive"). And I think that as instability (or the potential for it) increases, the more we will see a state that is, or tries to be, authoritarian, placing restrictions on what the media can and can't say, or people's right to freedom of assembly. A state that is not like the country we grew up in and whose "character" is different, more openly coercive, a state where you wouldn't be _punished, _but would not feel comfortable making a joke about in public, a state where even in the smallest villages nobody would dare to say, ask a policeman they saw in the street for directions, possibly because that policeman would be holding an enourmous fuck off gun. A state which behaves more like Russia or Turkey than Sweden or Belgium. To some extent we can see signs of this process beginning, and have seen it increasingly in the last few years, particularly in the context of "anti-terror" laws. But I think that the process will now be accelerated. And "anti-riot" laws will be used in a wider variety of contexts (easier now that protests are constantly depicted in the media as violent and dangerous).


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 11, 2011)

(continued)

I don't, however, think that this will necessarily succeed. For sure, there is growing public acceptability of these measures being "necessary" especially with current events. But the problem for the bourgeoisie is that in the UK we are not used to living under such a state, we are used to living under a state with far higher levels of democratic freedoms. Also, the state is starting to have less and less credibility anyway, even among people who may formerly have supported it. For example, before the riots broke out, "Disco Dave" as he is dirisively called was embroiled in one of the worst corruption scandals in history, and during the last few days, angry shopkeepers and residents of riot-hit areas have been insulting top members of the government to their faces. The government, and capitalism in general, is suffering from a huge lack of legitimacy, which leads me to think that they may not face such an easy task in terms of public opinion, and they would, and will face a huge struggle on their hands.

I think it's important not to write the people who are calling for relatiation against the rioters off or taking action themselves as all being vigilantes etc. I don't think this really helps at all, and it also plays into the hands of people who think that the state is the only force that can protect communities. It also means that the far right are more able to take advantage of the situation because nobody is getting out and trying to talk to these people. Tacitly saying that the police are the only ones who can use force, even when they are standing by and simply watching looting, or using disproportionate force and targetting people in a racist manner, such as stopping black people in the street and asking for receipts for their clothes, just because they can, and anyone else who's protecting their home etc is a "vigilante" is not the answer when much of the time they are just working class people trying to protect their homes and communities. One day they may also be protecting their home and family from the police. We have to make sure that the far-right (and racist groups from ethnic minority communities) and the government don't take advantage of this, which unfortunately the EDL have tried to do, in Eltham and other areas. I know people who are involved in this or know people who do and they are not all vigilantes or EDL so it is important that we do not say they are, because that is dangerously irresponsible.

I think ultimately at the moment, given everything that i have said, we are in for a very scary and worrying time. By we i mean everyone. The riots have probably given public support to measures that they were planning to introduce (or wanted to try to introduce) for a time now. We are in for a very long extended "battle" and so it is essential that we take a lot of care in what we say on all sides of the issue. I don't think I have all of the answers but these were just some thoughts. We need to stand together against the looting of criminals and the looting of our country by the government and the only thing that can do that ultimately is the end of the system that brings these conditions about and a mass force that would be capable of bringing that about, so that we could have a truely fair society where everyone had a stake in it.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

I've just "liked" this ---- not 'cos I LIKE it , but because I agree.


----------



## little_legs (Aug 11, 2011)

TopCat said:


> What's worse is the cunts in the populace who will support such measures.



the populace has already spoken:



> ONE in three people want police to use LIVE bullets against rioting thugs, a *YouGov* poll for The Sun reveals today.
> 
> Two-thirds support using plastic bullets on the yobs - and nine in ten want water cannons.
> 
> ...



from the Sun, Aug 10


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2011)

fw

i don't really see how cameron can reverse the cop cuts without looking both stupid and weak. he got up in parliament today and insisted they're the right thing to do! whether they are or not no longer matters, the fact is that he has invested so much political capital in sticking to them that he cannot go back.


----------



## love detective (Aug 11, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'The left - in its broadest sense - has to face an alarming reality. The right is now hegemonic on the main political issues of the day: the economy, social issues and law-and-order. As the right taps into a reservoir of anger and resentment in our divided society, it is harder than ever for the left to get a hearing on practically anything. Those who will suffer most will be those who the left exists to represent.'
> 
> good article by Owen Jones who is rapidly becoming a very effective voice of the left...
> http://www.labourlist.org/the-riots-are-a-catastrophe



note the inability from him to conceive of working class people organising politically & socially in and off themselves for their own benefit - note the complete division he sees between the left and the working class - and doesn't see this as a bad thing either - i.e. because folk like 'him' are there to represent folk like 'them'

so it's come to pass that an oxbridge graduate, who upon leaving university went directly to work for the labour party (when they were still in power) and whose only ever employment has been in professional politics is the grand old hope for left politics going ahead


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> fw
> 
> i don't really see how cameron can reverse the cop cuts without looking both stupid and weak. he got up in parliament today and insisted they're the right thing to do! whether they are or not no longer matters, the fact is that he has invested so much political capital in sticking to them that he cannot go back.


 
Oh , he'll push some semblence of it through & then claim "special circumstances" to reverse it. Plus ca change.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 11, 2011)




----------



## 8115 (Aug 11, 2011)

Like a glutton for punishment I've started watching Question Time and everyone is moaning about how the police were criticised for heavy handed policing during the G20 riots "and one is even up on a manslaughter charge".  Even?  Did they advertise in the Telegraph to get their audience?

The world has literally gone mad.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

'Twas ever thus.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 11, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> fw
> 
> i don't really see how cameron can reverse the cop cuts without looking both stupid and weak. he got up in parliament today and insisted they're the right thing to do! whether they are or not no longer matters, the fact is that he has invested so much political capital in sticking to them that he cannot go back.



at the risk of sounding too optimistic his gov't may go down before he gets a choice, or he could end up reversing them surreptitiously? or impliment them now but then have to reverse them later on?

i don't know, you probably know more about this than me tbh


----------



## TopCat (Aug 11, 2011)

8115 said:


> Like a glutton for punishment I've started watching Question Time and everyone is moaning about how the police were criticised for heavy handed policing during the G20 riots "and one is even up on a manslaughter charge". Even? Did they advertise in the Telegraph to get their audience?
> 
> The world has literally gone mad.


Tomlinson was drunk and a Millwall fan to boot. Another useless eater.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Up until now we have taken for granted the fact that in the UK we can more or less say whatever we want, that we can (usually) go on demonstrations and organise in other ways. But in my opinion this period is coming to an end and we will soon no longer be able to take this for granted any more.
> 
> ...
> 
> The ironic thing is that the conditions which have created the relative stability of the the UK (for example the levels of social protection) are now unsustainable (or at least, unsustainable under capitalism, with the constant quest to make the country "competitive"). And I think that as instability (or the potential for it) increases, the more we will see a state that is, or tries to be, authoritarian, placing restrictions on what the media can and can't say, or people's right to freedom of assembly. .



Thought-provoking post. 

I do take issue with it, however, particularly these bits.

I think the first paragraph is an overreaction. We've had riots before. And this certainly doesn't have to mean the end of organising or demonstrating. Opposition to the cuts can and will continue.

The second paragraph is wrong, imo. The levels of social protection in the UK are not unsustainable under capitalism. Capitalism could very easily operate with higher levels of social protection, let alone maintain the ones already in place. We'll see what happens in the future, but the continued decline into a US-style country, moving further and further away from the social democratic settlement of the 20th century, is not inevitable. The state will continue to try to control people, but twas ever thus. I think Arthur Miller was right when he said that every generation has to win its freedom anew. In other words, the struggle never ends. It can never end. But victories are always possible. The future can be better.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 11, 2011)

i agree with that, but i'm not saying it is "the end". i'm saying that we can't necessarily take the level of freedom for granted any more, not that we'll have no freedom at all


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 11, 2011)

And I agree that it's not inevitable, I say that later on lol


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> i agree with that, but i'm not saying it is "the end". i'm saying that we can't necessarily take the level of freedom for granted any more, not that we'll have no freedom at all



We can never take any level of freedom for granted. 

But I do think you overreact a bit, soz. There will be an illiberal backlash to this, as there was to the London bombings, for instance. As there was to the riots of the 80s. As I'm sure there has been to every riot there has ever been.

But at the same time, quietly, in an unheralded way, I do think we may see some reverses of some of the more crass and destructive of the cuts. We may see some youth centres reopen, for instance. Fuck me, how much does it cost to do that in the scheme of overall govt spending. I hope I'm right about that, that there will be some carrot along with the stick to get kids to behave! Maybe I will be proved wrong.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 11, 2011)

I also think this, I think that it won't go unchallenged and a lot of the cuts will have to be reversed. But the general trend over the last 20 years at least in England is for greater authoritarianism. Measures are being considered that wouldn't have been considered at other points, and stuff like censoring texts etc being introduced into the public discourse (even if, as i agree, they probably won't be implimented...yet)


----------



## dirtyfruit (Aug 12, 2011)

Diamond said:


> Maybe it's just me but there seems as if the centre is rapidly shifting rightwards as a direct result of these riots.
> 
> There's also this bizarre sense that people are embracing the spectacle of the riot so that they can make that political transition rightwards while being more or less wholly aware that the events don't justify their arguments and conclusions. I suppose what I'm getting at is that there's this sense of complicity in* the delusion that society is morally and operationally bankrupt*.



"Society" IS morally and operationally bankrupt. But far deeper than we will ever hear about from the press, police, politicians or judges. Because it's their system.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> Hush ---- ---they may be reading this !!!
> 
> It seems obvious to me that the fallout from this will be increased repression & surveillence ----which will, in turn, fuel further discontent.
> 
> ...



You know what they say, Marian:

*NO WAR BUT THE CLASS WAR!!!*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

dirtyfruit said:


> Society IS morally and operationally bankrupt. But far deeper than we will ever hear about from the press, police, politicians or judges. Because it's their system.



What do we mean by society, though?
Do we use the instrumental definitions of the politicians, where we're supposedly "all in this together"?
Or do we use the (probably more aposite) definition of society as an agglomeration of communities and associations that all rub along together because it's better to swim than to sink?

While I'd wholeheartedly agree that the by the first formulation your claim is accurate, by the second society is salvageable *if* more people have the courage to say "no more".


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 12, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> No I mean the reaction last time from the media and public. Was it the mix of fury and puzzlement that we have now?


yes, but with the slight difference that just about everyone in London knew that Brixton ('81 and '85) and tottenham ('85) was also about the racism and racial harassment of those 2 places' respective OB, that they inflicted on the black community


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 12, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I also think this, I think that it won't go unchallenged and a lot of the cuts will have to be reversed. But the general trend over the last 20 years at least in England is for greater authoritarianism. Measures are being considered that wouldn't have been considered at other points, and stuff like censoring texts etc being introduced into the public discourse (even if, as i agree, they probably won't be implimented...yet)


I think there's a far more important counter-trend that you're overlooking - the near-total breakdown in respect and trust on the part of the general public, for those we consider to be 'in authority', and for our society itself, and its' unwritten rules. That old order is collapsing.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 12, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I think there's a far more important counter-trend that you're overlooking - the near-total breakdown in respect and trust on the part of the general public, for those we consider to be 'in authority', and for our society itself, and its' unwritten rules. That old order is collapsing.



yep. i should have written more about that, because i agree


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 12, 2011)

Even if they do introduce this stuff, who is to say that anyone will listen to it?


----------



## dirtyfruit (Aug 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> What do we mean by society, though?
> Do we use the instrumental definitions of the politicians, where we're supposedly "all in this together"?
> Or do we use the (probably more aposite) definition of society as an agglomeration of communities and associations that all rub along together because it's better to swim than to sink?
> 
> While I'd wholeheartedly agree that the by the first formulation your claim is accurate, by the second society is salvageable *if* more people have the courage to say "no more".



Society as the concept described and defined by those with vested interest in their creation. I.e those that manage and massage it. And therefore the most common coherent, albeit limited and fallacious, view of it by the most people.

I shall edit my previous post to include society in quotation marks as befitting the tone of the sentence.
.
.
.
I am aware that Diamond was probably using your second definition of society, and in more morose moments I see my previous post applying to your latter definition of society as well, yet there is hope there. Hopefully.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Aug 12, 2011)

There's some great articles coming out now:



> There's nothing like fear and hatred to sharpen the senses. The riots have shown Britain some unpalatable truths about itself, making it impossible to hold on to a certain Whiggish story about social progress which, in the teeth of the evidence, we have persisted in telling about ourselves.
> 
> As the violence unfolded in Tottenham, it appeared to be following a familiar pattern. A young black man is killed by the police. The "community" protests. Violence ensues. By Monday, that story had definitively broken down. The crowds burning cars and breaking into shops were, as a friend drily put it, "a triumph of multiculturalism". Clearly another explanation had to be sought.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/12/riots-home-truths-culture-fear-greed



> "These are sad days man, sad days; it's just … surreal." Six months ago Lethal Bizzle and I had talked about how grime had exploded into the political sphere, soundtracking the winter's youth and student protests in London, but now the 28-year old rapper is much less upbeat, surveying the wreckage in the city he loves. "Watching it on TV's been even worse – it doesn't even feel like it's London, or Britain – it doesn't seem real. You know when you see Iraq, foreign wars on TV…" he tails off, before reflecting on the Walthamstow in which he grew up. "I care because I'm from these places, and I know what happens. I've been through stuff I wouldn't want my kids, my friends, my fans, anyone to go through. It makes you feel lost, like you're in a corner."
> 
> Two decades ago Chuck D famously described rap music as "the black CNN" – a means of describing the kind of daily lives which the real news network would never care to investigate; by this token, grime and UK rap is the BBC News 24 of the British urban working-class – not necessarily black, not necessarily young, but mostly so. As the glaziers and magistrates go to work after four nights of riots across London and the UK, the search for understanding and the finger of blame are simultaneously pointing towards the MCs and rappers who Bizzle told me in January were "the real prime ministers of this country".



http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2011/aug/12/rap-riots-professor-green-lethal-bizzle-wiley?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 12, 2011)

_"the search for understanding and the finger of blame are simultaneously pointing towards the MCs and rappers who Bizzle told me in January were "the real prime ministers of this country"._

Nonsense, I'm waiting to be guided/misguided by Bryan Ferry


----------



## elbows (Aug 12, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> There's some great articles coming out now:
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/12/riots-home-truths-culture-fear-greed



Theres a couple of paragraphs in that one that I love, and have instantly helped me to cope with what we've seen this week.



> I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised to see a large number of supposed social liberals revealing their true colours on Monday night, tweeting and bleating for curfews and water cannon and rubber bullets. Early in the evening, watching social media, I was seeing variants of the same joke: "I'm in Chiswick/Hampstead/Dulwich Waitrose and there's a RIOT! They've run out of POLENTA!" The smug sense of disconnection (this is nothing to do with me, or my comfortable middle-class life – it is an affair of the poor, in places I choose not to go) was soon replaced by panic. "WHERE IS THE ARMY?" Screw civil liberties, time to declare martial law. How easy it would be to install fascism in this creaky little country! No need to torch the Reichstag – all you'd have to do would be to burn a few more sports shops.
> It was galling to watch people who had recently praised the street fighters of the Arab spring finding their inner Mubarak, people who had been shocked (shocked!) that Middle Eastern dictators would switch off the internet, now calling for BlackBerry Messenger (which they'd just found out about) to be shut down. One might applaud the communityspirit of the riot cleanup people, but feel uncomfortable about the motivations of the blond broom-carrier pictured wearing a tank-top with the hand-drawn slogan "looters are scum". It's OK to call people scum this week, particularly while demonstrating one's own civic virtue. Go on, blond lady, let your hate-flag fly.


----------



## elbows (Aug 12, 2011)

Check this one out, its broadly along the lines of what you might expect from the BBC covering this, except every time they actually speak to people a healthy dose of reality emerges.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14512478


----------



## treelover (Aug 12, 2011)

big LCD screens gone up all over in Manchester urging the public to 'shop a looter', 2 minutes hate?


----------



## treelover (Aug 12, 2011)

'_the search for understanding and the finger of blame are simultaneously pointing towards the MCs and rappers who Bizzle told me in January were "the real prime ministers of this country"._
What a bizarre comment by L/B


----------



## treelover (Aug 12, 2011)

as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen

Woody Guthrie


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 13, 2011)

So, am I right in thinking that the Condem line is going to be something like the approach suggested by this horrible little fantasy in the Torygraph?



> The riots are a national disaster, but they do provide David Cameron with an opportunity to define a great purpose for his premiership and his government. It’s a chance for him to return to the agenda with which he began his leadership, back in 2005; the repair of Britain’s broken society. Within hours of inheriting the Tory leadership from Michael Howard, six years ago, Mr Cameron was in east London, visiting a project working with disadvantaged black youths. With Iain Duncan Smith at his side, he announced the formation of a massive inquiry into the causes of poverty and the failure of post-war welfare policy.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ded-a-chance-to-mend-this-broken-society.html


----------



## cantsin (Aug 13, 2011)

treelover said:


> as through this world I've wandered
> I've seen lots of funny men;
> Some will rob you with a six-gun,
> And some with a fountain pen
> ...



in what are confusing times, you're confusing the fucking bejesus out of me


----------



## Brainaddict (Aug 13, 2011)

Has this video of debates on the street in Clapham been posted yet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqA9-QGhvZs
It's the kind of reasoned, informed, passionate debate the politicians won't be having in the next few weeks. Most of the participants are just ordinary people who happened to be passing and they demonstrate a better ability to think about the issues than our entire political and media class.


----------



## dirtyfruit (Aug 13, 2011)

Brainaddict said:


> Has this video of debates on the street in Clapham been posted yet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqA9-QGhvZs
> It's the kind of reasoned, informed, passionate debate the politicians won't be having in the next few weeks. Most of the participants are just ordinary people who happened to be passing and they demonstrate a better ability to think about the issues than our entire political and media class.



Thanks for this


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Aug 14, 2011)

We probably have the best indicator yet of how deep the reactionary and racist cesspit in this country goes, both with regards to the establishment and in wider society itself.


----------



## HAL9000 (Aug 14, 2011)

CCTV / 24 hour tv

Comparing the riots in the 1980s with the recent riots.

Have more people been arrested?

Is this because of cctv/24 hour tv?  (more evidence available? or recent riots have been bigger?)

Whats going to be the long term impact of large number people who have spent time in jail? (in the current climate I suspect the conviction rate will be very high)


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 14, 2011)

Brainaddict said:


> Has this video of debates on the street in Clapham been posted yet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqA9-QGhvZs
> It's the kind of reasoned, informed, passionate debate the politicians won't be having in the next few weeks. Most of the participants are just ordinary people who happened to be passing and they demonstrate a better ability to think about the issues than our entire political and media class.





This is definately worth watching until the end, it does get heated at times but as you say, it reflects all the issues politicians will not be debating.

People from all over England and the world debating what issues effect them as citizens in London...Beautiful.

Incidently, there is an event in Tottenham on Wednesday and one in Hackney tomorrow which are encouraging people to come out on the streets to talk about what has been happening and why. I think this is very important and has the potential to help relieve current tensions/fears and unite people by sharing information.


----------



## phildwyer (Aug 14, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> People from all over England and the world debating what issues effect them as citizens in London...Beautiful.



Compare thıs to the pathetıc level of debate goıng on ın the medıa.

Shows how desperate they are becomıng ın theır efforts to frame the dıscussıon ın theır terms.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 14, 2011)

Why didn't we make national news yesterday?

http://www.presstv.com/detail/193808.html


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 14, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Why didn't we make national news yesterday?
> 
> http://www.presstv.com/detail/193808.html



Because you were "off-message" ... ?


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 14, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> So, am I right in thinking that the Condem line is going to be something like the approach suggested by this horrible little fantasy in the Torygraph?
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ded-a-chance-to-mend-this-broken-society.html



Montgomerie is a member of the god-bothering tendency of the Tory Party. I expect IDS to swing in behind this as well.


----------



## Sue (Aug 14, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I love the way everyone seems to have decided that the rioters all live in council houses, on benefits, from "broken homes".



Yes, shows the insidious drip-drip effect is working.

On benefits? You live in a council house and are scum.
Live in a council house? You must be on benefits and are scum.
Poor/on benefits? You must be stupid and feckless. And scum.

The number of people who should know fucking better who I've heard come out with this shit over the past week is quite incredible.

ETA Oh and everyone on benefits is taking the piss and living the life of Reilly on the huge amounts of money they're being handed. Forgot to mention that bit.


----------



## treelover (Aug 14, 2011)

Montgomerie's article is nearly word for word the same as the Mail On Sunday's editorial, its clear the right see it as a once in a lifetime chance to remove whats left of welfare benefits, etc.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 14, 2011)

http://www.people.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2011/08/14/dont-move-102039-23343114/

Reads like a propaganda piece.


----------



## shaun balls (Aug 14, 2011)

By many accounts there's a proper current of measured reactions to the last week out there. Where I find them it's like breathing clean air, and I need a whinge. But in the last week I've met, in person, one single person with a hard, critical eye for the social causes of the disorder (and who, like myself, is quite honestly baffled by outrage over looting).
I have to keep the Vision On gallery tune in mind when I remember the reactions I've heard at work. If I don't, I'll slip into a bile induced suicidal coma. And it's what they're due, after all, being the political equivalent of a vom crusted 5 year old's crayon drawings.
#Doodoo, doodoo, doodoo doo dooo...#
Variations on a theme: Kill them. Shoot them. "_Why haven't they brought the army in? They just don't have the balls._"
"_...just some blacks. It's kicking off everywhere the blacks are._"
"_...let's burn down their homes while they're out. They're just council houses anyway haHA!_"

At one point, a chorus in the room of "#_Go-on David Came-ron, get the fuck-ing chavs_#" to the tune of Land of Hope and Glory. Honestly.

"_If they only bothered getting a job. It's not like it's hard to get any shit job. But it's just greed isn't it, the shit jobs aren't paid enough for them..._"

An interesting reaction was to the man getting the custodial 6 months for Lidl water, "_GOOD. GOOD! Throw the book at him! Scummy cunt. Why should I work and pay my taxes so that... so.. so that you can just... just take what you want!_"

The froth-mouthed response has been brutal and unanimous. Totally univocal. And each sentence and vicious press statement has be cheered on, without exception. Almost no person has not expressed at least some glee at reports and videos of police violence (the sentiment during the period of riots was generally anti-governmental purely on grounds of cowardice, on grounds of withholding totalitarian force). And the festival of defence of emtpy work-ethic virtue is bookended by the usual anecdotes about 'dirty gyppos,' lazy homophobia, and a some good laughs at patients' hurr hurrrrr, FORRUN names. This last week really kicked off a whistle-stop talking tour of every angle of bigotry aimed at claimants and malcontents of any kind, barbarians at the gates (of what?) and framed entirely by the image of the heroic policeman, irreproachable always. I was specially disturbed by one conversation, "_No fit and healthy, normal person would have been hurt or died. Now that poor man is in prison!!_"
'That poor man' being _Harwood. Simon fucking Harwood _(in prison? Jesus ignorant buggering christ).

The people I'm talking about range from 20 to 60 years old, of varying backgrounds (some factory floors, some public school). The older tend to temper their hatred with a wistful style. The young, privately educated especially, are more thorough and flailing in their hate, and particularly their ignorance of social and political circumstances. In a week a huge proportion of people have changed from workmates and aquaintences I had differences of opinions with, to a uniformly reactionary wall of bigoted shit I can't bear.

I work in the NHS.

(Not to flog another thread's dead horse - But to flog another thread's dead horse, that Billie Piper is a half decent representation of the people I work with. Just without the patient contact of nursing, thank fuck.


----------



## treelover (Aug 14, 2011)

Bloody hell, now that is worrying, the Condems are going to use this 'opportunity' to push through some horrendous laws, social policy, welfare changes, by the end of it, England will probably resemble Texas!

welcome to P/P, btw,


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2011)

You need to learn to be a tad more sceptical mate. You're getting a bad reputation.


----------



## treelover (Aug 14, 2011)

Eh, you don't believe him, why would he post misinformation? its a good read actually...


----------



## gavman (Aug 14, 2011)

elbows said:


> The global media fallout so far is quite illuminating in a variety of different ways.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14494824


The riots in London and elsewhere in England have confirmed what I long knew and have long preached to my disbelieving but totally unobservant countrymen: that young British people are among the most unpleasant and potentially violent young people in the world. _Anthony Daniels in the New York Daily News_


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2011)

treelover said:


> Eh, you don't believe him, why would he post misinformation? its a good read actually...


Why would you believe? On what grounds?

A right winger trying to sound like a left-winger trying to say that the views above are *the* w/c view. Catch yourself on lad. You're getting desperate here.


----------



## shaun balls (Aug 14, 2011)

I'm confused. Has there been a misunderstanding? I'm not very articulate, but I've made no generalisations. Certainly not of 'a' working class view. This is specific. This is 15-20 people. I've met a shitload of Trust staff who are nothing like this lot, united in moral fury like a laserbeam. I'm just extremely unlucky to have had the whole set I spend most of my waking life with expose themselves this way and continue to masturbate over the state response for all it's worth. It's more like a farce than a representation of any wider public. The gross thing is the whole atmosphere is given its momentum by a handful of younger people, mainly recent graduates.

Am I being called a stooge?!


----------



## gavman (Aug 14, 2011)

don't mind butcher's, you'll get used to him


----------



## treelover (Aug 15, 2011)

it was a very illuminating post, depressing though..


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You need to learn to be a tad more sceptical mate. You're getting a bad reputation.


Oh fuck off, Degsy.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why would you believe? On what grounds?
> 
> A right winger trying to sound like a left-winger trying to say that the views above are *the* w/c view. Catch yourself on lad. You're getting desperate here.



wasnt he saying that the people who hated "the chavs" most were the ones who'd been public school tho? i dont necessarily disbelieve him but i doubt that it's actually more than a few and probably not as many as it appears ... there always seems to be more reactionary idiots around than there are, because they're so obnoxious you notice them more

also, a lot of people i know came out with the kneejerk right wing shit and then calmed down a lot later ...


----------



## spitfire (Aug 15, 2011)

Drive by post...........

My neighbours are currently having a bit of a party. It is fairly noisy but we are used to that kind of thing on our street. Not so much on a Sunday but it is a common occurrence. Anyway someone called noise abatement. OB turned up (3) and were quite insistent. The girls charmed them a bit and they fucked off.

20 minutes later 2 police cars pulled up outside to check out what was occurring.

I've not seen that sort of response before and i know for a fact that people on this street have called noise abatement before. And that there have been far worse parties before when nothing police related has happened.

So maybe one of the fallouts of the riots could be more pro active policing towards "this sort of thing". Although I would imagine the police round here are on fairly high alert at the mo.

blah blah blah blah blah


----------



## treelover (Aug 15, 2011)

good for them, noise pollution is not good, i am having the same problem but have been nervous about calling 101, etc, no problem with the occasional party, but it is all night twice or three times a week..


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 15, 2011)

I'm going to try and be a tad more optimistic than some, though I too have been sickened by the hypocrisy and bloodlust of the lamestream media in the last week. Not shocked though, hyperbole is what they do.

Anyhow, the way things are going right now there will probably be another huge story out of nowhere to make us all forget this within a month. I don't anticipate any more riots in the short term, although tory party conference could be fruity.

Any lurch to the right in government could bring about a big wrench with the LDs who have to be a bit quiet anyway given Cleggs record for arson at 16 years old.

The row between police and government is funny as fuck.  Theresa May especially has come over as bossy and clueless.

As time goes on: The fuel prices shoot up, more economic crisis etc, spread of the media scandals and general unforseens. people will still be ripe for an anti establishment narrative that is well articulated, problem is that it hasn't been.

Those people include the disaffected that might have been drawn to the looting.

The young have realised that number = power. The divide between generations has widened this week as the public face of "grown ups" has shown itself to be wildly out of touch.

Although many of the public have an exagerated and misplaced hatred, spurned on by the media and establishment desperate to distract from the failings of the er...media and establishment...there is a more reasoned side of the same people that will know this is linked to austerity and aspects of political "culture" that pertain to all classes, not just the poor.

These are just a few thoughts to counter the understandable sense of doom about the whole thing.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 15, 2011)

shaun balls said:


> I'm confused. Has there been a misunderstanding? I'm not very articulate, but I've made no generalisations. Certainly not of 'a' working class view. This is specific. This is 15-20 people. I've met a shitload of Trust staff who are nothing like this lot, united in moral fury like a laserbeam. I'm just extremely unlucky to have had the whole set I spend most of my waking life with expose themselves this way and continue to masturbate over the state response for all it's worth. It's more like a farce than a representation of any wider public. The gross thing is the whole atmosphere is given its momentum by a handful of younger people, mainly recent graduates.
> 
> Am I being called a stooge?!



to be honest mate, it probably isn't as bad as it seems, seriously. i've heard some mental opinions this week from people who really should know better, but to be honest, a little more understanding wouldn't go amiss on either side tbh

i do agree a lot of people who usually keep this shit under wraps are finding the confidence to crawl out of the woodwork (certainly i encountered a lot of them this weekend), they've got the confidence to say things that they thought all along anyway, but i seriously doubt there's been an outbreak of right wing reactionary views, what's happened is that people who already hold those views feel far more able to say them (for the moment anyway)


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 15, 2011)

2 more things: One aspect of the fallout will be a big smile on the face of persistent hardened criminals as massive amounts of scarce police, CPS, court and jail resources are poured into chasing down people who bought nicked trainers or posted something fruity on Facebook. Have the tories and the deluded cowering classes given that a thought?

Secondly: How are the broad left going to win round some of these disaffected people into more postive and effective forms of anti establishment behaviour?


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Aug 15, 2011)

"Cameron has been using mercernaries to suppress protests . . ." according to Gaddafi's address tonight


----------



## Shreddy (Aug 15, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> "Cameron has been using mercernaries to suppress protests . . ." according to Gaddafi's address tonight



Have you heard Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's response to the riots? Fucking hilarious  

This guy's actually a stand-up comic in disguise, and we're all being played. Fuck that Islamic Republic shit...funny funny man


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Aug 15, 2011)

LOL yeah, bet he was waiting years for something like this to happen just so he could. Also I lol'd @ "british youths are unattractive and badly behaved . . . "


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 15, 2011)

spitfire said:


> So maybe one of the fallouts of the riots could be more pro active policing towards "this sort of thing". Although I would imagine the police round here are on fairly high alert at the mo.
> h



There were 16,000 police twiddling their thumbs yesterday, on a normal Sunday there would be say 1/10th of that.


----------



## elbows (Aug 15, 2011)

I can't say I was too amused to wake up and read 'David Cameron is to announce a review of every government policy following last week's riots, to make sure they are bold enough to tackle a 'moral collapse'.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why would you believe? On what grounds?
> 
> A right winger trying to sound like a left-winger trying to say that the views above are *the* w/c view. Catch yourself on lad. You're getting desperate here.



Well he did talk about privately educated people:


> The young, privately educated especially, are more thorough and flailing in their hate, and particularly their ignorance of social and political circumstances.


So not just working class view?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 15, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> i do agree a lot of people who usually keep this shit under wraps are finding the confidence to crawl out of the woodwork (certainly i encountered a lot of them this weekend), they've got the confidence to say things that they thought all along anyway, but i seriously doubt there's been an outbreak of right wing reactionary views, what's happened is that people who already hold those views feel far more able to say them (for the moment anyway)


I'd agree with that.  In fact, I'm finding it is already beginning to subside.  I think the perspective of time - and not even necessarily very much time - will help.

The perspective of never mind rolling news, but rolling microblogs, probably hasn't helped perceptions of an outpouring of racism.  But I was speaking to people over the weekend from whom I frankly did expect to hear some unsettling things, but the feared outbursts just weren't there.  Instead, there was talk of feral politicians, feral bankers, and feral journalists setting the example (with which I agreed), and of reality-show celebrity cultural somehow playing a part (about which I'm not so sure.  But I'm not discounting it).


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 15, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> I'd agree with that. In fact, I'm finding it is already beginning to subside. I think the perspective of time - and not even necessarily very much time - will help.
> 
> The perspective of never mind rolling news, but rolling microblogs, probably hasn't helped perceptions of an outpouring of racism. But I was speaking to people over the weekend from whom I frankly did expect to hear some unsettling things, but the feared outbursts just weren't there. Instead, there was talk of feral politicians, feral bankers, and feral journalists setting the example (with which I agreed), and of reality-show celebrity cultural somehow playing a part (about which I'm not so sure. But I'm not discounting it).



I do sometimes wonder where such people get their notions though. I did a stall in Reading at the weekend, and we were harangued for about half an hour by a guy who thought that the reason the riots had happened was because of "the students" who'd "smashed everything up" and "set a bad example to the blacks".

There was also a woman who came up and was agreeing with everything we were saying but then said that the riots had happened because foreigners had come into the country and taken most of the jobs and people were rising up against it.


----------



## phildwyer (Aug 15, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> http://www.people.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2011/08/14/dont-move-102039-23343114/
> 
> Reads like a propaganda piece.



_''Lıke'' _a propaganda pıece?

''Yesterday parents led the fightback against Britains riot shame by shopping their own children.''

I belıeve that sımılarly patrıotıc behavıor was common ın Stalın's Russıa.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 15, 2011)

phildwyer said:


> _''Lıke'' _a propaganda pıece?
> 
> ''Yesterday parents led the fightback against Britains riot shame by shopping their own children.''
> 
> I belıeve that sımılarly patrıotıc behavıor was common ın Stalın's Russıa.


Never mind that - what is going on withtherunningtogether of words and no apostrophes?


----------



## treelover (Aug 15, 2011)

'Secondly: How are the broad left going to win round some of these disaffected people into more postive and effective forms of anti establishment behaviour? '

Not through calls by the SWP for ''police off our estates'' and defending the looters...


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 15, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'Secondly: How are the broad left going to win round some of these disaffected people into more postive and effective forms of anti establishment behaviour? '
> 
> Not through calls by the SWP for ''police off our estates'' and defending the looters...



I agree with that. One can not draw moral equivalence between looters and banker and then defend the looters. Not sure the SWP are defending the looters mind...


----------



## agricola (Aug 15, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I agree with that. One can not draw moral equivalence between looters and banker and then defend the looters. Not sure the SWP are defending the looters mind...



The problem they have is that if they did actually help the disaffected, then they might not want to hang around and continue the anti-establishment protests, they would have better things to do.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 15, 2011)

Here's some heavy fallout: The end of judicial independence.

http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 15, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I agree with that. One can not draw moral equivalence between looters and banker and then defend the looters. Not sure the SWP are defending the looters mind...



Has _anyone _been defending the looters? Only I've been away and I've been looking forward to coming back and taking the moral high ground.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Has _anyone _been defending the looters? Only I've been away and I've been looking forward to coming back and taking the moral high ground.



If jan 26th was like kristallnacht according to you, then this was Auschwitz surely?

See the problem with inflammatory rhetorical or polemical comparisons yet Andrew?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> If jan 26th was like kristallnacht according to you, then this was Auschwitz surely?
> 
> See the problem with inflammatory rhetorical or polemical comparisons yet Andrew?


Nope, it was an entirely appropriate comparison at the time. It clearly hit a nerve with you though mate, I'd try and move on if I was you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Here's some heavy fallout: The end of judicial independence.
> 
> http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/



No it isn't, and while the HO can make recommendations, obeying the "order" can't be enforced.

In fact, if the Home Sec had any brains at all, she'd know that putting out a circular that in effect orders a particular sentencing strategy has historically had the effect of ensuring that *any other sentence at all* gets used in preference to the one demanded.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Nope, it was an entirely appropriate comparison at the time. It clearly hit a nerve with you though mate, I'd try and move on if I was you.


No it wasn't. Follow through the comparison then. What was the riots on your scale if jan 26th was kristallnacht?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> If jan 26th was like kristallnacht according to you, then this was Auschwitz surely?



The fire-bombing of Dresden, surely?



> See the problem with inflammatory rhetorical or polemical comparisons yet Andrew?



Probably not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Nope, it was an entirely appropriate comparison at the time. It clearly hit a nerve with you though mate, I'd try and move on if I was you.



No, it really wasn't, for all the many reasons I gave at the time, you _schmuck_.


----------



## treelover (Aug 15, 2011)

'August 15, 2011 
*'KUDRIKOVA: PICKPOCKET FONDLED GENTLEMAN*

PETERBOROUGH A pickpocket distracted her wealthy victim by fondling him as she removed his cash and bankcard, court heard. Diana Kudrikova, 36, asked Michael Clark if he wanted sex and touched him over his trousers near his office in the heart of Mayfair.'
http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/

Well, if you are going to get mugged........

oh, and all of modern england are in those court reports, fascinating..


----------



## weltweit (Aug 15, 2011)

Hackney are holding a tea party today on the weeks aniversary of the unrest.

Just thought you should know.


----------



## elbows (Aug 15, 2011)

treelover said:


> his trousers near his office in the heart of Mayfair.



I've not heard it called that before!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

elbows said:


> I've not heard it called that before!



Perhaps they meant "he got a maypole in the heart of his trousers, somewhere near his office"?


----------



## agricola (Aug 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Perhaps they meant "he got a maypole in the heart of his trousers, somewhere near his orifice"?



fixed it for you


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Has _anyone _been defending the looters? Only I've been away and I've been looking forward to coming back and taking the moral high ground.


NO-ONE has, and there is a diffference between 'defending', and 'seeking to understand how this happened, and ascertaining the causal factors


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> NO-ONE has, and there is a diffference between 'defending', and 'seeking to understand how this happened, and ascertaining the causal factors


You know what mate? I'm glad to hear it and I totally agree with you!


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> NO-ONE has, and there is a diffference between 'defending', and 'seeking to understand how this happened, and ascertaining the causal factors



I've finally got several people IRL, that were besides themselves last week and in mega-knee-jerk reaction mode, to accept this, but it's been fucking hard work.

I think I am going to give up on the others now, and leave them to their stupid, bigoted, Daily Fail reading ways - life is just too short.


----------



## spitfire (Aug 15, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> There were 16,000 police twiddling their thumbs yesterday, on a normal Sunday there would be say 1/10th of that.



Good point.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> I've finally got several people IRL, that were besides themselves last week and in mega-knee-jerk reaction mode, to accept this, but it's been fucking hard work.


yep, same experience here, even in the rough, subversive east end



> I think I am going to give up on the others now, and leave them to their stupid, bigoted, Daily Fail reading ways - life is just too short.


 I don't blame you, i feel the same so often


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You know what mate? I'm glad to hear it and I totally agree with you!


tbf, U75 is prolly the sort of place I expected the nuanced, thoughtful reaction that is the opposite of the _daily Mail_ on one hand and teenage gangsta wannabes on the other.


----------



## BlackArab (Aug 15, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'August 15, 2011
> *'KUDRIKOVA: PICKPOCKET FONDLED GENTLEMAN*
> 
> PETERBOROUGH A pickpocket distracted her wealthy victim by fondling him as she removed his cash and bankcard, court heard. Diana Kudrikova, 36, asked Michael Clark if he wanted sex and touched him over his trousers near his office in the heart of Mayfair.'
> ...



The trannies that work the main drag in Barcelona do that trick, be careful if you're ever there and wandering around drunk.


----------



## cantsin (Aug 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> NO-ONE has, and there is a diffference between 'defending', and 'seeking to understand how this happened, and ascertaining the causal factors



"NO -ONE " ? surely someone must have given the old " A riot is the language of the unheard" / it was a howl of rage, the cry of the oppressed, it's not for us on the sidelines to decide what constitutes a righteous struggle, what form that struggle takes etc etc " a spin round the block ?

Hertford you plank, give that a go if you fancy it, I'm off for Corrie.


----------



## treelover (Aug 15, 2011)

RE: the number of people being propelled through court, the judicial system, etc, surely with these numbers and the dangerous elements in many cases now inside, won't the problem be transferred to the prisons, when will the first 'England Riot' Riot break out?


----------



## killer b (Aug 15, 2011)

I've been away for a week with only mobile connection, so I've been reading a lot, but seldom posting - finally got to a computer, and I've got a few thoughts - tbh they could probably go on a number of threads, but this one is as good as any...

1 - this is not any kind of 'opportunity' for the government: it's a total disaster for them. it undermines their entire cuts programme, and their response has been late, desperate and will be shown to be ineffective over time. One of the sure signs of Cameron's incompetence on this has been that Miliband's approach has (on this occasion, and with the other recent crises) seemed expert, thoughtful and timely in comparison.

2 - While I don't agree with many of the outraged responses choking up facebook & twitter feeds, pub & office conversations, it's understandable why people feel that way. I'm all for understanding the roots of the troubles, but we also need to extend that courtesy to the response in order to find a way forward.

3 - I don't think there will be any significant draconian new laws etc as a result of this, beyond the stiff sentencing. The government may talk tough, but in private I doubt they have much of an appetite, or any faith that it will work. I suspect instead there will be money pushed into schemes which aim to smooth things over and take the edge off the harshness, rather than actually tackle the root causes (as tackling the root causes themselves is not something that is ever going to happen via any of the currently viable political parties). I wouldn't be surprised to see the return of EMA or something similar.

4 - The only response that really matters is that of the communities affected by the rioting. I've read bits an pieces here and there which seem to be mainly positive, but don't really have an overall picture of what's happening now - anyone got any link/stories etc?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 15, 2011)

treelover said:


> RE: the number of people being propelled through court, the judicial system, etc, surely with these numbers and the dangerous elements in many cases now inside, won't the problem be transferred to the prisons, when will the first 'England Riot' Riot break out?


yes


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Aug 15, 2011)

David Willetts on Newsnight this evening saying that he was quite confident that these ghastly amoral rioters came from fatherless homes. 
They seem to be exploring all avenues of blame besides those which would expose their culpability whilst lecturing the nation on personal responsibility. It's a joke, yes? 
Utter dickheads.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 15, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Hackney are holding a tea party today on the weeks aniversary of the unrest.
> 
> Just thought you should know.



Was there...I provided the street chalk.


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 16, 2011)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> David Willetts on Newsnight this evening saying that he was quite confident that these ghastly amoral rioters came from fatherless homes.


 
now come on, you know it's ALWAYS the fault of single mothers.......


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No it wasn't. Follow through the comparison then. What was the riots on your scale if jan 26th was kristallnacht?



The two situations were completely different, I'm not even sure why you brought it up. The incident in March (Jan 26th?) involved a mere dozen or so misguided and arrogant 'political activists' who decided that their own political agenda was of such a superior nature, it justified them carrying out token acts of political violence and destruction. By contrast, the looters last week were at least almost certainly free of any such high moral illusions.

Ironically, it's last week's brutality that may ultimately have some limited impact on government thinking, but certainly not the nonsense back in March.


----------



## treelover (Aug 16, 2011)

Looked very popular, was there many young people though?


----------



## little_legs (Aug 16, 2011)




----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> I've finally got several people IRL, that were besides themselves last week and in mega-knee-jerk reaction mode, to accept this, but it's been fucking hard work.
> 
> I think I am going to give up on the others now, and leave them to their stupid, bigoted, Daily Fail reading ways - life is just too short.


 
at least you've tried. I've been taking the 'if I was in tottenham I'd have joined in' line. I've not got the bloody time to argue with froth o'clock justice-bots but nor can I stay silent. Another useful one has been 'so they are trashing thier own areas? have you seen tottenham? I'd smash it up if I lived there- anyway its not like these kids feel any connection to the shithole'.

Don't see why having my blood pressure raised shouldn't be returned in kind tbf


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 16, 2011)

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/10454

*Homelessness - Not in my name*



> With regards the recent call for looters/rioters to be evicted from their homes, do we understand the implications of making people homeless and the potential long term consequences? Where do you put the homeless? The streets? As responsible citizens, we all have a duty to protect our country. Sign this petition if you believe mass homelessness is not the answer to this problem.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> The two situations were completely different, I'm not even sure why you brought it up. The incident in March (Jan 26th?) involved a mere dozen or so misguided and arrogant 'political activists' who decided that their own political agenda was of such a superior nature, it justified them carrying out token acts of political violence and destruction. By contrast, the looters last week were at least almost certainly free of any such high moral illusions.
> 
> Ironically, it's last week's brutality that may ultimately have some limited impact on government thinking, but certainly not the nonsense back in March.


I brought it up because of your cackhanded analogy. You're now reducing kristacllnacht in retrospect i see, with not a word as to why the comparison was ill thought and in apt. In fact your postr above outlines exactly why is was such a terrible comparison to make. And no, the same motivating  logic prevailed in the riots, you just can't see it.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 16, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> The two situations were completely different, I'm not even sure why you brought it up.* The incident in March (Jan 26th?) involved a mere dozen or so misguided and arrogant 'political activists' who decided that their own political agenda was of such a superior nature,* it justified them carrying out token acts of political violence and destruction. By contrast, the looters last week were at least almost certainly free of any such high moral illusions.
> 
> Ironically, it's last week's brutality that may ultimately have some limited impact on government thinking, but certainly not the nonsense back in March.



I don't think they thought that at all. What do you mean by "political violence"? Political violence is meted out to the poor and those on low wages every day of the week. You're a little selective with your facts, dude.


----------



## peterkro (Aug 16, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/10454
> 
> *Homelessness - Not in my name*


I looked at a few of the more sane petitions and even decided to sign one,lo and behold they want your full details.Now I know most people will just put down any old bollocks,but it strikes me that the police/security services will go through the info with a fine tooth comb looking for "troublemakers" ( anybody showing a tendency to think for themselves).


----------



## shaman75 (Aug 16, 2011)

> New police powers to clear the streets and create "no-go" areas for the public are being considered, the home secretary, Theresa May says.
> She said it was now time to consider whether the police needed a power "to impose a general curfew in a particular area" in the aftermath of last week's riots.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/uk-riots-police-new-curfew-powers


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 16, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/uk-riots-police-new-curfew-powers


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/16/uk-riots-police-new-curfew-powers



The woman is a fucking idiot who loves media attention way too much. If she read any of the vast amount of research her own department has done on curfews over the last 20 years, she'd know that curfews are crap: Expensive to enforce and if you *don't* enforce them (at the cost of extra police officers and community support officers on shift every night) then there's no point imposing one anyway. If you're trimming 20% off of the Police Service budget, curfews do not stand up as a sensible option.

Still, it means the old maggot gets her paper in the press again.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 16, 2011)

How does that actually work then? What about shift workers etc etc.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 16, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> How does that actually work then? What about shift workers etc etc.


they have to obey curfews too. or not, as they see fit.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 16, 2011)

> *Emergency Meeting Called By Tottenham Concerned Residents & Supporters*
> 7 – 9pm Wednesday 17th August
> North London Community House, 22 Moorefield Rd, N17 6PY
> (Behind Bruce Grove overhead station)
> Expert speakers and an open forum for your questions, suggestions, ideas and points of view


 
http://www.coalitionofresistance.or...ots…what-next-for-youths-tottenham-17-august/


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 16, 2011)

Not sure if this has been posted?

http://www.dreaminggenius.com/2011/08/police-response-to-rioting-doesnt-add.html#mor


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I brought it up because of your cackhanded analogy. You're now reducing kristacllnacht in retrospect i see, with not a word as to why the comparison was ill thought and in apt. In fact your postr above outlines exactly why is was such a terrible comparison to make. And no, the same motivating logic prevailed in the riots, you just can't see it.



You're obsessed with this aren't you, if I remember right you even brought it into a discussion on AV ffs! If you want to trawl back and find out what I actually said then be my guest, personally I've got better things to do. I _think _I said that the actions of the small group of silly cunts in question made it _look_ like Kristallnacht rather than the peaceful demonstration it was supposed to be. Feel free to prove me wrong if it makes you happy.

To be honest if that was all I said then I clearly didn't go far enough.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 17, 2011)

Sounds like you were being utterly hysterical to be fair, and by making the comparison I'd suggest you were insulting the victims of kristacllnacht itself. A bit silly really, makes you sound like a pillock.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 17, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> You're obsessed with this aren't you, if I remember right you even brought it into a discussion on AV ffs! If you want to trawl back and find out what I actually said then be my guest, personally I've got better things to do. I _think _I said that the actions of the small group of silly cunts in question made it _look_ like Kristallnacht rather than the peaceful demonstration it was supposed to be. Feel free to prove me wrong if it makes you happy.
> 
> To be honest if that was all I said then I clearly didn't go far enough.



NO.

It looked like some idiots smashing windows, not like a state organised pogrom which resulted in thousands of deaths and buildings burnt down, the victims of that pogrom being rounded up and detained, etc, on the eve of (and designed to soften public opinion to) the mass killings which were later to become the holocaust

Do you have any idea how fucking insulting that is?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 17, 2011)

Fake outrage is so transparent.

So all nazi analogies are out of bounds now because they offend surviving victims of WW2 are they? I hope you remember that next time you're discussing the edl, because the silly cunts were talking about here are no better.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 17, 2011)

oh jesus.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 17, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Fake outrage is so transparent.
> 
> So all nazi analogies are out of bounds now because they offend surviving victims of WW2 are they? I hope you remember that next time you're discussing the edl, because the silly cunts were talking about here are no better.



so:

looters = EDL = nazis

and:

student demo = kristalnacht

so presumably:

the agents of kristalnacht = the agents of the student demo

therefore:

student protesters = looters = EDL = nazis


----------



## Dr Jon (Aug 17, 2011)

Max Keiser contrasts actions of looters and bankers

Thatcher's chickens come home to roost...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> How does that actually work then? What about shift workers etc etc.



Bureaucracy. Basically you have to have a "licence" to be breaking the curfew, or you get nicked.


----------



## treelover (Aug 17, 2011)

btw, i am in way condoning the rioters but didn't many of the cafes, shops, etc move to these inner city areas because of their 'edgyness' urban chic, etc...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Fake outrage is so transparent.



Who are you to dictate that my outrage at your crass ignorance and insensitivity are fake?



> So all nazi analogies are out of bounds now because they offend surviving victims of WW2 are they? I hope you remember that next time you're discussing the edl, because the silly cunts were talking about here are no better.



A few points, although I doubt you'll grasp them.

1) The EDL aren't Nazis, they're not even really proto-fascists. They're semi-organised racists who like the idea of the Nazis and appropriate some of their gestures, mostly without knowing quite what they mean.

2) Nobody has said "no Nazi analogies", what has happened is that people have called your _Kristallnacht_ "analogy" into question, because even when you originally used it (as was explained at length to you) it wasn't apposite.

3) Why would Nazi analogies offend survivors of WW2? You're generalising massively in order to try to escape the consequences of your own stupid comparison. Grow up.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2011)

treelover said:


> btw, i am in way condoning the rioters but didn't many of the cafes, shops, etc move to these inner city areas because of their 'edgyness' urban chic, etc...



Some. Then again, some were local businesses that had been there longer than most of the looters had been alive.


----------



## Badgers (Aug 17, 2011)

Part of an email from a US company I do work for but not this year:



> Meanwhile, in your country the heathens are in the streets and the pictures on our television were that of riots, fires, thugs, police with shields, etc.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 17, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Fake outrage is so transparent.
> 
> So all nazi analogies are out of bounds now because they offend surviving victims of WW2 are they? I hope you remember that next time you're discussing the edl, because the silly cunts were talking about here are no better.



As froggie and Norm have said, comparing the smashing of windows on the student demo to Kristellnacht is deeply offensive. It's also crass. Perhaps you need to revisit your history (assuming you visited it in the first place). No?

Freaky Sarah Palin used the phrase "blood libel" similarly. She's thick. What's your excuse?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> oh jesus.



He wasn't the Messiah, he was a very naughty boy!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2011)

Fozzie Bear said:


> so:
> 
> looters = EDL = nazis
> 
> ...



Makes more sense than Hertford's original "analogy", mate.


----------



## magneze (Aug 17, 2011)

Dr Jon said:


> Max Keiser contrasts actions of looters and bankers
> 
> Thatcher's chickens come home to roost...


Really sticks it to Cameron. Where is this sort of invective on UK TV?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 17, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Makes more sense than Hertford's original "analogy", mate.



Perhaps, but it all ends up a bit Rik from the Young Ones?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 17, 2011)

Write up regarding the event in Clarence Road on Monday:

http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2011/08...s-community-holds-tea-party-in-clarence-road/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2011)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Perhaps, but it all ends up a bit Rik from the Young Ones?



Yep, obviously everyone is a fascist!!!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 17, 2011)

So, the most immediate concerns are:

1. Mounting a defence campaign. From the fear that in the coming weeks police are going to be kicking doors in and arresting those they deem to have taken part. Also to support those already in custody and challenge the ridiculous sentences being handed out.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 18, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Write up regarding the event in Clarence Road on Monday:
> 
> http://hackneycitizen.co.uk/2011/08...s-community-holds-tea-party-in-clarence-road/



The British demonstrate to the Americans how a Tea Party should be done.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 18, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> http://www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/2011/08/after-the-riots…what-next-for-youths-tottenham-17-august/



Lee Jasper and the Greens- that's a combination going no where


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The woman is a fucking idiot who loves media attention way too much. If she read any of the vast amount of research her own department has done on curfews over the last 20 years, she'd know that curfews are crap: Expensive to enforce and if you *don't* enforce them (at the cost of extra police officers and community support officers on shift every night) then there's no point imposing one anyway. If you're trimming 20% off of the Police Service budget, curfews do not stand up as a sensible option.
> 
> Still, it means the old maggot gets her paper in the press again.



They can use section 30s anyway


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2011)

Don't know if I heard this right, but thought someone got given a "lifetime curfew" the other day. If I heard it right, how on earth does that work?
Maybe the newsreader said the wrong word?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 18, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Lee Jasper and the Greens- that's a combination going no where



They were not expecting to go anywhere. They both turned up and made suggestions..the meeting was about 'solutions' not rhetoric.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 18, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> They were not expecting to go anywhere. They both turned up and made suggestions..the meeting was about 'solutions' not rhetoric.



Did you go, Rutita1? Any chance of a summary, if so?

EDIT: oops just seen your post upthread. Sorry!


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 18, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> So, the most immediate concerns are:
> 
> 1. Mounting a defence campaign. From the fear that in the coming weeks police are going to be kicking doors in and arresting those they deem to have taken part. Also to support those already in custody and challenge the ridiculous sentences being handed out.


Yes, i'd certainly be interested in assisting with such a campaign, and I'm looking for such a thing, so do post it up if you hear of such a thing


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 18, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Yes, i'd certainly be interested in assisting with such a campaign, and I'm looking for such a thing, so do post it up if you hear of such a thing



It is in the _process_ of being set up, so plenty of time to get involved and productively influence it. I will PM you a contact if you like.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 18, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> It is in the _process_ of being set up, so plenty of time to get involved and productively influence it. I will PM you a contact if you like.


yes please when you have one


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2011)

Here's some fallout:

Under-age rioters to be named-and-shamed 





> The Crown Prosecution Service has issued new guidance on lifting reporting restrictions in youth cases – including episodes of rioting and public disorder.
> 
> The updated guidelines were issued after Home Secretary Theresa May said that under-age rioters should be named and shamed and urged prosecutors to ask judges to overrule the right to anonymity.
> 
> ...


----------



## Part 2 (Aug 18, 2011)

What a fucking disgrace


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 18, 2011)

I must admit, the viciousness of the response has taken me aback somewhat, and I expected a pretty vicious response.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Aug 18, 2011)

it's gonna get worse before it gets better...
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/0...ddress-of-suspect-his-house-gets-burned-down/
*Arsonists Hit Manchester Riot Suspect's Home*


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 18, 2011)

Chip Barm said:


> What a fucking disgrace



What is?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 18, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> They were not expecting to go anywhere. They both turned up and made suggestions..the meeting was about 'solutions' not rhetoric.


what did you think of Lee, as a matter of interest?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 18, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> what did you think of Lee, as a matter of interest?


Heh  I was waiting for this question. Am off out now but will PM you later as suggested earlier.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 18, 2011)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> it's gonna get worse before it gets better...
> http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/0...ddress-of-suspect-his-house-gets-burned-down/
> *Arsonists Hit Manchester Riot Suspect's Home*



Flipping heck! Not gonna help!


----------



## Part 2 (Aug 18, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> What is?



Changing regulations to suit public mood, kneejerk poilcymaking.



wemakeyousoundb said:


> it's gonna get worse before it gets better...
> http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/0...ddress-of-suspect-his-house-gets-burned-down/
> *Arsonists Hit Manchester Riot Suspect's Home*



More interesting is that in the early reports the police said they thought it was started deliberately, then changed their minds.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...-miss-selfridge-store-during-manchester-riots

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14547197


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 18, 2011)

Chip Barm said:


> Changing regulations to suit public mood, kneejerk poilcymaking.



They haven't changed any regulations, the law has always allowed reporting restrictions on cases involving minors to be lifted if there's a strong public interest, which clearly there is in respect of the riots.

The CPS has just issued updated examples to their prosecutors on how/why/when they can or shouldn't make representations to the courts for this to happen, which, funny enough, is the the job of the CPS - to offer guidance to their prosecutors.

The press can also make, and have done on countless occasions, representations to the courts for such reporting restrictions to be lifted, which is why the Press Gazette published this non-story.

_
_


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 18, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> They haven't changed any regulations, the law has always allowed reporting restrictions on cases involving minors to be lifted if there's a strong public interest, which clearly there is in respect of the riots.


Where is the public interest in reporting on kids who've been done for rioting?


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 18, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where is the public interest in reporting on kids who've been done for rioting?



Where is there no public interest?


----------



## Part 2 (Aug 18, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> They haven't changed any regulations,



*"The Crown Prosecution Service has issued new guidance on lifting reporting restrictions in youth cases – including episodes of rioting and public disorder.*

*The updated guidelines were issued after Home Secretary Theresa May said that under-age rioters should be named and shamed"*

Sounds like something has changed to me.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 18, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Where is there no public interest?


the default setting is 'no reporting'. So I don't have to show 'no public interest', which is proving a negative anyway. Those wishing the naming and shaming need to show a public interest.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 18, 2011)

Chip Barm said:


> *"The Crown Prosecution Service has issued new guidance on lifting reporting restrictions in youth cases – including episodes of rioting and public disorder.*
> 
> *The updated guidelines were issued after Home Secretary Theresa May said that under-age rioters should be named and shamed"*
> 
> Sounds like something has changed to me.



Well, you're thick, because you are only reading the bits you want and ignoring the facts..

_Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 grants automatic anonymity in the youth court, and section 39 allows similar reporting restrictions to be imposed in magistrates’ court and crown court. 

*In both cases reporting restrictions can be lifted if there is a strong public interest. *_


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 18, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> *the default setting is 'no reporting'.* So I don't have to show 'no public interest', which is proving a negative anyway. Those wishing the naming and shaming need to show a public interest.



Only in the Youth Court.

Of course those wishing the naming and shaming need to show a public interest, which is what the bloody guidance is all about.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 18, 2011)

So what is the public interest?


----------



## Part 2 (Aug 18, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Well, you're thick, because you are only reading the bits you want and ignoring the facts..
> 
> _Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 grants automatic anonymity in the youth court, and section 39 allows similar reporting restrictions to be imposed in magistrates’ court and crown court. _
> 
> _*In both cases reporting restrictions can be lifted if there is a strong public interest. *_



No *you're* thick so ner ner ne ner ner. you prick.

New guidelines issued to fit with the opinions of a reactionary politician, fuck all to do with public interest.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 18, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So what is the public interest?


I'm thinking that the argument will be made that 'the public shaming and vilification of young hooligans will deter potential miscreants in the future'.
Not an argument i agree with for a second, but I'll bet it pops up at some point


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 18, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Heh  I was waiting for this question. Am off out now but will PM you later as suggested earlier.


yes good idea - thanks


----------



## IC3D (Aug 18, 2011)

Crimewatch riot snitch specials on


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 18, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> So what is the public interest?



If my community was trashed, set on fire, people made homeless, etc - I would want to know what little bastards caused it, wouldn't you?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 18, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> If my community was trashed, set on fire, people made homeless, etc - I would want to know what little bastards caused it, wouldn't you?


To what end?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 18, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> They can use section 30s anyway



Quite, so why's she entertaining this shit and mouthing off? pure fucking crowd-pleasing!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 18, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> If my community was trashed, set on fire, people made homeless, etc - I would want to know what little bastards caused it, wouldn't you?



Public interest pertains to "the public-at-large", not some individual knob-jockey and his mates.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 18, 2011)

Chip Barm said:


> No *you're* thick so ner ner ne ner ner. you prick.
> 
> New guidelines issued to fit with the opinions of a reactionary politician, fuck all to do with public interest.



Oh, I see, you've changed your claim of 'regulations changed' to 'new guidelines' - two very different things.

There's no reason for being outraged by the CPS updating their employees, the prosecutors, under such circumstances - any employer would do.

Any outrage should be directed towards the courts, if they decide to accept representations, from the  prosecutors or the press, if it's not justified.

A 'kid' grabbing a pair of jeans from a looted shop should not be named & shamed, a 'kid' convicted of setting fire to a shop with flats above should be, IMO.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Quite, so why's she entertaining this shit and mouthing off? pure fucking crowd-pleasing!


it's quite a relief she's not much cop even at that. to me, these riots have made May look all over the place


----------



## Part 2 (Aug 18, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Oh, I see, you've changed your claim of 'regulations changed' to 'new guidelines' - two very different things.



oh fuck off you pedantic little prick


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 18, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> A 'kid' grabbing a pair of jeans from a looted shop should not be named & shamed, a 'kid' convicted of setting fire to a shop with flats above should be, IMO.


Why are you putting the word kid in inverted commas?


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Quite, so why's she entertaining this shit and mouthing off? pure fucking crowd-pleasing!


 
Absolutely ,the Police have pretty much said they have all the tools and powers.


----------



## dylans (Aug 19, 2011)

70% of people charged have been refused bail. ...But not if you are a millionaires daughter



> A university said today it will await the outcome of court proceedings against a millionaire's daughter before deciding whether to take any action.
> Undergraduate Laura Johnson, 19, was charged with five counts of burglary in connection with the theft of goods from stores in south London during unrest on the capital's streets
> Yesterday Johnson - who is reading English and Italian at the University of Exeter - *was granted bail by magistrates in Bexley, south east London, to return to court on September 21.*
> *http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...could-face-university-action-115875-23337533/*


 
So this woman loaded her car full of £5000 worth of goods and is granted bail but a single mom who accepted a pair of shorts gets bail refused.

And what about the people caught with her?



> Miss Johnson indicated a plea of not guilty to five counts of burglary and was granted bail on condition that she does not associate with the two men allegedly found with her.
> 
> She must wear an electronic tag, submit to a curfew between 7pm and 6am and not enter any London postcode. She is due to return to court on September 21.
> Camberwell Green magistrates heard that a 17-year-old and Alexander Elliot-Joahill, 18, were allegedly passengers in the car. *Both were denied bail and will next appear on September 7*


----------



## treelover (Aug 19, 2011)

stinks....


----------



## sojourner (Aug 19, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I must admit, the viciousness of the response has taken me aback somewhat, and I expected a pretty vicious response.


Same

Although I was stunned by the initial proposals, I seriously hoped that some kind of fucking logic would prevail, but no.  Unfucking real.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 19, 2011)

So the woman who accepted the looted shorts is now out, after an appeal:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14589259


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 19, 2011)

dylans said:


> 70% of people charged have been refused bail. ...But not if you are a millionaires daughter
> 
> So this woman loaded her car full of £5000 worth of goods and is granted bail but a single mom who accepted a pair of shorts gets bail refused.
> 
> And what about the people caught with her?


Expensive lawyers versus, frankly, what looks like total amateurs.


----------



## Part 2 (Aug 19, 2011)

Fozzie Bear said:


> So the woman who accepted the looted shorts is now out, after an appeal:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-14589259



And Noonan's had his charges dropped too.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...noonan-plans-to-sue-gmp-after-charges-dropped


----------



## Part 2 (Aug 19, 2011)

wemakeyousoundb said:


> it's gonna get worse before it gets better...
> http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/0...ddress-of-suspect-his-house-gets-burned-down/
> *Arsonists Hit Manchester Riot Suspect's Home*



And guess who's been released from custody on bail with no home to go to because his flat was torched?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 20, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Who are you to dictate that my outrage at your crass ignorance and insensitivity are fake?
> 
> A few points, although I doubt you'll grasp them.
> 
> ...


 
And who are you to dictate _my_ outrage at the actions of a few arrogant scumbags who brought violence to a peaceful demonstration? They deserve no respect or consideration so I'll use whatever analogy I like.

1) Whether or not the edl are nazis is irrelevant, but the analogy is frequently made and it is not then taken as an insult to the victims of WW2.

2) Calling into question is one thing, hysteria is another.

I have no intention of being "_explained to at length_" by a group of anarchists and their friends as to what are appropriate analogies to use when describing violence, particularly when they have openly advocated the use of or admitted taking part in acts of violence themselves.

3) No, nazi analogies do not as a rule insult the victims of WW2. It was Spiny Norman who claimed that they did.

I don't know why there are some here who are keen to don the mask of phoney moral indignation in defence of the actions and reputations of these twats..... but I could hazard a guess.

What was said on a completely different subject around six months ago has got nothing to do with this thread and it wasn't me that brought it up.

End of.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 20, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> And who are you to dictate _my_ outrage at the actions of a few arrogant scumbags who brought violence to a peaceful demonstration? They deserve no respect or consideration so I'll use whatever analogy I like.
> 
> 1) Whether or not the edl are nazis is irrelevant, but the analogy is frequently made and it is not then taken as an insult to the victims of WW2.
> 
> ...



So you'll just carry on using offensive analogies as long as they suit your ignorant rhetoric.

Fine.

It's only fair that in light of that I'll carry on calling you as an ignorant fuckwit, you ignorant fuckwit.

Oh, and "end of"? Grow the fuck up, you big whining baby.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 21, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> And who are you to dictate _my_ outrage at the actions of a few arrogant scumbags who brought violence to a peaceful demonstration? They deserve no respect or consideration so I'll use whatever analogy I like.
> 
> 1) Whether or not the edl are nazis is irrelevant, but the analogy is frequently made and it is not then taken as an insult to the victims of WW2.
> 
> ...



1) I don't think calling the edl nazis is sensible either, but at least they are a group that victimises people, beats them up and attacks their homes and businesses purely because of their race/faith. There are at least a few similarities. The only thing those anarchists have in common with them is breaking a few windows (and I see you're following the Daily Heil line of calling damage to property 'violence' ffs).  By that logic my 16 year old niece is a Nazi too - she smashed the window of a derelict building about a year ago. I think I'm gonna have to no platform her now  

2) The only hysteria I see is coming from you - likening a few smashed windows to arguably the most notorious pogrom in history. 

3) You appear to be implying that I'm taking issue with your comments because I sympethise with the tactics of the black bloc. Personally I don't think what they did was particularly productive - I was on that march and could have joined them, but I chose not to. That should tell you something. But I'll be fucked if I'm going to let some liberal berk liken them to the fucking Nazis. 

Get a fucking grip you hand wringing clown.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 21, 2011)

Chip Barm said:


> And Noonan's had his charges dropped too.
> 
> http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereve...noonan-plans-to-sue-gmp-after-charges-dropped



getting a guilty wasn't really what they were after was it?


----------



## love detective (Aug 31, 2011)

here's one fallout from the riots - implicit riot inspired marketing campaigns from Argos



> We're giving you the chance to win a 60-second dash around one of our warehouses containing every product in the Argos catalogue. You'll just have to spot your favorite items and 'dot' them with a big red pen to claim them



_Even the most radical gesture gets recuperated into the spectacle and turned into a commodity, negating its subversive meaning. Everything eventually becomes a commodity in the spectacle – TV, radio, the internet, books, ideas, thoughts and desires. “Rebellion is sold back to us as an image that pacifies us.”_


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 12, 2011)

> *Unicef criticises Britain for jailing children over riots*
> 
> UN children's fund says figures showing 45% of under-18s detained over riots had no criminal history are very worrying
> 
> ...


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/oct/09/unicef-britain-riots-children-jailed


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 12, 2011)

open the prisons


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 17, 2011)

Read a headline from the Camden Journal today....*Schools help identify rioters* or words to that effect.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Oct 17, 2011)

> *‘Rioters’ are identified by Haverstock and Hampstead schools*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Oct 18, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> open the prisons



UK has the lowest age of criminal responsibility in the EU. I guess you support that too.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 18, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> UK has the lowest age of criminal responsibility in the EU. I guess you support that too.



What does that mean in practise Ibn? Three quarters of the youth courts population are actually 17 years plus.The rest are dealt with by other means.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 18, 2011)

wonderful feltham etc


----------



## Mation (Oct 18, 2011)

Would this be a good time to remind people that Haverstock is Ed and Dave Milliband's old school? 

(And mine; but I have nothing to do with it.)


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Oct 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> What does that mean in practise Ibn? Three quarters of the youth courts population are actually 17 years plus.The rest are dealt with by other means.



No, there are such things as youth institutions. Children and adolescents get put in prisons basically, comparable to adult jails. Some argue they're worse than adult jails because of the age group.


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 21, 2011)

Ibn Khaldoun said:


> No, there are such things as youth institutions. Children and adolescents get put in prisons basically, comparable to adult jails. Some argue they're worse than adult jails because of the age group.



Do us all  a favour and do a bit of reading before posting


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Oct 22, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Do us all a favour and do a bit of reading before posting



?They don't exist?


----------



## The39thStep (Oct 22, 2011)

Youth institutions? or do you mean Youth Offender Institutions? Or do you mean Secure Training Centres or do you mean Local authority Secure Accomodation?

Like I said do a bit of reading .


----------



## jakethesnake (Dec 4, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/03/police-summer-riots-hours
The report finds a "fundamental intelligence problem" contributed to the police's troubles, ie, the local community told them fuck all. Policing by consent, motherfuckers!


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 4, 2011)

Policing by consent is out. Hulk Hogan's TOTAL POLICING is in.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/15/new-met-commissioner-total-policing

It is going to end badly.


----------



## elbows (Dec 5, 2011)

Well surprise surprise, anger towards the police turns out to have been a factor:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16018215



> Anti-police sentiment was a significant factor in the summer riots in cities across England, according to a major study on causes of the unrest.
> The study by the London School of Economics and the Guardian newspaper involved interviews with 270 rioters.
> Of those interviewed, 85% cited anger at policing practices as a key factor in why the violence happened.





> "When we came across a police car it felt like we hit the jackpot," one rioter said. "We thought we'd just kind of violate just like they violate us."
> Of the 270 people interviewed, 85% said policing was an "important" or "very important" factor in why the riots happened.
> They repeatedly expressed frustrations about their daily interactions with the police, saying that they felt hassled, bullied and complaining that they were not treated as equals.
> The focus of much resentment was police use of stop and search which was felt to be unfairly targeted and often undertaken in an aggressive and discourteous manner.
> ...


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 5, 2011)

elbows said:


> Well surprise surprise, anger towards the police turns out to have been a factor:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16018215


And not just their personal dealings with the police but they can see in the news of how undemocratic tools of the state they are


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 5, 2011)

elbows said:


> Well surprise surprise, anger towards the police turns out to have been a factor:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16018215



what do you expect from the Guardian?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Dec 5, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> what do you expect from the Guardian?



I think we knew that before the Guardian printed it to be fair.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Dec 5, 2011)

> "When we came across a police car it felt like we hit the jackpot," one rioter said. "We thought we'd just kind of violate just like they violate us."
> Of the 270 people interviewed, 85% said policing was an "important" or "very important" factor in why the riots happened.



So a bunch of violent criminals don't get on with the police. Presumably they would prefer it if they didn't get locked up for robbing and burning down people's houses. I think on the whole I'd rather live in a country where the police harassed arsonists and thieves.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 5, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> what do you expect from the Guardian?



the constant attempt from some quarters to completely depoliticise the riots increasingly looks like gate keeping

we'll tell you what you should be pissed off about, and we'll tell you how to express it


----------



## Brainaddict (Dec 5, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> So a bunch of violent criminals don't get on with the police.


If you examined what was said with an open mind (<hands ER a crowbar>) you would see that it was the arbitrary treatment by the police, often outside of the law, with officers engaging in deliberate humiliation tactics, that bothered people. So if you are going to characterise all rioters as 'violent criminals' it makes as much sense to do the same to the police, and your statement would read 'A bunch of violent criminals don't get on with a bunch of violent criminals'. That's not how I would put it - in fact if I had to guess which group had been more systematically violent I would be pretty sure it was the police. So a bunch of people don't get on with a bunch of violent criminals in uniform.....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 5, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> So a bunch of violent criminals don't get on with the police. Presumably they would prefer it if they didn't get locked up for robbing and burning down people's houses. I think on the whole I'd rather live in a country where the police harassed arsonists and thieves.



It's not about "violent criminals", even though I can see why you'd prefer to steer the debate that way (it'd make it much simpler for you to come out with your usual tosh, wouldn't it?). It's about otherwise "ordinary people" becoming disaffected enough with the one-sidedness of policing and the law to do something about it. That a minority of them engaged in the practices you're trying to attribute to them all (robbing and arson) doesn't change the fact that the majority rioted without committing theft and/or arson.


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 5, 2011)

How was the Guardian's questions worded?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 5, 2011)

the study has not been published yet - it appears to have been carried out by the LSE, not the guardian as such but the methodology is published at: _http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/05/reading-the-riots-methodology-explained_


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 5, 2011)

Some more info (PDF):

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2011/12/02/Riots_book_web2.pdf

Anybody know the difference between "rioters" and "Guardian/ICM" in that doc?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 5, 2011)

not sure, think it might refer to a poll the guardian did of its readers about the riots but its not clear


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 5, 2011)

smokedout said:


> not sure, think it might refer to a poll the guardian did of its readers about the riots but its not clear


Some interesting differences if that was what it means


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 5, 2011)

Also I'm slightly dubious over some of the reasons sited by the rioters, especially given that all but two reasons listed are above 50%

I know there will be multiple reasons for most rioters, but are three quarters of them really blaming Facebook for their reasons!? (But that goes back to how the questions were worded, and how they were explained - eg it could have been did you _use _social networking to riot, rather than did that provoke you to riot....)


----------



## smokedout (Dec 5, 2011)

particularly that amongst the people who took part it appears they appear to significantly reject the gang hypothesis


----------



## smokedout (Dec 5, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Also I'm slightly dubious over some of the reasons sited by the rioters, especially given that all but two reasons listed are above 50%
> 
> I know there will be multiple reasons for most rioters, but are three quarters of them really blaming Facebook for their reasons!? (But that goes back to how the questions were worded, and how they were explained - eg it could have been did you _use _social networking to riot, rather than did that provoke you to riot....)



the results came from a series of 'in depth free flowing' (they say) interviews, not a questionnaire, so i could imagine a lot of people saying that facebook was a factor in the spread and speed of the riot - but until we see the full report its difficult to analyse the methodology fully


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 5, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not about "violent criminals", even though I can see why you'd prefer to steer the debate that way (it'd make it much simpler for you to come out with your usual tosh, wouldn't it?). It's about otherwise "ordinary people" becoming disaffected enough with the one-sidedness of policing and the law to do something about it. That a minority of them engaged in the practices you're trying to attribute to them all (robbing and arson) doesn't change the fact that *the majority rioted without committing theft and/or arson.*



Are there reliable stats to back this up?


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 5, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's about otherwise "ordinary people" becoming disaffected enough with the one-sidedness of policing and the law to do something about it.


Ordinary? Didn't most of them have previous criminal records? You also seem to be suggesting that the "anger" against police is the main cause, when the results show that many many reasons are sited nearly to the same extent as the police...(even though I can see why you'd prefer to steer the debate that way )


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 5, 2011)

smokedout said:


> the constant attempt from some quarters to completely depoliticise the riots increasingly looks like gate keeping
> 
> we'll tell you what you should be pissed off about, and we'll tell you how to express it



the guardian is terrible for this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/14/young-british-rioters-political-actions


----------



## DaveCinzano (Dec 5, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Ordinary? Didn't most of them have previous criminal records?



Nope.

In the early stages of the post-riots round-ups a relatively high number of arrestees were noted as having prior criminal records, but that is to be expected, in that those with prior criminal records are easiest to identify and nab, especially if they were not masked up/wearing gloves/left DNA behind.

The 'usual suspects' factor.

Of course, trying to extrapolate accurate crowd composition data from arrestee data is a hiding to nothing.


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 5, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Nope.
> 
> In the early stages of the post-riots round-ups a relatively high number of arrestees were noted as having prior criminal records, but that is to be expected, in that those with prior criminal records are easiest to identify and nab, especially if they were not masked up/wearing gloves/left DNA behind.
> 
> ...


What % of rioters did have previous criminal record?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 5, 2011)

DaveCinzano said:


> Nope.
> 
> In the early stages of the post-riots round-ups a relatively high number of arrestees were noted as having prior criminal records, but that is to be expected, in that those with prior criminal records are easiest to identify and nab, especially if they were not masked up/wearing gloves/left DNA behind.
> 
> ...



So how can you be sure that most rioters _didn't_ have criminal records Dave? Again, is there anything to back this up?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 5, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> What % of rioters did have previous criminal record?



we dont know - or do we know what those criminal records were for.  a fine for shop lifting or a caution for a bit of pot hardly denotes career criminals.


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 5, 2011)

smokedout said:


> we dont know - or do we know what those criminal records were for. a fine for shop lifting or a caution for a bit of pot hardly denotes career criminals.


That's not what the previous poster implied!

(Might have been a VERY good question for the Guardian to have asked if they didn't...!)


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 5, 2011)

Desperate attempts at reframing by the right-wing papers notwithstanding, some interesting comment elsewhere.



> Already, the research is challenging some of the instant reactions:
> 
> The extent of reported hatred of the police is remarkable, and surely beyond anything anyone suspected. Some 85% of the rioters said that policing was a major cause of the disturbances, and the apparent and intense dislike of the police is clear in the interviews. Even if Mark Duggan's death was identified as an immediate spark, it seems clear the riots were somehow an expression of a deeper – and darker – set of perceived injustices and feelings about the police.
> Many were quick to blame gangs. But for the duration of the riots, they actually worked together – suspending hostilities in the face of an opportunity to loot, and united in opposition to the police. In 2008, the JRF studied territoriality among young people, showing the strength of highly local loyalties, and conflicts with groups from other areas. This was not the case in August; the gangs suspended business as usual.
> ...



http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2011/12/riots-challenging-received-wisdom


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 5, 2011)

Some other very relevant research from JRF here: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/riots-community-lessons-summary.pdf



> • Case studies in London, Nottingham, Liverpool and Teesside showed that:
> – decaying buildings and abandoned homes had a severe effect on resident morale;
> – these areas were not lacking social cohesion and interaction;
> – neighbourhoods mattered to residents; and
> – *residents did not feel they were in control*





> • A project on two of Bradford’s traditionally white estates – both relatively deprived – revealed that:
> – a sense of community, albeit compromised, still existed in these neighbourhoods;
> – fear and insecurity were serious problems for residents;
> – *people living in these communities felt they were seen as the ‘lowest of the low’, and they resented how society seemed to moralise, blame them and attribute their problems to their own behaviour*


The two lines I've bolded above seem to me to be particularly relevant, in the context of "Poverty", "Policing" and "Policy" being the three highest ranked causes cited by the rioters themselves.

What I'm hearing in the rioters own interpretations of their actions is a kind of attempt to stand up for themselves, against a society that identifies them as worthless scum and pays a bunch of uniformed thugs to push them around and keep them in their place. If there is a common narrative there, it's something like that I think.

Obviously this isn't an acceptable narrative to people who want it to be about "morality" and "family values" and stuff, but it'd be pretty fucking stupid not to at least listen to what the rioters say about their motives, even if you listen critically.


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 5, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Obviously this isn't an acceptable narrative to people who want it to be about "morality" and "family values" and stuff, but it'd be pretty fucking stupid not to at least listen to what the rioters say about their motives, even if you listen critically.


Everybody wants the causes of the riots to back up their existing opinions!


----------



## Giles (Dec 5, 2011)

There's bound to be an element of people feeling that they "ought" to give a reason for going out and looting shops, a reason that makes them sound less bad than "I saw loads of people grabbing free stuff, and I thought I'd go and get some for myself". Isn't there?

There have been plenty of genuine protests organised against various things that people feel are wrong with society. Protestors go and protest, and yes, sometimes their anger and frustration spills over into fights and confrontations with the police. But they are still recognisably protesting, as opposed to simply going out and stealing anything not nailed down and destroying other people's homes and livelihoods while they are at it.

Giles..


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 5, 2011)

It was a riot not a protest, if 'protest' is constrained to mean something involving banners, an articulate manifesto and a tent for little kids to get their faces painted.

Still doesn't excuse people emotionally and/or politically attached to some other narrative sticking their fingers in your ears and going 'la, la, la ... I can't hear you' ...

... when some researchers ask the rioters themselves to explain why they did what they did, and get a rather strong clear answer. Something along the lines of ...

"We rioted because we're have no economic prospects, society is being taught to despise us and the cops push us around all the time, won't even allow us a bit of self-respect in our own neighbourhoods, with no comebacks even if they kill us, etc."


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 5, 2011)

Giles said:


> There's bound to be an element of people feeling that they "ought" to give a reason for going out and looting shops, a reason that makes them sound less bad than "I saw loads of people grabbing free stuff, and I thought I'd go and get some for myself". Isn't there?


I thought the same but to be fair I think that came under the category "criminality"


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 5, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> "We rioted because we're have no economic prospects, society is being taught to despise us and the cops push us around all the time, won't even allow us a bit of self-respect in our own neighbourhoods, with no comebacks even if they kill us, etc."


I think if the Mail did a similar survey the answers would be quite different! And I trust the Mail as much as I trust the Guardian these days!

Saying that, I think a lot of the reasons you say above create the type of person that would become vulnerable to getting involved with crime (of which we can say the riots were part of, along with other crimes). Whether those reasons made people actually go out and riot I'm not sure...(iyswim?)


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 5, 2011)

What bothers me about many of the responses to the LSE/Guardian study is their knee-jerk dismissal of anything the rioters themselves may have to say about why they rioted.

Critical analysis is one thing, but this all seems more like:

"Oh no, that can't be right. How can you believe a word these animals are saying? It must be <insert Daily Mail sourced rationale for why the rioters aren't worth listening to about why they rioted here>"


----------



## Giles (Dec 5, 2011)

You'd really have to know how they got these answers. It's like when someone does a survey that reveals that loads of people are "worried" about this issue or that issue .... did they give them a list of options, so they felt compelled to say that they were "most concerned" by one or the other? Even if in reality they weren't that bothered about any of them.

Giles..


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 5, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> What bothers me about many of the responses to the LSE/Guardian study is their knee-jerk dismissal of anything the rioters themselves may have to say about why they rioted.
> 
> Critical analysis is one thing, but this all seems more like:
> 
> "Oh no, that can't be right. How can you believe a word these animals are saying? It must be <insert Daily Mail sourced rationale for why the rioters aren't worth listening to about why they rioted here>"


To be fair it's only the same as the blind acceptance of them...the Guardian is hardly the source of unbiased information and I've never seen a newspaper funded poll/research that didn't give the answers they wanted to hear. And 270 (the majority of which were not arrested) isn't a great sample size.

I'm sure the results are accurate when people actually think about what pisses them off with society, I'm just little dubious that Joe Looter got out of bed that morning and thought "I rather disagree with the economic downturn so I think I'll show my dissatisfaction by stealing that TV"

Also, you can take anything you want out of that survey - you could say the majority of rioters rioted because they were bored, they wanted to commit crime because they are greedy and Facebook told them to do it!

I don't think we have enough information on the Guardian's methods/questions to decide whether this paints an accurate picture or not, despite how much I might agree with all the reasons given as options


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 6, 2011)

It's not like they're not being transparent about it.

Reading the Riots: Our Methodology Explained

Seems like a lot of grasping at straws is going on, among those who are invested in the Daily Mail narrative, to avoid listening to anything the actual rioters might have to say about why they rioted.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Dec 6, 2011)

I so hope it kicks off again on the opening weekend of the Olympics


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 6, 2011)

smokedout said:


> we dont know - or do we know what those criminal records were for. a fine for shop lifting or a caution for a bit of pot hardly denotes career criminals.



There is actually quite a bit of data on the antecedent history of those arrested which indicates that they were far from recreational users with the od prank of shoplifting.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 6, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> What bothers me about many of the responses to the LSE/Guardian study is their knee-jerk dismissal of anything the rioters themselves may have to say about why they rioted.
> 
> Critical analysis is one thing, but this all seems more like:
> 
> "Oh no, that can't be right. How can you believe a word these animals are saying? It must be <insert Daily Mail sourced rationale for why the rioters aren't worth listening to about why they rioted here>"



They interviewed those who said that they were rioters and who wanted to be interviewed rather than those who were convicted for rioting. Just trying to get into my head the shift from masking up and trouncing Ladbrokes to reading the Guardian and deciding to pitch up to a set of interviews by some well meaning studenty types. The responses are pretty much what you would expect aren't they given the fact that a group of academics are asking people to justify their actions post riot after all the discussion in the media.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 6, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> There is actually quite a bit of data on the antecedent history of those arrested which indicates that they were far from recreational users with the od prank of shoplifting.



yes, but as has been pointed out many times, the ones arrested are the ones who are likely to be career criminals - lots of arrests happened in the first 2/3 days, imagine the average lewisham copper on first glance of CCTV would have picked out people they recognised, the usual suspects, and more importantly the ones who always get nicked because they're too daft to mask up or take any other precautions

most people who took part didnt get arrested


----------



## smokedout (Dec 6, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> They interviewed those who said that they were rioters and who wanted to be interviewed rather than those who were convicted for rioting. Just trying to get into my head the shift from masking up and trouncing Ladbrokes to reading the Guardian and deciding to pitch up to a set of interviews by some well meaning studenty types.



when i was in a 'young person's hostel' we regularly used to get academic/media types pitching up wanting to talk to people, sometimes people talked to them, out of boredom as much as anything else - i imagine they went into youth projects etc and did the same thing



> The responses are pretty much what you would expect aren't they given the fact that a group of academics are asking people to justify their actions post riot after all the discussion in the media.



thats what the tory on newsnight said - pah theyre all criminals of course they hate the police and they are just trying to justify their actions after the event.  but the findings werent what the academics expected, the guy who ran the study said he was shocked by the findings and also the consistency with which kids said the same things around the country

it is what it is, obviously there will be flaws in the study, obviously there may be a tendency to liberal guardianista bias (although this was carried out by academics, not the paper) - but the simple fact is that the vast majority of people who took part, in what is quite a large sample size, very clearly said relations with police were the driving factor, with the government and poverty not far behind

i just wonder why some people (especially those on the left) are so desperate to undermine this

(of course if youve already written off many of our children as a sub-class and enemy within then its perfectly understandable)


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 6, 2011)

smokedout said:


> it is what it is, obviously there will be flaws in the study, obviously there may be a tendency to liberal guardianista bias (although this was carried out by academics, not the paper) - but the simple fact is that the vast majority of people who took part, in what is quite a large sample size, very clearly said relations with police were the driving factor, with the government and poverty not far behind
> 
> i just wonder why some people (especially those on the left) are so desperate to undermine this
> 
> (of course if youve already written off many of our children as a sub-class and enemy within then its perfectly understandable)



4 things sprung to mind scanning the report last night:

1. The reportage of the study (particularly by the liberals) hugely underplays the sense of entitlement and self justification in the first hand accounts given. These were indeed neo-liberal riots in that sense.
2. That two themes do emerge clearly a) that this was a conscious act of consumerism by many (for some reason this has been mostly but not entirely overlooked by the media) and b) that those involved do hate the police (and this has been seized upon by liberals as justification/to enable them to rationalise it all away).
3. That the view of most participants was that it was regrettable that working class communities - which bore the brunt of their behaviour - got trashed but that this wasn't a huge concern/problem as far as they were concerned.
4. That the gangs declared a 4 day truce for the shopping period. This meant gang members could organise looting more effectively and without postcode rivalry getting in the way (hilariously however there was a retrospective tax system in operation in some areas with some hapless looters later being relieved of their wares by gang members on return to their 'manors'). The liberal media has wrongly interpreted this as proving that gangs weren't an important factor in the actions.


----------



## jakethesnake (Dec 6, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2011/dec/05/reading-riots-video
Worth watching.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 6, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> 4 things sprung to mind scanning the report last night:
> 
> 4. That the gangs declared a 4 day truce for the shopping period. This meant gang members could organise looting more effectively and without postcode rivalry getting in the way (hilariously however there was a retrospective tax system in operation in some areas with some hapless looters later being relieved of their wares by gang members on return to their 'manors'). The liberal media has wrongly interpreted this as proving that gangs weren't an important factor in the actions.



I did wonder about that - I guess when the full report comes out we'll have a better idea if that what the case.  however on the pdf above, gangs were given as the least important factor - the study would be flawed if thats because of the reasons you suggest, but unless we see further details of that the results seem pretty unequivocal


----------



## smokedout (Dec 6, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> 4 things sprung to mind scanning the report last night:
> 
> 1. The reportage of the study (particularly by the liberals) hugely underplays the sense of entitlement and self justification in the first hand accounts given. These were indeed neo-liberal riots in that sense.





> 2. That two themes do emerge clearly a) that this was a conscious act of consumerism by many (for some reason this has been mostly but not entirely overlooked by the media) and



I'm not sure its been underplayed at all - its been done to death.  i'm not really sure what this sense of entitlement shit means though, is it a feeling that they shouldnt be growing up in poverty, that they feel entitled to decent opportunities, education, homes, respect from the police - that they should have some share in the vast wealth many of them live amongst?

or is it just some snobby shit about the chavs only caring about nike trainers and plasma tellies?

its possible to nick a pair of trainers and still hate the police, wealth inequality and the way the country is run, what do you expect in an uprising like this, quotes from kapital and a chorus of the red flag


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 6, 2011)

the 'lumpen' rhetoric that lets some get around the table at the condemnation committee with the likes of IDS.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 6, 2011)

if you can't beat em join em


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 6, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Are there reliable stats to back this up?



So soon after the event? No, there aren't "reliable stats". There is, however plenty of evidence, even in the media that so grossly over-reported the criminal actions of a minority. People protesting because they have a grievance doesn't sell as well as arson, so from Croydon we hear loads about violence and firesetting, but not a lot about the protesters that our Croydon Urbanites mentioned on threads during and immediately after the riots.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 6, 2011)

Many of the rioters interviewed on newsnight seemed very articulate and politically conscious. To treat them all as lumpen scum or opportunists is misguided and reactionary.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 6, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> 4 things sprung to mind scanning the report last night:
> 
> 1. The reportage of the study (particularly by the liberals) hugely underplays the sense of entitlement and self justification in the first hand accounts given*. *These were indeed *neo-liberal riots in that sense.*
> 
> ...



*People like yourself seem to be the only ones left still trying to stand up the "it was the gangs that done it' line, and it just seems more and more perverse, you're clinging on to it like a theoretical lifecraft ,  but the air just keeps leaking out of it. Are you sure this is the idelogical USP you might have  hoped it was ? *


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 6, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Many of the rioters interviewed on newsnight seemed very articulate and politically conscious. To treat them all as lumpen scum or opportunists is misguided and reactionary.


Yep, did you notice how Herbert kept avoiding the issues and went straight for the law and order card? Neither him nor Lammy even mentioned the fact that those interviewed claimed to hate the government for what they've done.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 6, 2011)

cantsin said:


> *People like yourself seem to be the only ones left still trying to stand up the "it was the gangs that done it' line, and it just seems more and more perverse, you're clinging on to it like a theoretical lifecraft , but the air just keeps leaking out of it. Are you sure this is the idelogical USP you might have hoped it was ? *



That's not the case is it?

If you read the actual report, rather than spout your own certainties, then you can clearly see a contradictory theme. The gangs, on a truce, were working together to ensure a more effective looting operation and yet the authors conclude that gangs didn't play a central role.

The full report will tell us more but either there is a flaw in the methodology or the gangs were fully involved but not controlling operations. The latter scenario would be odd because someone was arranging vans/motors etc to take away the more valuable loot. And in Newtown guns didn't magically appear to be fired at the police.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 6, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> That's not the case is it?
> 
> If you read the actual report, rather than spout your own certainties, then you can clearly see a contradictory theme. The gangs, on a truce, were working together to ensure a more effective looting operation and yet the authors conclude that gangs didn't play a central role.



thats one conclusion you could draw.  another is that there were so many kids out on the street, all with a shared interest, that the gangs and the post code shit became irrelevent.  thats what it looked like round here.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 6, 2011)

smokedout said:


> thats one conclusion you could draw. another is that there were so many kids out on the street, all with a shared interest, that the gangs and the post code shit became irrelevent. thats what it looked like round here.



I don't know where you are, but in Birmingham those involved in _leading roles _were 'well known' for certain. I'm not for one minute by the way suggesting that they were the only ones involved.

In terms of Reading the Riots what is striking is the amount of people who mention the gangs and the truce and their prescence but also in polling state they weren't an important factor. If true this would invert the normal gang practise of attempting to control their turf.


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 6, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Many of the rioters interviewed on newsnight seemed very articulate and politically conscious. To treat them all as lumpen scum or opportunists is misguided and reactionary.


Read the Guardian


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 6, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Ordinary? Didn't most of them have previous criminal records? You also seem to be suggesting that the "anger" against police is the main cause, when the results show that many many reasons are sited nearly to the same extent as the police...(even though I can see why you'd prefer to steer the debate that way )



"Most"?
I'm aware that the main rioters featured in the media had a heavy preponderance of previous offenders, but in some of the areas where rioting took place, that'd hardly be a surprise given even the normal tensions between the police and the policed.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 6, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Are there reliable stats to back this up?


Even if there were, you'd still have an issue with them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 6, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Desperate attempts at reframing by the right-wing papers notwithstanding, some interesting comment elsewhere.
> 
> http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2011/12/riots-challenging-received-wisdom



Why shock is expressed at the percentage of people citing hatred of the police is beyond me.The "cuddly beat bobby" image was a blip on the police radar, not reality. Just read an interesting history of the Flying Squad which mentioned the extent to which the Met, uniform and plainclothes, were reviled "between the wars".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 6, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> That's not the case is it?
> 
> If you read the actual report, rather than spout your own certainties, then you can clearly see a contradictory theme. The gangs, on a truce, were working together to ensure a more effective looting operation and yet the authors conclude that gangs didn't play a central role.



A truce and/or involvement in looting doesn't imply a central role, so why would the authors draw such a conclusion based on available data?



> The full report will tell us more but either there is a flaw in the methodology or the gangs were fully involved but not controlling operations. The latter scenario would be odd because someone was arranging vans/motors etc to take away the more valuable loot. And in Newtown guns didn't magically appear to be fired at the police.



Now who's spouting certainties?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 6, 2011)

A few points on the methodology of reading the riots:

1. The researchers were volunteers who replied to an advert on the Guardian website seeking those with 'good links' with riot-affected communities.
2. Each researcher was given a topic guide covering the major themes of their interviews with rioters but they were not working to a defined list of questions with controlled phrasing. In other words they were free to use whatever terminology and sequence of questioning they saw fit.
3. There was no monitoring of bias at any stage.
4. 'Local contacts' were used to find people who were involved in the riots but had not been arrested. There seems to have been no attempt to weed out local 'activists', self-publicists or bullshitters or if there was how this was done is not clear.
5. The Ministry of Justice gave Reading the Riots access to prisons, enabling interviews with 13 people convicted for their involvement in the riots. That's 4.8% of the total number of interviewees.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 6, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Now who's spouting certainties?



It is a fact that guns were used in Newtown. It is a fact that cars/vans were used to carry out loot in a number of areas. What is up for debate is if these appeared randomly driven by events or if it was organised and if so by who.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 6, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> It is a fact that guns were used in Newtown. It is a fact that cars/vans were used to carry out loot in a number of areas. What is up for debate is if these appeared randomly driven by events or if it was organised and if so by who.



"The full report will tell us more *but either there is a flaw in the methodology or the gangs were fully involved but not controlling operations*".

^^^The certainties you spouted.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 6, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> It is a fact that guns were used in Newtown. It is a fact that cars/vans were used to carry out loot in a number of areas. What is up for debate is if these appeared randomly driven by events or if it was organised and if so by who.


working class self-organisation


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 6, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why shock is expressed at the percentage of people citing hatred of the police is beyond me.The "cuddly beat bobby" image was a blip on the police radar, not reality. Just read an interesting history of the Flying Squad which mentioned the extent to which the Met, uniform and plainclothes, were reviled "between the wars".


i was shocked it was not a higher percentage

as for the cops being reviled, reports in the times following the death of pc culley at coldbath fields described how his funeral cortege - to st ann's, soho - attracted the loud derision of bystanders.

reviling the met - 1829 to present


----------



## treelover (Dec 6, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> So soon after the event? No, there aren't "reliable stats". There is, however plenty of evidence, even in the media that so grossly over-reported the criminal actions of a minority. People protesting because they have a grievance doesn't sell as well as arson, so from Croydon we hear loads about violence and firesetting, but not a lot about the protesters that our Croydon Urbanites mentioned on threads during and immediately after the riots.



can you briefly reiterate what was said in relation to Croydon, etc..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 6, 2011)

Nope, not briefly. It's spread out over the whole thread, interspersed with pk being a dick.


----------



## cemertyone (Dec 6, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> It is a fact that guns were used in Newtown. It is a fact that cars/vans were used to carry out loot in a number of areas. What is up for debate is if these appeared randomly driven by events or if it was organised and if so by who.



I think you fail to take in to consideration the nature of how a crowd/mob ( call them what you will) of people operate and
react to events surrounding them at any given time
in a riot situation..Ive been involved in hundreds of riots and the dynamics of a crowd have always interested me greatly.
I,ve seen situations in West Belfast when we having been fighting with the Brits and the RUC, where certain individuals have tried to
"lead" a crowd of rioters and been rounding laughed at and told to fuck off....and then also have seen the most unlikely of individuals
(for some strange reason) able to garner a group to carry out things in a particular way..
Its very similar to football violence in many respects...


----------



## ska invita (Dec 6, 2011)

Just want to ask a quick question (without starting a new thread): Is there any difference between Sus laws and current Stop & Search?

Pretty much every time I've been stopped and searched its on the pretext of suspicion (fit the description of a made up mugger, you looked like you were trying to break into that car, etc.).

The narrative tends to go that Sus laws were repealed after Brixton/Tottenham riots, but it seems to me its the same as it always was. Can anyone explain?


----------



## BigTom (Dec 6, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I don't know where you are, but in Birmingham those involved in _leading roles _were 'well known' for certain. I'm not for one minute by the way suggesting that they were the only ones involved.
> 
> In terms of Reading the Riots what is striking is the amount of people who mention the gangs and the truce and their prescence but also in polling state they weren't an important factor. If true this would invert the normal gang practise of attempting to control their turf.



I haven't read much of the Reading the Riots stuff but I just want to mention on this, that at the radio 4 questions time thing in Birmingham, the chief of West Mids Police said that no-one involved (or maybe arrested) in the city centre was known to be a gang member, just the stuff in Newtown.. didn't say about Handsworth/Lozells or other places.
What do you mean by "leading roles"? I don't think what happened in the city centre was organised, beyond small groups of people already known to each other working together.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 6, 2011)

"Reading the Riots: 'It was a war, and we had the police scared' - video"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2011/dec/05/reading-riots-video


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 6, 2011)

BigTom said:


> I haven't read much of the Reading the Riots stuff but I just want to mention on this, that at the radio 4 questions time thing in Birmingham, the chief of West Mids Police said that no-one involved (or maybe arrested) in the city centre was known to be a gang member, just the stuff in Newtown.. didn't say about Handsworth/Lozells or other places.
> What do you mean by "leading roles"? I don't think what happened in the city centre was organised, beyond small groups of people already known to each other working together.



In Newtown the attack on the police was planned and carried out by an 'elite' of shooter carrying gang members. I wasn't in the City Centre but suggest that gang members from a number of postcodes were present, along with large numbers of hangers on/wannabes up for some thieving.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 6, 2011)

cemertyone said:


> and then also have seen the most unlikely of individuals
> (for some strange reason) able to garner a group to carry out things in a particular way..
> Its very similar to football violence in many respects...



Not ime it isn't. Football firms are extremely hierarchical and the action planned at length.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> In Newtown the attack on the police was planned and carried out by an 'elite' of shooter carrying gang members. I wasn't in the City Centre but suggest that gang members from a number of postcodes were present, along with large numbers of hangers on/wannabes up for some thieving.


Where is your info coming from?


----------



## BigTom (Dec 6, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> In Newtown the attack on the police was planned and carried out by an 'elite' of shooter carrying gang members. I wasn't in the City Centre but suggest that gang members from a number of postcodes were present, along with large numbers of hangers on/wannabes up for some thieving.



I was in the city centre (on the monday).. I would have agreed with you, but like I said, the chief of WMP has said that gangs were not involved in the city centre.  It wasn't apparently organised or directed though, and I can well believe that it wasn't gangs when the police are saying it wasn't.  There was also a lot of taunting the police, playing cat and mouse with them, it wasn't all thieving (though that was a large element of it).
No question that the shooting in Newtown was down to a gang, whether there is an "elite" group of armed gang members as you say (rather than some people who happen to have guns), I have no idea.. but evidence is that these gangs were not in the city centre.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Where is your info coming from?



Those involved are well known locally - collectively if not by name - for a variety of reasons, predominantly their day jobs.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Those involved are well known locally - collectively if not by name - for a variety of reasons, predominantly their day jobs.



So where is your info coming from?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 6, 2011)

BigTom said:


> I was in the city centre (on the monday).. I would have agreed with you, but like I said, the chief of WMP has said that gangs were not involved in the city centre. It wasn't apparently organised or directed though, and I can well believe that it wasn't gangs when the police are saying it wasn't. There was also a lot of taunting the police, playing cat and mouse with them, it wasn't all thieving (though that was a large element of it).
> No question that the shooting in Newtown was down to a gang, whether there is an "elite" group of armed gang members as you say (rather than some people who happen to have guns), I have no idea.. but evidence is that these gangs were not in the city centre.



You see that's interesting because the reading the riots testimony's suggest that gang members were in the city centre - but in line with the Guardian narrative not playing a major role etc.


----------



## embree (Dec 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So where is your info coming from?


the street


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 6, 2011)

This elite squad - any relation to the elite squads of hoolies who used to met up in fleet street before European championships?


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So where is your info coming from?



In terms of the 'where' I'd suggest pretty much everyone aged under 40 in Birmingham knows about the gang.

And the 'elite' comment was a - clearly badly worded - attempt to highlight how different it was to a spontaneous outburst of anger as others have suggested was the cause. So less of the piss take!


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 6, 2011)

BigTom said:


> No question that the shooting in Newtown was down to a gang, whether there is an "elite" group of armed gang members as you say (rather than some people who happen to have guns), I have no idea...



This is getting a little ridiculous.  Here we have an armed group of people who fire at police and attempt, or certainly in footage mimic an attempt to bring down a police helicopter - what are we make of their motives? Incensed at the rise in student fees perhaps?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 6, 2011)

It shouldn't, in theory, be that difficult to take out a police helicopter. They have no armour to speak of. A functioning lee enfield fired in the hands of someone who knew his business would spell disaster for the annoying little buzzy bastards


----------



## teqniq (Dec 6, 2011)

Did anyone else see the Newsnight thing last night? Interesting. I got pissed off about when they were talking about stop and search and ex-chief bod piped up with in praise of the Met (to paraphrase)  'well they're obviously doing a brilliant job as they're catching all the right people' Missing the point a bit....


----------



## smokedout (Dec 6, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> This is getting a little ridiculous. Here we have an armed group of people who fire at police and attempt, or certainly in footage mimic an attempt to bring down a police helicopter - what are we make of their motives? Incensed at the rise in student fees perhaps?



bit elaborate if all you want to do is nick a few pairs of trainers though wouldnt you say?

gangs operating at the kind of level you speak of dont need to do shit like this to make money


----------



## BigTom (Dec 6, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> You see that's interesting because the reading the riots testimony's suggest that gang members were in the city centre - but in line with the Guardian narrative not playing a major role etc.



hmmm... that is interesting.. as I said I haven't read much of the reading the riots stuff so I'd have to do that before commenting on why I thought there was a discrepancy.. instinctive answers would either be that the police was saying they didn't arrest anyone involved with gangs in the centre, meaning simply that the gang members who were there didn't get nicked, or that the testimonies you refer to come from people like me who are not involved with gangs and thought they were there but couldn't postively identify people, or that what the police refer to as gangs is different to what the people in the testimonies think are gangs..
So with the last one, Johnson Crew and Burger Bar Boys obviously recognised as gangs but whether the police would see teenage postcode gangs (which a lot of the time really are nothing more than a group hanging around together) as gangs.. having said that the lads I know who are likely involved with that end of gangs were not in the centre on the monday night.



Smokeandsteam said:


> In terms of the 'where' I'd suggest pretty much everyone aged under 40 in Birmingham knows about the gang.
> And the 'elite' comment was a - clearly badly worded - attempt to highlight how different it was to a spontaneous outburst of anger as others have suggested was the cause. So less of the piss take!





Joe Reilly said:


> This is getting a little ridiculous. Here we have an armed group of people who fire at police and attempt, or certainly in footage mimic an attempt to bring down a police helicopter - what are we make of their motives? Incensed at the rise in student fees perhaps?



I think both of these are making essentially the same point, firstly I'd like to say that gang members can also be pissed off about things and acting spontaneously, but they are the ones who have guns.
More realistically, the idea that everything can be lumped together as "the riots" with a singular set of motives is just foolish.  If the argument is about how central gangs were to the riots, in terms of them being fairly considered/orchestrated robbery sessions as opposed to angry outburst, the shooting in Newtown was peripheral to the stuff in the city centre, and I don't think it shows any evidence that gangs were present in the city centre.


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 6, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Most"?
> I'm aware that the main rioters featured in the media had a heavy preponderance of previous offenders, but in some of the areas where rioting took place, that'd hardly be a surprise given even the normal tensions between the police and the policed.


Yea that was just in response to media articles at the time and these were for those convicted of offences (something like 75% had a criminal record). Obviously that doesn't take into account anyone who wasn't convicted or even arrested, but as fas as I am aware they are the only bits of information we have on the subject. I definitely haven't seen anything to suggest the opposite (unless you have?). Like I said earlier, should have been something the Guardian asked their interviewees


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 6, 2011)

CyberRose on Gangs: Not sure why this is being downplayed/upplayed (that's not a word, is it?). What difference does it make if gangs were involved? Surely if gangs _were _involved it would force people (like government/police) to look into the issues of why gangs exist and do something about it (which, as gangs are a bad thing for all people involved, should be seen as a good thing?)

Or is the issue over whether gangs orchestrated the riots, as opposed to gang members simply taking part?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 6, 2011)

Upplayed is not a word but exaggerated is


----------



## smokedout (Dec 6, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> CyberRose on Gangs: Not sure why this is being downplayed/upplayed (that's not a word, is it?). What difference does it make if gangs were involved?



lots, but only on here and you need to read a whole long thread about it

just as a technical point - the guardian didnt interview anybody, it appears they put some money into the research to buy an exclusive when it came out.  now whether the academics had liberal leanings, an agenda, or influence from the guardian remains to be seen, as independant academics you would hope not.

they claim the results were subjects to rigourous academic analysis, not being a sociologist im not sure what that means, but when the full report is released it should include full details of the methodology which should give some of the answers relating to possible bias


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 6, 2011)

Rigorous academic analysis - they chatted about it in the bar over a couple of pints of london pride and pork scratchings before leering at the undergraduates


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 6, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> Rigorous academic analysis - they chatted about it in the bar over a couple of pints of london pride and pork scratchings before leering at the undergraduates


Mmmmmmmmm...

...pork scratchings


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 6, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> It is a fact that guns were used in Newtown. It is a fact that cars/vans were used to carry out loot in a number of areas. What is up for debate is if these appeared randomly driven by events or if it was organised and if so by who.



This is the question the liberal agenda is seeking to side-step. The admission that the gangs wre present but 'not playing a leading role' is absurd. Even the report in Newsnight was forced to admit that the gangs acted in an 'atypical' way. That is the Appalachian mountain type feuds were suspended for the duration. But for what purpose?

To play a peripheral role? Hardly. These are the 'swinging dicks' to borrow a phrase. They break the law as a matter of routine. In London individual gangs come a hundred strong in some areas. Then they are joined by normally rival gangs,  swelling their numbers even further. Making them even more brazen than usual.

So on the day, mobbed up, a couple of hundred strong say, who are they likely to defer to, stand aside for, be led by?

Certainly not the police, as events proved.

The fact is someone had to call the shots. Someone had to make the initial call. Clapham. Camden. Croydon. Ealing. Someone had to make the call. Pick the time. Pick the assembly point. And then deliver - what was it the woman from Kid's Company called them - the 'initiators'?

Without them in 90 per cent of cases nothing happens.

It is also now admitted that the 'initiators' - 'or work here is done' kinda thing, travelled on to other areas. And the pattern repeated itself.

Who picked Ealing for example? The local posse?

Finally in London anyway, the gangs are overwhelmingly black. And almost one out of  every two lifted were(if we're using the term politically) black as well. The narrative is fairly straightforward, but not to everyone's political taste obviously. Hence the investment in dissembling.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Dec 7, 2011)

Nice insight into the mind of the police 'elite' from the Graun:



> Privately, senior officers resent the idea that they should simultaneously be accused of losing control of the streets, while on the other receive criticism for alienating sections of the community with proactive tactics such as stop and search.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 7, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Even if there were, you'd still have an issue with them.


Is this you attempting irony? Or do you _only_ do posts that involve telling people what they're thinking?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> So soon after the event? *No, there aren't "reliable stats"*. There is, however plenty of evidence, even in the media that so grossly over-reported the criminal actions of a minority. People protesting because they have a grievance doesn't sell as well as arson, so from Croydon we hear loads about violence and firesetting, but not a lot about the protesters that our Croydon Urbanites mentioned on threads during and immediately after the riots.



And yet you stated it as a fact. It's not a fact, it's just your opinion.

There may be evidence that some rioters weren't involved in looting, but where's the watertight evidence needed to justify; "_the *fact *that the majority rioted without committing theft and or arson"_ ?


----------



## free spirit (Dec 7, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> The fact is someone had to call the shots. Someone had to make the initial call. Clapham. Camden. Croydon. Ealing. Someone had to make the call. Pick the time. Pick the assembly point. And then deliver - what was it the woman from Kid's Company called them - the 'initiators'?
> 
> Without them in 90 per cent of cases nothing happens.
> 
> It is also now admitted that the 'initiators' - 'or work here is done' kinda thing, travelled on to other areas. And the pattern repeated itself.


I get the impression that roll of the organised gangs in this was to issue the invites in the first place, set up diversion attacks (the apparently random arsons etc), attack the police and force them out of the area, while some of the rest of the gang initiated the looting of a key target, and being long gone by the time the police finally arrived to arrest the stragglers.

I reckon a lot of this was about the gangs giving the police a proper show of force, and a warning about what could happen if the police harrassed them too much on their patch. Turf war stuff really as in gangs vs police mainly, but with each area upping the anti for the next as well.

then again, I know fuck all about it these days, not that I really ever did in London at all.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 7, 2011)

smokedout said:


> lots, but only on here and you need to read a whole long thread about it
> 
> just as a technical point - the guardian didnt interview anybody, it appears they put some money into the research to buy an exclusive when it came out. now whether the academics had liberal leanings, an agenda, or influence from the guardian remains to be seen, as independant academics you would hope not.
> 
> they claim the results were subjects to rigourous academic analysis, *not being a sociologist* im not sure what that means, but when the full report is released it should include full details of the methodology which should give some of the answers relating to possible bias



something in your favour then?


----------



## cantsin (Dec 7, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> This is the question the liberal agenda is seeking to side-step. The admission that the gangs wre present but 'not playing a leading role' is absurd. Even the report in Newsnight was forced to admit that the gangs acted in an 'atypical' way. That is the Appalachian mountain type feuds were suspended for the duration. But for what purpose?
> 
> To play a peripheral role? Hardly. These are the 'swinging dicks' to borrow a phrase. They break the law as a matter of routine. In London individual gangs come a hundred strong in some areas. Then they are joined by normally rival gangs, swelling their numbers even further. Making them even more brazen than usual.
> 
> ...



heard it all before, normally from the right wing press , or some of the football forums I go on, but always the same message -ie : it's never pissed off ordinary people , ever, it's always outsiders / outside agitators / anarchists / ringleaders etc etc .....except now that it's  'gangs'.....


----------



## peterkro (Dec 7, 2011)

cantsin said:


> heard it all before, normally from the right wing press , or some of the football forums I go on, but always the same message -ie : it's never pissed off ordinary people , ever, it's always outsiders / outside agitators / anarchists / ringleaders etc etc .....except now that it's 'gangs'.....


Exactly,while I've no doubt some members of gangs took advantage of the situation to label them as "instigators" or "organisers" is clearly wrong they don't have the numbers for one thing.I doubt there are organised gangs in Gloucester for instance where hundreds took to the streets.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2011)

There _are_ gangs in Gloucester - people seem to think of it as some quaint village - couldn't be further from the truth.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> There _are_ gangs in Gloucester - people seem to think of it as some quaint village - couldn't be further from the truth.



do you think they took it upon themselves to plan / carry out 'the riots' there ?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2011)

cantsin said:


> do you think they took it upon themselves to plan / carry out 'the riots' there ?



I wouldn't say so no. From talking directly to people involved the picture i have is off pissed off kids coming together briefly with low-level petty criminals trying to make the most of it. And this loose alliance tempered by small town dynamics that are different from what you find in the cities - i.e gangs not 'running' areas and certainly not whole areas where the mass of commercial shopping is situated. I think the serious gangs, the ones looking to carry out the more lucrative stuff would have gone down to bristol or up to brum.

(And just to clarify, my (passing) point wasn't about the riots as such - more about how people perceive Gloucester).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 7, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Yea that was just in response to media articles at the time and these were for those convicted of offences (something like 75% had a criminal record). Obviously that doesn't take into account anyone who wasn't convicted or even arrested, but as fas as I am aware they are the only bits of information we have on the subject. I definitely haven't seen anything to suggest the opposite (unless you have?).



Nothing definitive. The nature of much of the journalism militated against a reasoned approach to the composition of the rioters, didn't it? 



> Like I said earlier, should have been something the Guardian asked their interviewees



"Should", yes. But would it have been in their interests to?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 7, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> CyberRose on Gangs: Not sure why this is being downplayed/upplayed (that's not a word, is it?). What difference does it make if gangs were involved? Surely if gangs _were _involved it would force people (like government/police) to look into the issues of why gangs exist and do something about it (which, as gangs are a bad thing for all people involved, should be seen as a good thing?)



In my opinion, the media and police inflation of the importance and presence of gang roles was instrumental. In the case of the media it allows them to facilitate a moral panic and/or feed the existing one around gangs, and in the case of the police it acts to mark out a reason for resource increases.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> In my opinion, the media and police inflation of the importance and presence of gang roles was instrumental. In the case of the media it allows them to facilitate a moral panic and/or feed the existing one around gangs, and in the case of the police it acts to mark out a reason for resource increases.


but the met's still got to make savings of round £456m


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 7, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> And yet you stated it as a fact. It's not a fact, it's just your opinion.
> 
> There may be evidence that some rioters weren't involved in looting, but where's the watertight evidence needed to justify; "_the *fact *that the majority rioted without committing theft and or arson"_ ?



The fact is supported and substantiated by comparing the volume of rioters to the volume of arson and violence.
*If* the majority of rioters had committed violence and even one in ten rioters had committed arson (operating on police estimates of rioter numbers), whole neighbourhoods where rioting took place would have been destroyed. As it was, you'd be hard-pushed to find a whole street that was.

It's simple arithmetic, Andrew. Something you appear to have a problem with, and which perhaps explains your penchant for exaggeration.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 7, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> but the met's still got to make savings of round £456m



My heart bleeds for them.

No, honestly!


----------



## 8115 (Dec 7, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> A few points on the methodology of reading the riots:
> 
> 1. The researchers were volunteers who replied to an advert on the Guardian website seeking those with 'good links' with riot-affected communities.
> 2. Each researcher was given a topic guide covering the major themes of their interviews with rioters but they were not working to a defined list of questions with controlled phrasing. In other words they were free to use whatever terminology and sequence of questioning they saw fit.
> ...



Is this a criticism of the methodology or just a comment?  Some of the points you make seem to be potential positives (ie the research was done by people with links to the communities, not having a defined list of questions).  How do you attempt to control for bias in qualitative reseach (genuine question, I don't know much about this)?  Bias is presumably always much more of a risk than quantitative.  There is some quantitative stuff there though.

I'm not sure you'd necessarily want to weed out local activists, although presumably you'd make sure that their views were credited as being those of a local activist.

I read a bit of this in the paper today, haven't really had a good luck at all the stuff (it's a bit meaty).  But generally I think, good on the Guardian and the LSE for going hard on the "evidence" and not just letting the government and the police put their own interpretations on what happened.


----------



## 8115 (Dec 7, 2011)

Also, in the Guardian I got the impression that under stop and search someone can be strip searched in the street.  This isn't true is it?


----------



## smokedout (Dec 7, 2011)

no, not in the street, they can carry out an intimate search in the back of a van but for a full on orifice check think it has to be done down the station (as I recall)


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The fact is supported and substantiated by comparing the volume of rioters to the volume of arson and violence.
> *If* the majority of rioters had committed violence and even one in ten rioters had committed arson (operating on police estimates of rioter numbers), whole neighbourhoods where rioting took place would have been destroyed. As it was, you'd be hard-pushed to find a whole street that was.
> 
> It's simple arithmetic, Andrew. Something you appear to have a problem with, and which perhaps explains your penchant for exaggeration.



I don't have a particular agenda here, but like most of us I'm curious to know what the riots were actually about. Are there figures so that we _can_ do the simple arithmetic and compare the number of rioters to the incidences of theft, arson and violence? You previously said that there weren't.

And for your information, I never exaggerate.


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Should", yes. But would it have been in their interests to?


Depends what the answer is!


----------



## CyberRose (Dec 7, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> In my opinion, the media and police inflation of the importance and presence of gang roles was instrumental. In the case of the media it allows them to facilitate a moral panic and/or feed the existing one around gangs, and in the case of the police it acts to mark out a reason for resource increases.


The importance or unimportance of gang involvement can be used to the advantage of both sides of the argument tho. If gangs were a major factor, yes it gives weight to those who, as you point out, facilitate a moral panic around gangs or argue for a more police style approach, but it should also give weight to those who argue that social inequalities create an environment where gangs exist (and therefore what should be done to combat it)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 8, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I don't have a particular agenda here, but like most of us I'm curious to know what the riots were actually about. Are there figures so that we _can_ do the simple arithmetic and compare the number of rioters to the incidences of theft, arson and violence? You previously said that there weren't.





No, I said that there haven't been any statistics published.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 8, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> The importance or unimportance of gang involvement can be used to the advantage of both sides of the argument tho. If gangs were a major factor, yes it gives weight to those who, as you point out, facilitate a moral panic around gangs or argue for a more police style approach, but it should also give weight to those who argue that social inequalities create an environment where gangs exist (and therefore what should be done to combat it)



Unfortunately there's an asymmetry of response whereby more weight and publicity tends to accumulate to the "moral panic" side of the argument, something illustrated by just about every post-war moral panic I can recall. Addressing social inequalities has increasingly come to be seen by our policy-makers as leaving "hostages to fortune" that allow their opponents to paint them as "soft on (insert subject here)", so issues such as social inequalities are merely dabbled with rather than actually addressed.

Remember Blair's "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"? If new Labour had put a tenth of the effort on the second part of the equation as on the first part, we might very well have a different post-"credit crunch" social landscape. One where rioting wasn't so  necessary a tool for expressing dissent.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, I said that there haven't been any statistics published.


You're asking me to compare the numbers of rioters to the incidences of theft, arson and violence. But how can I if there aren't any numbers to compare? Or do you know of figures that haven't been published?

Come on VP, get a grip.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Dec 8, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Unfortunately there's an asymmetry of response whereby more weight and publicity tends to accumulate to the "moral panic" side of the argument, something illustrated by just about every post-war moral panic I can recall. Addressing social inequalities has increasingly come to be seen by our policy-makers as leaving "hostages to fortune" that allow their opponents to paint them as "soft on (insert subject here)", so issues such as social inequalities are merely dabbled with rather than actually addressed.
> 
> Remember Blair's "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"? If new Labour had put a tenth of the effort on the second part of the equation as on the first part, we might very well have a different post-"credit crunch" social landscape. One where rioting wasn't so necessary a tool for expressing dissent.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/07/rioter-profile-dash-the-brick-at-them

I think we were walking, me and my friend and we came across a big crowd. We were talking to them and we followed them ... I didn't do it because of Mark Duggan died. Well, that was the reason why it started, but that wasn't why no one was doing it, they were going to get stuff … We saw them all doing it and we were like: "You know, like, why shouldn't we do it?" Then our mums were like: "Where was we?" and we were like: "Oh, we were at the skate park," and then they were like: "Doing what?" and I was like: "Skating."
And then, everyone I know who done it are starting to get paranoid. Whenever they see police … they'll run … I just stand there, innit. All I got was a pair of trainers and it was me that done it......


----------



## smokedout (Dec 8, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/07/rioter-profile-dash-the-brick-at-them
> 
> I think we were walking, me and my friend and we came across a big crowd. We were talking to them and we followed them ... I didn't do it because of Mark Duggan died. Well, that was the reason why it started, but that wasn't why no one was doing it, they were going to get stuff … We saw them all doing it and we were like: "You know, like, why shouldn't we do it?" Then our mums were like: "Where was we?" and we were like: "Oh, we were at the skate park," and then they were like: "Doing what?" and I was like: "Skating."
> And then, everyone I know who done it are starting to get paranoid. Whenever they see police … they'll run … I just stand there, innit. All I got was a pair of trainers and it was me that done it......



lazy - we could all pull individual quotes in support of our arguments, the question is overall what were the driving forces


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 8, 2011)

Smokeandsteam said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/07/rioter-profile-dash-the-brick-at-them
> 
> I think we were walking, me and my friend and we came across a big crowd. We were talking to them and we followed them ... I didn't do it because of Mark Duggan died. Well, that was the reason why it started, but that wasn't why no one was doing it, they were going to get stuff … We saw them all doing it and we were like: "You know, like, why shouldn't we do it?" Then our mums were like: "Where was we?" and we were like: "Oh, we were at the skate park," and then they were like: "Doing what?" and I was like: "Skating."
> And then, everyone I know who done it are starting to get paranoid. Whenever they see police … they'll run … I just stand there, innit. All I got was a pair of trainers and it was me that done it......



"I was happy. I was overjoyed. Because it just felt so good … I was just like, 'Yes, you gonna get taught a fucking lesson now.' Because I've so many friends that have got beaten up by police officers. They felt happy, even if it wasn't the person that beat them up, it's still the same. They're all police at the end of the day.
"I went into Office. Took two garms … It was burnt straight after … I just felt that out of all these people there's probably a 5% chance I'd get caught … I was out the whole day, till four in the morning. "Everyone knew each other. Even the people that we have trouble with, we just knew, for that day, just cause trouble. Because we all just hated the police.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/06/rioter-profile-off-the-leash


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 8, 2011)

read the guardian


----------



## peterkro (Dec 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> (And just to clarify, my (passing) point wasn't about the riots as such - more about how people perceive Gloucester).



It's only in the past few years I've spent time in Gloucestershire and if I thought of Gloucester (if I thought of it at all) I probably would have assumed it was a rich town in a rich county.My first visit put aside that idea it's clearly a predominately working class town with major poverty problems (Stroud is also somewhat similar ),when I made the reference to there being no gangs I meant of the type seen in Manchester or London not the gatherings of adolescent boys seen in every village or town.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 8, 2011)

smokedout said:


> lazy - we could all pull individual quotes in support of our arguments, the question is overall what were the driving forces



I didn't bother to reply to s and s, 'cos I long ago decided not to reply to posts that answered my self-produced prose with something they'd C & P'd from an article.


----------



## BlackArab (Dec 9, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> This is the question the liberal agenda is seeking to side-step. The admission that the gangs wre present but 'not playing a leading role' is absurd. Even the report in Newsnight was forced to admit that the gangs acted in an 'atypical' way. That is the Appalachian mountain type feuds were suspended for the duration. But for what purpose?
> 
> To play a peripheral role? Hardly. These are the 'swinging dicks' to borrow a phrase. They break the law as a matter of routine. In London individual gangs come a hundred strong in some areas. Then they are joined by normally rival gangs, swelling their numbers even further. Making them even more brazen than usual.
> 
> ...



In Bristol, those 'someones' were white.


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 9, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Is this you attempting irony? Or do you _only_ do posts that involve telling people what they're thinking?



No, I base that comment on my previous experience of your posts. As for irony, that isn't something that you appear to comprehend.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 9, 2011)

BlackArab said:


> In Bristol, those 'someones' were white.



And your point is?


----------



## BlackArab (Dec 9, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> And your point is?



wasn't just a black ting


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 10, 2011)

BlackArab said:


> wasn't just a black ting



No one said it was. The point I was making it that all the evidence hints at a correlation between the heavy over representation of black involvement and the heavy influence of predominately black led criminal gangs behind the London riots.

If as is being suggested by liberal apologists that social injustice was the primary motivation, why then was the Asian community so woefully under-represented in the arrest figures at a shameful 7 per cent.

Was there even a brick thrown in the whole of Tower Hamlets for instance?

Are they not sufficiently aware of their own oppression or what?


----------



## sihhi (Dec 10, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> No one said it was. The point I was making it that all the evidence hints at a correlation between the heavy over representation of black involvement and the heavy influence of predominately black led criminal gangs behind the London riots.
> 
> If as is being suggested by liberal apologists that social injustice was the primary motivation, why then was the Asian community so woefully under-represented in the arrest figures at a shameful 7 per cent.
> 
> ...



You won't believe me but

Tower Hamlets had stores looted yes, as did Newham.

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co.uk/news/rioters_strike_bethnal_green_video_of_the_violence_unf
olding_1_988721

Redbridge also had stores looted.
Dagenham high street aswell.

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/ne...rly_100_people_arrested_over_Redbridge_riots/

Nearly completely white areas like Chatham,  Gillingham and Rainham were also effected.

What's the point being made here? Gangs joined in, there was no conspiracy to start one.
The Holly Street arrests were minor compared to previous police raids.
I don't understand the point you're making.

Even on the first night in Tottenham they weren't in a big presence at the start of the march. Some members (Shankstars, N9, Tiverton, W.G.M.) came later is what most ordinary (not councillors or officials with an axe to grind) people in Tottenham were saying at a Council-sponsored 'reconciliation' talk.


----------



## 8115 (Dec 10, 2011)

Very interesting bit today, on the women/ girls who took part in the riots.  One had apparently said "Now everyone's thinking why did we do it?  Like, you didn't really benefit from it; you're breaking your own community."  Made me sad.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 11, 2011)

According to IBS in the grauniad today, the X-factor culture is partly to blame.

At first reading, I thought he's got a point.  Saturday evening telly is so shite it gives me the urge to go out and set fire to things...



More seriously,


> He said he was also deeply disturbed by the way in which social housing had become ghettoised.





So that's why his party's housing benefit reforms are going to push low paid / unemployed people out of high rent areas into low-rent ghettos?

and why they are talking about making council tenancies work so that as soon as you get a job you get moved out?


----------



## Mapped (Dec 11, 2011)

I read that IDS stuff and thought aren't the Tories supposed to be the party of 'aspiration' and shouldn't they be encouraging the worship of the 'successful' to give people goals for their aspirational dreams?

It really boils down to inequalities and people can see that everywhere, not just in celebrity culture.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 11, 2011)

N1 Buoy said:


> aren't the Tories supposed to be the party of 'aspiration'



yes, but not if "the lower orders get ideas above their station"

aspiration, as in stabbing your colleagues in the back and kissing the bosses' arses to try and get that supervisor job for a few quid a week more, yes.

aspiration, as in believing your identity and self-worth depends on how much shit you've bought compared to your neighbours in the last year / week / day, yes.

aspiration, as in letting the plebs get into their self-serving little club of very rich people, hmm.


----------



## Mapped (Dec 11, 2011)

But with all this aspiration you need a culture where you have aspirational targets to aim for, be it neighbours or celebs, and that is what they are now complaining about


----------



## grit (Dec 11, 2011)

N1 Buoy said:


> I read that IDS stuff and thought aren't the Tories supposed to be the party of 'aspiration' and shouldn't they be encouraging the worship of the 'successful' to give people goals for their aspirational dreams?



I believe the distinctions that are being made by them is that its worship of "lucky" people rather than those that have achived their fame and fortune through dedication and hard work.

You know, like conservative politicians and members of the financial services industry


----------



## Mapped (Dec 11, 2011)

grit said:


> I believe the distinctions that are being made by them is that its worship of "lucky" people rather than those that have achived their fame and fortune through dedication and hard work.
> 
> You know, like *[the multimillionaire trust fund]* conservative politicians and _*[Thieving bastards and morally bankrupt]*_ members of the financial services industry


----------



## smokedout (Dec 11, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> No one said it was. The point I was making it that all the evidence hints at a correlation between the heavy over representation of black involvement and the heavy influence of predominately black led criminal gangs behind the London riots.



what evidence have you seen that no-one else has.  because all the evidence I've seen suggests the opposite.



> If as is being suggested by liberal apologists that social injustice was the primary motivation, why then was the Asian community so woefully under-represented in the arrest figures at a shameful 7 per cent.
> 
> Was there even a brick thrown in the whole of Tower Hamlets for instance?
> 
> Are they not sufficiently aware of their own oppression or what?





I'm not a liberal apologist btw - i support coppers getting attacked and chain stores getting looted


----------



## smokedout (Dec 11, 2011)

Puddy_Tat said:


> According to IBS in the grauniad today, the X-factor culture is partly to blame.



and footballers.  just another dig at working class culture.  there's a lot of it about.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 11, 2011)

smokedout said:


> what evidence have you seen that no-one else has. because all the evidence I've seen suggests the opposite.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a liberal apologist btw - i support coppers getting attacked and chain stores getting looted


----------



## smokedout (Dec 11, 2011)

I can still remember what it was like to be young, just

bet you can't


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 11, 2011)

smokedout said:


> I can still remember what it was like to be young, just
> 
> bet you can't



What a strange thing to say. Of course I can but there is a difference between being young and being juvenile and your cartoon politics of "i support coppers getting attacked and chain stores getting looted"  are unfortunately the latter.


----------



## smokedout (Dec 11, 2011)

whatever grandad


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 11, 2011)

N1 Buoy said:


> I read that IDS stuff and thought aren't the Tories supposed to be the party of 'aspiration' and shouldn't they be encouraging the worship of the 'successful' to give people goals for their aspirational dreams?
> 
> It really boils down to inequalities and people can see that everywhere, not just in celebrity culture.


Exactly. Individualistic selfishness, the fact "anyone" can succeed is supposed to be the point of Thatcherism, now IDS hates people so much that aren't millionaires they are supposed to live in serfdom or die and never aspire to anything better, ever.


----------



## jakethesnake (Dec 11, 2011)

More fallout from the riots today. I heard on the radio news that the police are considering using lazer weapons to temporarily blind any future rioters. I woke up pissed so wasn't sure I'd heard correctly, but yeah, it's true. They do love their kit don't they.


----------



## cantsin (Dec 11, 2011)

sihhi said:


> You won't believe me but
> 
> Tower Hamlets had stores looted yes, as did Newham.
> 
> ...



(wonders if Joe O is going to change the habit of a lifetime and actually respond to yet another factual refutation of his shabby 'Riot 'theories' )


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 11, 2011)

jakethesnake said:


> More fallout from the riots today. I heard on the radio news that the police are considering using lazer weapons to temporarily blind any future rioters. I woke up pissed so wasn't sure I'd heard correctly, but yeah, it's true. They do love their kit don't they.


Luckily it's bullshit though. Imagine that in this age of austerity! Batons are cheap.


----------



## BigTom (Dec 12, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> No one said it was. The point I was making it that all the evidence hints at a correlation between the heavy over representation of black involvement and the heavy influence of predominately black led criminal gangs behind the London riots.
> 
> If as is being suggested by liberal apologists that social injustice was the primary motivation, why then was the Asian community so woefully under-represented in the arrest figures at a shameful 7 per cent.
> 
> ...



In Birmingham there was a pretty even mixture of black/asian and a significant (but slightly smaller) number of white people, on the monday night, from what I saw.. I know you are speaking about london, but even if you are right about London, it again goes to show the diversity of what went on around the uk over that week.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2011)

I like how its the folk who aren't obsessing (incorrectly as it goes) over the racial mix of the rioters deemed to be liberal apologists. David fucking Starkey


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

So what happens now that we have the startling revelation that most of the rioters really hate the police and that many of them are deprived, when we consider that the police are hardly likely to be abolished in the near future (to be replaced with what?), and that given the coming years of austerity (regardless of what government we have) nobody is going to make the rioters, or a good proportion of the non-rioting population for that matter, 'undeprived'?


----------



## Fruitloop (Dec 12, 2011)

riots


----------



## smokedout (Dec 12, 2011)

hampstead burns


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

So endless, directionless rioting until what?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2011)

Dyjanna, maddonna of the apocalypse


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

The lack of sensible answers is only what I expected.


----------



## magneze (Dec 12, 2011)

Not really sure what you're expecting there. More riots seems like a pretty sensible and realistic answer.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

I was looking for political comment or analysis. Never fucking mind though.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2011)

yeah you begged the question so nobody fancied responding


----------



## IC3D (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I was looking for political comment or analysis. Never fucking mind though.



Now Boris has scrapped the bendy bus the rioters are affectively immobilised surely.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> yeah you begged the question so nobody fancied responding


 
Do you have anything political to say or is it always going to be keyboard 'anger' and impotent, consequence-free bloodlust?


----------



## magneze (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Do you have anything political to say or is it always going to be keyboard 'anger' and impotent, consequence-free bloodlust?


Do you?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2011)

I could always try logical fallacies and gloom


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

magneze said:


> Do you?


 
No-that's why I was fucking asking you lot.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I could always try logical fallacies and gloom


 
I'd rather you added political flesh to why you think gloom is unwarranted.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2011)

I have faith in my fellow man. For every time he disapoints, there are corresponding times when he does things that make my heart sing. Simple as that really- you've given up. Wisdom of age or the crushing dissapointment of living right in the thick of the 70s/80s. Either way, we may be on similar pages politically but you've thrown in the towel in favour of bleak doomsaying. I mean no insult LLETSA, I'm not trying to mug you off or score points here. I sincerely think you have embraced fatalism due to your life experiences. A new day is coming.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Dyjanna, maddonna of the apocalypse



You mean Dryhjna?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I have faith in my fellow man. For every time he disapoints, there are corresponding times when he does things that make my heart sing. Simple as that really- you've given up. Wisdom of age or the crushing dissapointment of living right in the thick of the 70s/80s. Either way, we may be on similar pages politically but you've thrown in the towel in favour of bleak doomsaying. I mean no insult LLETSA, I'm not trying to mug you off or score points here. I sincerely think you have embraced fatalism due to your life experiences. A new day is coming.



Saying you have faith in your fellow man and alleging that somebody else hasn't (not that the claim actually means anything) is not politics. Try again.

Thanks for your concern about my 'life experiences' though. Again, though,the life experiences of this or that individual have no bearing on the lack of political alternatives on offer for the rioters or anybody else.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> So endless, directionless rioting until what?


until we all go home


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> is not politics. Try again.


 
To be fair, sometimes he posts naive stuff about the USSR.  Mind you, that's history, and after all, you've experienced it.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> until we all go home


 
Stunning political insight coming out of the anarcholeft today.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Stunning political insight coming out of the anarcholeft today.


it's better than any of the 'stunning political insight' you ever come out with


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> it's better than any of the 'stunning political insight' you ever come out with


 
What is? 'Riot until we all go home'? You shouldn't be trying to riot at your age anyway. You might pull something.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 12, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> it's better than any of the 'stunning political insight' you ever come out with



Like "best dig a grave and jump into it"?


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What is? 'Riot until we all go home'? You shouldn't be trying to riot at your age anyway. You might pull something.


i've got a fuck of a lot more chance of pulling than you do


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i've got a fuck of a lot more chance of pulling than you do


 
Clearly-even if it's only your pisser.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Like "best dig a grave and jump into it"?


 
Seeing no viable political alternatives on the horizon equals an urge to suicide?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Seeing no viable political alternatives on the horizon equals an urge to suicide?



If only you had the courage of your convictions, that's what the outcome would be. "Woe is us, we're all fucked! What to do? Why, nothing! It's all for naught!". That, like it or not, is how you read to, I suspect, most of us.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> You mean Dryhjna?



yes


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> If only you had the courage of your convictions, that's what the outcome would be. "Woe is us, we're all fucked! What to do? Why, nothing! It's all for naught!". That, like it or not, is how you read to, I suspect, most of us.


 
You always come out with this kind of stuff whenever the fact that viable political alternatives are lacking is highlighted. It's a little bit hysterical. Why not try and prove me wrong if the assertion bothers you so much?

The sheer apololiticism of most of you is striking.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 12, 2011)

cantsin said:


> (wonders if Joe O is going to change the habit of a lifetime and actually respond to yet another factual refutation of his shabby 'Riot 'theories' )



You've wandered over from an earlier thread, 'Dealing with the Renegades' where you and fellow lumpen cheer-leaders had your arsed kicked a plenty.

'Another factual refutation'?. One would be interesting. The fact that some 'imititator broke a window in Dagenham High St or somewhere neither constitutes a riot or undermines the essential dynamic of what occurred.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Saying you have faith in your fellow man and alleging that somebody else hasn't (not that the claim actually means anything) is not politics. Try again.
> 
> Thanks for your concern about my 'life experiences' though. Again, though,the life experiences of this or that individual have no bearing on the lack of political alternatives on offer for the rioters or anybody else.



It isn't concern, it is observation.

Wether or not the claim has meaning wrt faith in my fellow man is immaterial- it is what it is. callow? Maybe. Makes no odds though. I'll continue to hold my views and there is nothing you can do about it except post another homily on futility


----------



## TruXta (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You always come out with this kind of stuff whenever the fact that viable political alternatives are lacking is highlighted. It's a little bit hysterical. Why not try and prove me wrong if the assertion bothers you so much?
> 
> The sheer apololiticism of most of you is striking.



Oh, it's a fact now? Guess you've got it all figured out then. And there's no proving you wrong, you've got your convictions and seem to be sticking to them. Good for you, I guess, but you can see how the rest of us aren't all that bothered.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> It isn't concern, it as observation.
> 
> Wether or not the claim has meaning wrt faith in my fellow man is immaterial- it is what it is. callow? Maybe. Makes no odds though. I'll continue to hold my views and there is nothing you can do about it except post another homily on futility



You can't observe somebody's life if you've never met them, let alone know them.

Have 'faith in your fellow man' if quasi-religious platitudes are your thing. As I said, it isn't politics, of which you seem to have none with any practical application. You're not on your own though. Hence the rush by your allies on here to shoot the messenger as usual.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 12, 2011)

Allies?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Oh, it's a fact now? Guess you've got it all figured out then. And there's no proving you wrong, you've got your convictions and seem to be sticking to them. Good for you, I guess, but you can see how the rest of us aren't all that bothered.


 
That there are no viable alternatives to the cycle of neo-liberalism/ austerity capitalism isn't a fact? Instead of telling me what a rotter I am for claiming it is a fact, you should be set on proving me wrong, especially, as I said, as the assertion bothers you so much.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Allies?


 
Fellow tosspots then if you prefer precision.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 12, 2011)

Why should I bother? You've got your convictions and no amount of cognitive dissonance is gonna shake that. You're one best ignored in matters substantive, and mocked for not seeing the outcome of your so-called politics.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2011)

oh don't play victim with me, 'allies' for the love of god. I've admitted many times that heart not head drives my political leanings. You'll be waiting a long time for hard headed analysis from me. Doesn't mean I'm not entirely right and you entirely wrong though.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Why should I bother? You've got your convictions and no amount of cognitive dissonance is gonna shake that. You're one best ignored in matters substantive, and mocked for not seeing the outcome of your so-called politics.


 
It's a messageboard for debating these issues, that's why. You seem to take issue with my assertion that there are currently no viable political alternatives yet keep avoiding telling why I'm wrong. It seems strange. Either tell me why I'm wrong or make way for somebody more capable.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Allies?



AKA "the monothought clique".


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> oh don't play victim with me, 'allies' for the love of god. I've admitted many times that heart not head drives my political leanings. You'll be waiting a long time for hard headed analysis from me. Doesn't mean I'm not entirely right and you entirely wrong though.


 
Actually, unless you can provide evidence of a viable political alternative, as opposed to 'riot till we drop,' it does prove that I am entirely right and you are entirely wrong.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> It's a messageboard for debating these issues, that's why. You seem to take issue with my assertion that there are currently no viable political alternatives yet keep avoiding telling why I'm wrong. It seems strange. Either tell me why I'm wrong or make way for somebody more capable.



I've tried before, as have others, you were having none of it, and got stroppy when people pointed out your immanent fatalism-cum-quietism. So, again, why bother? (that's a rhetorical question, btw).


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I've tried before, as have others, you were having none of it, and got stroppy when people pointed out your immanent fatalism-cum-quietism. So, again, why bother? (that's a rhetorical question, btw).


 
If I don't agree with you, of course I'm 'having none of it.'  What do you want, agreement for the sake of it?

Once again you waste time avoiding the issue. Put up or shut up, as they say.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 12, 2011)

Talk about avoiding the issue...


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Actually, unless you can provide evidence of a viable political alternative, as opposed to 'riot till we drop,' it does prove that I am entirely right and you are entirely wrong.



process, not change in an instant. Riots expedite that- you know I was quite annoyed to hear that some families got burned out and ended up temp housed at the local fucking school halls. That is not right is it?

But a riot is not a protest. I remember well your hilarious siding with starkey though, so I'm not suprised


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Talk about avoiding the issue...


 
Oh fucking hell.

Maybe we can get back on track. I'll go back to where I came in: now that we have the startling revelation that most rioters hate the police and are deprived, what now happens given the fact that political alternatives are lacking, the police are going nowhere and austerity capitalism (which is what we'll get regardless of who's in government) guarantees that the deprived, whether prone to rioting or not, are going to remain deprived, what happens next?

Serious replies only this time. Oh, and please bear in mind that most rioters of the kind we saw in August almost certainly wouldn't want to know most of those who post on here or their 'real life' political mates.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 12, 2011)

No, let's hear what you would do, LLETSA. Is there anything? Other than holding your hands above your heads and saying "we're fucked"?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> process, not change in an instant. Riots expedite that- you know I was quite annoyed to hear that some families got burned out and ended up temp housed at the local fucking school halls. That is not right is it?
> 
> But a riot is not a protest. I remember well your hilarious siding with starkey though, so I'm not suprised



I didn't 'side with Starkey'; in the context of the fuss caused by Starkey, I pointed out the obvious fact that an accent that tries to sound the same in Carlisle as it does in Cheltenham is phoney.

So what does this 'process' consist of and what does it have to do with somebody 'got burned out' (who? rioters? Victims of rioters?)


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> No, let's hear what you would do, LLETSA. Is there anything? Other than holding your hands above your heads and saying "we're fucked"?


 
I've never simply said, 'we're fucked,' if only because it doesn't mean anything in itself.

Yet again you avoid the issue. Let me explain once more: the fact that I don't say 'what I would do' doesn't mean that you are not getting upset because I claim there are no political alternatives while refusing to explain why I'm wrong.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 12, 2011)

I think you've got too many negatives in that there post.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I didn't 'side with Starkey'; in the context of the fuss caused by Starkey, I pointed out the obvious fact that an accent that tries to sound the same in Carlisle as it does in Cheltenham is phoney.
> 
> So what does this 'process' consist of and what does it have to do with somebody 'got burned out' (who? rioters? Victims of rioters?)


 
aye, and sociolect/ideolect was the plank of the lolsome arguments against your contention. You've proven utterly incapable of admitting new information and revising opinions in light of that, so to you I bequeath the last word. Be my guest.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> aye, and sociolect/ideolect was the plank of the lolsome arguments against your contention. You've proven utterly incapable of admitting new information and revising opinions in light of that, so to you I bequeath the last word. Be my guest.



Imagine that, people speaking the same language and not living in the same place...


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Imagine that, people speaking the same language and not living in the same place...



Accent not language. Let's avoid the subject further, though, by bringing up a seperate argument from months ago. Get back to the issue or fuck off.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> aye, and sociolect/ideolect was the plank of the lolsome arguments against your contention. You've proven utterly incapable of admitting new information and revising opinions in light of that, so to you I bequeath the last word. Be my guest.



No need to descend into gibberish. Who 'got burned out' and what does it have to do with your 'process'?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 12, 2011)

Okay, then. What would you do, LLETSA? Simple question.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Okay, then. What would you do, LLETSA? Simple question.



 Me? I'm doing fuck all. That's why I've made the mistake of asking you miserable shower for an opinion.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 12, 2011)

Then why don't you shut up? After all, you told me as much, put up or shut up.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Then why don't you shut up? After all, you told me as much, put up or shut up.


 
Because I'm the one who asked the question. You've done everything but answer it, even though the very asking seems to bother you unduly.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Because I'm the one who asked the question. You've done everything but answer it, even though the very asking seems to bother you unduly.



Oh, so you're exempt from that one. Nah, fuck you. Why waste time on you?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Oh, so you're exempt from that one. Nah, fuck you. Why waste time on you?


 
I've already pointed out that you can easily fuck off.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I've already pointed out that you can easily fuck off.



The feeling is certainly mutual.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> No need to descend into gibberish. Who 'got burned out' and what does it have to do with your 'process'?



who indeed? if you cannot be bothered to read up on the basic facts it is no wonder you are at the table with IDS and starkey. You've not a fig to offer save 'condemn'.

As to gibberish, well, if you care to point out which words or phrases were proving difficult I'll couch my language differently so that we might be able to attempt a dialouge


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> who indeed? if you cannot be bothered to read up on the basic facts it is no wonder you are at the table with IDS and starkey. You've not a fig to offer save 'condemn'.
> 
> As to gibberish, well, if you care to point out which words or phrases were proving difficult I'll couch my language differently so that we might be able to attempt a dialouge


 
I know there were people burned out of their houses. It's just that you referred to nobody in particular in the context of it all being part of some kind of 'process' (presumably leading to communism?)

Is it really the best you can do, to accuse people of being 'with Starkey' or 'with IDS' just because they don't chant the 'rioters good' apolitical simpletons' mantra?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2011)

so the gibberish won't be adressed because it was a simple insult apropos of nothing. As I thought.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> so the gibberish won't be adressed because it was a simple insult apropos of nothing. As I thought.



He's not got any arguments, never have had. It's all shit and there's nothing we can do about it. Ignore.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> so the gibberish won't be adressed because it was a simple insult apropos of nothing. As I thought.


 
This is gibberish:


DotCommunist said:


> aye, and sociolect/ideolect was the plank of the lolsome arguments against your contention.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> This is gibberish:



Nah, perfectly understandable as long as you know what sociolect and idiolect means. But you couldn't be bothered to look it up I guess.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> He's not got any arguments, never have had. It's all shit and there's nothing we can do about it. Ignore.


 
Are you still here? I don't have to have arguments; rather than claiming to have any, I'm the one posing questions.

It's like this: one the one hand you have those who think the riots were a really good thing in themselves but don' tseem able to say exactly why, or explain how they see things developing. On the other hand you have those who take a more sceptical view. I speak only for myself.

In your own time, I'm off to a Christmas 'do' in a minute.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Are you still here? I don't have to have arguments; rather than claiming to have any, I'm the one posing questions.
> 
> It's like this: one the one hand you have those who think the riots were a really good thing in themselves but don' tseem able to say exactly why, or explain how they see things developing. On the other hand you have those who take a more sceptical view. I speak only for myself.
> 
> In your own time, I'm off to a Christmas 'do' in a minute.



True believers never needed arguments.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Nah, perfectly understandable as long as you know what sociolect and idiolect means. But you couldn't be bothered to look it up I guess.



I don't know. Is it academic cobblers for cobblers academics?

Whatever it is, to me it's gibberish, as I would imagine it is to most people, who know full well that many use jargon as a cover for not being as clever as they try to make out.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Are you still here? I don't have to have arguments; rather than claiming to have any, I'm the one posing questions.
> 
> It's like this: one the one hand you have those who think the riots were a really good thing in themselves but don' tseem able to say exactly why, or explain how they see things developing. On the other hand you have those who take a more sceptical view. I speak only for myself.
> 
> In your own time, I'm off to a Christmas 'do' in a minute.



be sure to gift them with a false dichotomy under the misletoe as you really are reaching for the full hand of logical fallacies


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 12, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> be sure to gift them with a false dichotomy under the misletoe as you really are reaching for the full hand of logical fallacies


 
Better than spending all your time wanking in the toilets with a picture of a 'hoodie'.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I don't know. Is it academic cobblers for cobblers academics?
> 
> Whatever it is, to me it's gibberish, as I would imagine it is to most people, who know full well that many use jargon as a cover for not being as clever as they try to make out.



Nice, priding yourself on your ignorance. Keep it up, please, it's just about the only entertainment I'm getting this Monday.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Clearly-even if it's only your pisser.


it's another apolitical, vacuous response from you.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Better than spending all your time wanking in the toilets with a picture of a 'hoodie'.


you seem somewhat preoccupied with wanking this afternoon.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Better than spending all your time wanking in the toilets with a picture of a 'hoodie'.


 
I don't need a photo, I've got a mirror. Me and mine letty. Lumpen this and lumpen that. Hah. You've not the faintest idea.


----------



## ska invita (Dec 12, 2011)

Did anyone see the news today - it looks as if the gun was planted 'on' Mark Duggan


> Weapon 'thrown'
> 
> When questioned, Mr Sparrow agreed there were no fingerprints, DNA or blood relating to Mr Duggan on the non-police firearm found at the scene.
> 
> ...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16141820


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 12, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> wanking in the toilets with a picture of a 'hoodie'.



Is this like 'hug a hoodie' only more so?

I think I must have missed Mr Cameroon's announcement about this one...


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Nice, priding yourself on your ignorance. Keep it up, please, it's just about the only entertainment I'm getting this Monday.



An aversion to bullshitty academic jargon isn't priding yourself on ignorance.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Is this like 'hug a hoodie' only more so?
> 
> I think I must have missed Mr Cameroon's announcement about this one...


 
It isn't Cameron, it's this bunch of riot fetish clowns.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I don't need a photo, I've got a mirror. Me and mine letty. Lumpen this and lumpen that. Hah. You've not the faintest idea.


 
Im don't think I've ever used the word lumpen.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 13, 2011)

ska invita said:


> Did anyone see the news today - it looks as if the gun was planted 'on' Mark Duggan
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16141820


Why would a copper throw a gun found over a fence some distance away? A cop would know that this increases the chance that the gun would go off and cause injury or death. Or did they know there was no working ammo loaded because it was not Duggan's gun? ie It was a career saver, a throwaway gun, a fit up.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 13, 2011)

Oh look, lletsa's doing that thing again.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

Anyway, let's start again seeing as the clown brigade haven't obliged so far.

Now that we've established that most of those who rioted in August hate the police and are deprived, what happens next considering that we've got austerity capitalism for years ahead no matter what government gets voted in, the police are not going away and the deprived, inclined to rioting or not, are going to remain deprived?

And bearing in mind that the vast majority of rioters don 't want to know the likes of most of those who post on here nor their real life political buddies.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> Oh look, lletsa's doing that thing again.


 
Are you doing your apolitical thing again, tosspot?


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Are you doing your apolitical thing again, tosspot?



classic you.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> classic you.


 
Once again, empty cunt proves himself empty cunt.

It must be the times we live in. Answer the question, you empty wanker.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 13, 2011)

What?  You're a fucking weirdo.  Get a grip.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> What? You're a fucking weirdo. Get a grip.



What, a weirdo for asking a perfectly rational question?

And those who wank on about overthrowing the state without ever achieving anything politically in real life, displaying a strange, consequence-free violence fetish along the way, are not weird?

Have a go at answering the question. What happens next?


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 13, 2011)

Yup, business as normal.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> Yup, business as normal.


 
Anything but engage in debate. Fucking wanker.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Anything but engage in debate. Fucking wanker.



That's rich coming from you


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> That's rich coming from you


 
Instead of writing about me, answer the question:

Now that we've established that most of those who rioted in August hate the police and are deprived, what happens next considering that we've got austerity capitalism for years ahead no matter what government gets voted in, the police are not going away and the deprived, inclined to rioting or not, are going to remain deprived?

And bearing in mind that the vast majority of rioters don 't want to know the likes of most of those who post on here nor their real life political buddies.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> An aversion to bullshitty academic jargon isn't priding yourself on ignorance.



Oh but it is when you can't even be bothered to find out what the terms mean. I suppose you think math therms are bullshitty academic jargon words too then.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Oh but it is when you can't even be bothered to find out what the terms mean. I suppose you think math therms are bullshitty academic jargon words too then.



The whole point is that I can't be bothered. Few outside academia can. That's why they devise the jargon in the first place. It's a closed shop but does entice pseudo-intellectuals.

The words Dotty used are in no way akin to 'math terms.'


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 13, 2011)

it isn't even jargon, just words used to describe groupings of language. But, we did this on the 'starkey is a massive racist' thread. Linguistics is not a field lletsa holds in any validity


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> The whole point is that I can't be bothered. Few outside academia can. That's why they devise the jargon in the first place. It's a closed shop but does entice pseudo-intellectuals.
> 
> The words Dotty used are in no way akin to 'math terms.'



A bit like "class" then?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> it isn't even jargon, just words used to describe groupings of language. But, we did this on the 'starkey is a massive racist' thread. Linguistics is not a field lletsa holds in any validity



There are precise sciences like Mathematics, and then there's daft made up shit to exclude outsiders.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> A bit like "class" then?


 
You fucking what?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You fucking what?



A bit like class then. Sociolect is about as precise as class.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> A bit like class then. Sociolect is about as precise as class.


 
Except that everybody knows what class means. Nobody outside a select group knows what fucking 'sociolect' means. They're not meant to know.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Except that everybody knows what class means. Nobody outside a select group knows what fucking 'sociolect' means. They're not meant to know.



Everybody *thinks* they know what class means. Ask people and you'll see that their definitions are legion. Sociolect on the other hand has a fairly precise meaning. Really, you know fuck all about linguistics, so why not shut up or put up?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 13, 2011)

there's a grain of truth around the idea that groupings use forms of language as exclusionary, bonding within etc. Ironically enough, that is the idea of a sociolect (sort of). However, in this case the words are just descriptors. Not even complex ones. It doesn't require an essay to explain the usages.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> there's a grain of truth around the idea that groupings use forms of language as exclusionary, bonding within etc. Ironically enough, that is the idea of a sociolect (sort of). However, in this case the words are just descriptors. Not even complex ones. It doesn't require an essay to explain the usages.



Socialists would know all about using language to exclude others from positions of power.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Everybody *thinks* they know what class means. Ask people and you'll see that their definitions are legion. Sociolect on the other hand has a fairly precise meaning. Really, you know fuck all about linguistics, so why not shut up or put up?



I don't know much about linguistics. Nobody does if they're not linguists. A major reason for this is that the subject is taught in a way that deliberately excludes outsiders. This is why when you look outside the physical sciences, most of those outside the higher echelons of a given subject are thorough mediocrities. Some of them post here.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I don't know much about linguistics. nobody does if they're not linguists. A major reason for this is that the subject is taught in a way that deliberately excludes outsiders. This is why when you look outside the physical sciences, most of those outside the higher echelons of a given subject are thorough mediocrities. Some of them post here.



Clearly you don't. The subject is taught in a way that makes for scientific rigour, not wishy-washy bullshit. But then you'd know that if you'd bothered to find out about it. As for your latter point, *by definition* everyone outside the higher echelons of anything are mediocrities. That includes the physical sciences.


----------



## love detective (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> what happens next



Despite the huge, and some might say insurmountable, obstacles in the path of not only any kind of progressive reorganisation of the way we society is organised, but also the continued existence of human society on the basis of anything resembling what we've come used to in the last 50 years or so - people retreat even further behind a kind of blind religious style comforting faith that things will just turn out OK (while no doubt at the same time tut tutting at the more overt 'backward' religious types for investing a similar type of faith in their chosen fairy tail type nonsense?

Personally I think a lot of the world's near insurmountable problems can be solved (this involves faith on my side as well), but they can't be solved within existing capitalist social relations. Nor can they be solved within a set of social relations even less progressive than capitalist ones, which at present look like the only thing that would step into any gap left by the permanent departure of capitalism from large parts of society. The birth of capitalism brought all kinds of horrors with it but the prospect of what the death of it may bring is petrifying. So instead of socialism or barbarism it's more like covert barbarism or overt barbarism. It's not going to be pretty either way, so I can understand why most people choose either not to confront it at all or deal with it by elevating faith above materialism, empiricism and reason.

Obviously I could be wrong though. Perhaps the glorious ushering in of a complete progressive reorganisation of how global society is run is around the corner, and it will just rhentaghost itself into existence from nowhere. Perhaps Marx was wrong and the material conditions for the introduction of new superior relations of production don't need to mature within the framework of the old society, perhaps they just appear from nowhere, divinely ordained and fully formed - let's hope so.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

Anyway fuck off the thread with your linguistics and answer this:

Now that we've established that most of those who rioted in August hate the police and are deprived, what happens next considering that we've got austerity capitalism for years ahead no matter what government gets voted in, the police are not going away and the deprived, inclined to rioting or not, are going to remain deprived?

And bearing in mind that the vast majority of rioters don 't want to know the likes of most of those who post on here nor their real life political buddies.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Clearly you don't. The subject is taught in a way that makes for scientific rigour, not wishy-washy bullshit. But then you'd know that if you'd bothered to find out about it. As for your latter point, *by definition* everyone outside the higher echelons of anything are mediocrities. That includes the physical sciences.


 
I've just told you to fuck off with all this.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

love detective said:


> Despite the huge, and some might say insurmountable, obstacles in the path of not only any kind of progressive reorganisation of the way we society is organised, but also the continued existence of human society on the basis of anything resembling what we've come used to in the last 50 years or so - people retreat even further behind a kind of blind religious style comforting faith that things will just turn out OK (while no doubt at the same time tut tutting at the more overt 'backward' religious types for investing a similar type of faith in their chosen fairy tail type nonsense?
> 
> Personally I think a lot of the world's near insurmountable problems can be solved (this involves faith on my side as well), but they can't be solved within existing capitalist social relations. Nor can they be solved within a set of social relations even less progressive than capitalist ones, which at present look like the only thing that would step into any gap left by the permanent departure of capitalism from large parts of society. The birth of capitalism brought all kinds of horrors with it but the prospect of what the death of it may bring is petrifying. So instead of socialism or barbarism it's more like covert barbarism or overt barbarism. It's not going to be pretty, so I can understand why most people choose either not to confront it at all or deal with it by elevating faith above materialism, empiricism and reason.
> 
> Obviously I could be wrong though. Perhaps the glorious ushering in of a complete progressive reorganisation of how global society is run is around the corner, and it will just rhentaghost itself into existence from nowhere. Perhaps Marx was wrong and the material conditions for the introduction of new superior relations of production don't need to mature within the framework of the old society, perhaps they just appear from nowhere, divinely ordained and fully formed - let's hope so.


 
See, dickheads-it is possible to come up with a sensible answer.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I've just told you to fuck off with all this.



And you are who? Some meathead on the internet with a serious case of the ennui boner.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 13, 2011)

Someone who can simultaneously refuse to engage with someone based on their spelling and hold the above views about excluding people through language.  Genius.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> And you are who? Some meathead on the internet with a serious case of the ennui boner.


 
I thought I'd told you to fuck off. Stop diverting the thread.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> Someone who can simultaneously refuse to engage with someone based on their spelling and hold the above views about excluding people through language. Genius.


 
You fuck off as well. You empty prick.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 13, 2011)

hearts and minds


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I thought I'd told you to fuck off. Stop diverting the thread.



You fuck off. Or answer the question I posed earlier - what would you do? Anything? Is there anything left for you except your cocks of doom, spurting gloomy sperm all over these boards?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> hearts and minds


 
I don't want your heart or mind, you blank tosser.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> You fuck off. Or answer the question I posed earlier - what would you do? Anything? Is there anything left for you except your cocks of doom, spurting gloomy sperm all over these boards?


 
What has 'what 'I'd do,' got to do with the question I asked? (The reason I ask the question in the first place is because of the political impasse that working class politics has been in for at least twenty years-which obviously affects the subject of this thread.)

Hardly anybody on boards like this does anything that has any effect on the real world. Instead they spout platitudes or indulge in dubious violence fetishism.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> What has 'what 'I'd do,' got to do with the question I asked? (The reason I ask the question in the first place is because of the political impasse that working class politics has been in for at least twenty years-which obviously affects the subject of this thread.)
> 
> Hardly anybody on boards like this does anything that has any effect on the real world. Instead they spout platitudes or indulge in dubious violence fetishism.



Why demand answers from others when you have none yourself? And how do you know what people on this board are up to?


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Socialists would know all about using language to exclude others from positions of power.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)




----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 13, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> there's a grain of truth around the idea that groupings use forms of language as exclusionary, bonding within etc.



Shibboleths. I like the word shibboleth because it is itself a shibboleth - its ontology coincides with its representation.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

Stop diverting this thread with linguistics.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Stop diverting this thread with linguistics.



Stop being an ignoramus.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 13, 2011)

*Linguistics* is the scientific study of human language.[1][2][3][4] Linguistics can be broadly broken into three categories or subfields of study: language form, language meaning, and language in context.
The first is the study of language structure, or grammar. This focuses on the system of rules followed by the speakers (or hearers) of a language. It encompasses morphology (the formation and composition of words), syntax (the formation and composition of phrases and sentences from these words), and phonology (sound systems). Phonetics is a related branch of linguistics concerned with the actual properties of speech sounds and nonspeech sounds, and how they are produced and perceived.
The study of language meaning is concerned with how languages employ logical structures and real-world references to convey, process, and assign meaning, as well as to manage and resolve ambiguity. This subfield encompasses semantics (how meaning is inferred from words and concepts) and pragmatics (how meaning is inferred from context).
Language in its broader context includes evolutionary linguistics, which considers the origins of language; historical linguistics, which explores language change; sociolinguistics, which looks at the relation between linguistic variation and social structures; psycholinguistics, which explores the representation and function of language in the mind; neurolinguistics, which looks at language processing in the brain; language acquisition, how children or adults acquire language; and discourse analysis, which involves the structure of texts and conversations.
Although linguistics is the scientific study of language, a number of other intellectual disciplines are relevant to language and intersect with it. Semiotics, for example, is the general study of signs and symbols both within language and without. Literary theorists study the use of language in literature. Linguistics additionally draws on and informs work from such diverse fields as psychology, speech-language pathology, informatics, computer science, philosophy, biology, human anatomy, neuroscience, sociology, anthropology, and acoustics.

etc


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 13, 2011)

*Thread<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Linguistics*


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 13, 2011)

I heart linguistics


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 13, 2011)

linguistics
linguistics
linguistics
linguistics
linguistics
linguistics
linguistics
linguistics
linguistics
linguistics
linguistics
linguistics
linguistics
linguistics
linguistics

linguistics


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

Words, how do they work?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Stop being an ignoramus.


 
If you want to discuss linguistics, take it to the Linguistics board.

Failing that, there's always Linguists Anonymous. The number's in the phone book.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> If you want to discuss linguistics, take it to the Linguistics board.



Stop diverting the thread with linguistics.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Instead of writing about me, answer the question:
> 
> Now that we've established that most of those who rioted in August hate the police and are deprived, what happens next considering that we've got austerity capitalism for years ahead no matter what government gets voted in, the police are not going away and the deprived, inclined to rioting or not, are going to remain deprived?
> 
> And bearing in mind that the vast majority of rioters don 't want to know the likes of most of those who post on here nor their real life political buddies.





love detective said:


> Despite the huge, and some might say insurmountable, obstacles in the path of not only any kind of progressive reorganisation of the way we society is organised, but also the continued existence of human society on the basis of anything resembling what we've come used to in the last 50 years or so - people retreat even further behind a kind of blind religious style comforting faith that things will just turn out OK (while no doubt at the same time tut tutting at the more overt 'backward' religious types for investing a similar type of faith in their chosen fairy tail type nonsense?
> 
> Personally I think a lot of the world's near insurmountable problems can be solved (this involves faith on my side as well), but they can't be solved within existing capitalist social relations. Nor can they be solved within a set of social relations even less progressive than capitalist ones, which at present look like the only thing that would step into any gap left by the permanent departure of capitalism from large parts of society. The birth of capitalism brought all kinds of horrors with it but the prospect of what the death of it may bring is petrifying. So instead of socialism or barbarism it's more like covert barbarism or overt barbarism. It's not going to be pretty either way, so I can understand why most people choose either not to confront it at all or deal with it by elevating faith above materialism, empiricism and reason.
> 
> Obviously I could be wrong though. Perhaps the glorious ushering in of a complete progressive reorganisation of how global society is run is around the corner, and it will just rhentaghost itself into existence from nowhere. Perhaps Marx was wrong and the material conditions for the introduction of new superior relations of production don't need to mature within the framework of the old society, perhaps they just appear from nowhere, divinely ordained and fully formed - let's hope so.


----------



## love detective (Dec 13, 2011)

i'm not sure why i bother


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

So you quote another fatalist to support your own fatalism? Well I never!


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> So you quote another fatalist to support your own fatalism? Well I never!


 


LLETSA said:


> Instead of writing about me, answer the question:
> 
> Now that we've established that most of those who rioted in August hate the police and are deprived, what happens next considering that we've got austerity capitalism for years ahead no matter what government gets voted in, the police are not going away and the deprived, inclined to rioting or not, are going to remain deprived?
> 
> And bearing in mind that the vast majority of rioters don 't want to know the likes of most of those who post on here nor their real life political buddies.





love detective said:


> Despite the huge, and some might say insurmountable, obstacles in the path of not only any kind of progressive reorganisation of the way we society is organised, but also the continued existence of human society on the basis of anything resembling what we've come used to in the last 50 years or so - people retreat even further behind a kind of blind religious style comforting faith that things will just turn out OK (while no doubt at the same time tut tutting at the more overt 'backward' religious types for investing a similar type of faith in their chosen fairy tail type nonsense?
> 
> Personally I think a lot of the world's near insurmountable problems can be solved (this involves faith on my side as well), but they can't be solved within existing capitalist social relations. Nor can they be solved within a set of social relations even less progressive than capitalist ones, which at present look like the only thing that would step into any gap left by the permanent departure of capitalism from large parts of society. The birth of capitalism brought all kinds of horrors with it but the prospect of what the death of it may bring is petrifying. So instead of socialism or barbarism it's more like covert barbarism or overt barbarism. It's not going to be pretty either way, so I can understand why most people choose either not to confront it at all or deal with it by elevating faith above materialism, empiricism and reason.
> 
> Obviously I could be wrong though. Perhaps the glorious ushering in of a complete progressive reorganisation of how global society is run is around the corner, and it will just rhentaghost itself into existence from nowhere. Perhaps Marx was wrong and the material conditions for the introduction of new superior relations of production don't need to mature within the framework of the old society, perhaps they just appear from nowhere, divinely ordained and fully formed - let's hope so.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

Rewind/reset/reboot, LLETSA. Right, I'm bored of this, might as well do some work while I'm in the office.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Rewind/reset/reboot, LLETSA. Right, I'm bored of this, might as well do some work while I'm in the office.


 
You wouldn't know work if it bit you on your knob.


----------



## love detective (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> So you quote another fatalist to support your own fatalism? Well I never!



so you're only willing to engage & debate with people who have exactly the same opinions as you hold?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

love detective said:


> so you're only willing to engage & debate with people who have exactly the same opinions as you hold?


 
They're all like that. They're like the pious religious types they think they despise.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

love detective said:


> so you're only willing to engage & debate with people who have exactly the same opinions as you hold?



You could ask LLETSA the same. The answer is no btw. As I think I've amply proved over the last few years I've posted here.


----------



## magneze (Dec 13, 2011)

It's not really a great question tbh. The only things than can be accurately predicted is "more riots" as the question intimates. What happens politically from that is unclear. Anything from bigger and bigger police crackdown and a nice diverting war with Iran; or maybe the government falling, Labour getting in and then doing the same things but in a "nicer" way; or even the disintegration of society as we know it.

You're asking for crystal ball gazing basically.

What does your crystal ball say?


----------



## love detective (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> You could ask LLETSA the same. The answer is no btw. As I think I've amply proved over the last few years I've posted here.



i've seen no engagement with what I posted above, just juvenile avoidance of the subject and shouts of fatalism and attempts to do anything but acknowledge the issue, let alone debate it


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> You could ask LLETSA the same. The answer is no btw. As I think I've amply proved over the last few years I've posted here.


 
Prove it now then. I've been asking you (and everybody else) a question for the past few days and all you've done is write about me being 'a fatalist,' or 'miserable,' as if these are personality flaws. Or else you've tried to divert the thread onto a subject you feel safe with-talking to plebs from your lofty position as a run-of-the-mill academic.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

magneze said:


> It's not really a great question tbh. The only things than can be accurately predicted is "more riots" as the question intimates. What happens politically from that is unclear. Anything from bigger and bigger police crackdown and a nice diverting war with Iran; or maybe the government falling, Labour getting in and then doing the same things but in a "nicer" way; or even the disintegration of society as we know it.
> 
> You're asking for crystal ball gazing basically.
> 
> What does your crystal ball say?



It's called having an analysis, however rudimentary.What do you think boards like this are for?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

love detective said:


> i've seen no engagement with what I posted above, just juvenile avoidance of the subject and shouts of fatalism and attempts to do anything but even acknowledge the issue, or even debate it



TBH I only saw your post when LLETSA quoted it. It's not something I have a ready-made pat reply to, nor will I ever I suspect. I take back the accusation of fatalism as directed at you, btw, on re-reading it you're not really one. LLETSA otoh...


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> TBH I only saw your post when LLETSA quoted it. It's not something I have a ready-made pat reply to, nor will I ever I suspect. I take back the accusation of fatalism as directed at you, btw, on re-reading it you're not really one. LLETSA otoh...


 
I don't hink I'm a fatalist, but even if I was, it's no less valid a viewpoint than anybody else's. And you're still writing about other posters instead of answering the question.



Now that we've established that most of those who rioted in August hate the police and are deprived, what happens next considering that we've got austerity capitalism for years ahead no matter what government gets voted in, the police are not going away and the deprived, inclined to rioting or not, are going to remain deprived?

And bearing in mind that the vast majority of rioters don 't want to know the likes of most of those who post on here nor their real life political buddies.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> It's called having an analysis, however rudimentary.What do you think boards like this are for?


Telling people to fuck off and pictures of cats.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Now that we've established that most of those who rioted in August hate the police and are deprived, what happens next considering that we've got austerity capitalism for years ahead no matter what government gets voted in, the police are not going away and the deprived, inclined to rioting or not, are going to remain deprived?


Fewer jobs, less benefits, more deprivation, more police violence, more riots.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Telling people to fuck off and pictures of cats.


 
I've never posted a picture of anything. Fuck off.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Fewer jobs, less benefits, more deprivation, more police violence, more riots.


 
Succinct. But what I was getting at is why are the kind of riots we saw back in August supposed to somehow be a positive thing?


----------



## TopCat (Dec 13, 2011)

Same old MO eh LEETSA?


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I don't hink I'm a fatalist, but even if I was, it's no less valid a viewpoint than anybody else's. And you're still writing about other posters instead of answering the question.
> 
> Now that we've established that most of those who rioted in August hate the police and are deprived, what happens next considering that we've got austerity capitalism for years ahead no matter what government gets voted in, the police are not going away and the deprived, inclined to rioting or not, are going to remain deprived?
> 
> And bearing in mind that the vast majority of rioters don 't want to know the likes of most of those who post on here nor their real life political buddies.



And again, you have no idea who people on here are do you? Fatalism can of course be a valid viewpoint in certain instances. I'm fatalistic with regards to the chances of me surviving an asteroid impact on earth. I'm fatalistic about me dying at some point. I'm not fatalistic about our chances of fashioning collective replies to the problems we are facing. Why should I? There's plenty proof that it's entirely possible to fundamentally change the system. After all, it's happened within my lifetime. Shame it was in the wrong direction, is all.

What happens next? I dunno. Do you? We can make a small bet if you like.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Succinct. But what I was getting at is why are the kind of riots we saw back in August supposed to somehow be a positive thing?


Are they? I thought they were depressing. Uncoordinated, apolitical and self-defeating. Miserable symptoms of our grossly inequal society.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Succinct. But what I was getting at is why are the kind of riots we saw back in August supposed to somehow be a positive thing?



are they?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> And again, you have no idea who people on here are do you? Fatalism can of course be a valid viewpoint in certain instances. I'm fatalistic with regards to the chances of me surviving an asteroid impact on earth. I'm fatalistic about me dying at some point. I'm not fatalistic about our chances of fashioning collective replies to the problems we are facing. Why should I? There's plenty proof that it's entirely possible to fundamentally change the system. After all, it's happened within my lifetime. Shame it was in the wrong direction, is all.
> 
> What happens next? I dunno. Do you? We can make a small bet if you like.


 
What's betting got to do with it? This isn't who's going to win the Premier League.

So your 'not fatalistic about our chances of fashioning collective replies to the problems we are facing.' And?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Are they? I thought they were depressing. Uncoordinated, apolitical and self-defeating. Miserable symptoms of our grossly inequal society.


 
You evidently think not. Others do.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

And what? I never said I had the solutions you're (not) looking for.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> are they?



 No.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2011)

dunno who thought they were a positive thing tbh - i didn't think so


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> And what? I never said I had the solutions you're (not) looking for.


 
Do you just like putting words on a screen for the sake of putting words on a screen? And why is it always 'I' or 'you' with you?


----------



## magneze (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> It's called having an analysis, however rudimentary.What do you think boards like this are for?


I see. Do you have any rudimentary analysis. You just seem to be throwing your toys around.

Not sure why a further discussion on "the purpose of urban75" is in any way contributing to the debate, such as it has been derailed by pram antics.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Do you just like putting words on a screen for the sake of putting words on a screen? And why is it always 'I' or 'you' with you?



Cuz I speak for myself.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> dunno who thought they were a positive thing tbh - i didn't think so



You've read this thread and all the others?

In any case, I don't think they weren't a form of resistance to what's going on, albeit a purely selfish one. But what I'm really getting at is in the question I've posed: now that we've established that most rioters hate the police and are deprived, where does this lead politically, bearing in mind that the rioters would laugh at most of the self-styled revolutionaries on here?


----------



## magneze (Dec 13, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> dunno who thought they were a positive thing tbh - i didn't think so


Yes, I don't recall many positives tbh.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

magneze said:


> I see. Do you have any rudimentary analysis. You just seem to be throwing your toys around.
> 
> Not sure why a further discussion on "the purpose of urban75" is in any way contributing to the debate, such as it has been derailed by pram antics.


 
I'm throwing toys around? Have you read the hysterical responses to a simple question I posed yesterday?


----------



## Crispy (Dec 13, 2011)

Get what your getting at then, instead of asking the question.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> bearing in mind that the rioters would laugh at most of the self-styled revolutionaries on here?



That's quite an assumption. Evidence for this?


----------



## magneze (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I'm throwing toys around? Have you read the hysterical responses to a simple question I posed yesterday?


You got some simple answers, then it was you who started going on about "fucking politics" and slagging people off. You seem to have started this bunfight.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Get what your getting at then, instead of asking the question.



You're asking him to give up his entire MO, Crispers.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Get what your getting at then, instead of asking the question.


 
I'm not necessarily getting at anything, which is why I asked the question-to get it away from what the Guardian said and the usual writing about each other as if this has any bearing on anything.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> You're asking him to give up his entire MO, Crispers.



MO? It's a fucking messageboard, you prick.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You've read this thread and all the others?
> 
> In any case, I don't think they weren't a form of resistance to what's going on, albeit a purely selfish one. But what I'm really getting at is in the question I've posed: now that we've established that most rioters hate the police and are deprived, where does this lead politically, bearing in mind that the rioters would laugh at most of the self-styled revolutionaries on here?


Dunno about where it leads politically because you are basing your claim on what appears to be a false premise


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> MO? It's a fucking messageboard, you prick.



Messageboard MO, you numpty.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 13, 2011)

And so on it goes. Just ban this stirring cunt from the boards. He is only here to disrupt.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

magneze said:


> You got some simple answers, then it was you who started going on about "fucking politics" and slagging people off. You seem to have started this bunfight.


 
I got no answers; I got posts about my supposed personal failings and pseudo-academic waffle unconnected to the subject. You are continuing this tradition by avoiding the subject.


----------



## magneze (Dec 13, 2011)




----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Messageboard MO, you numpty.


 
 Topcat the libertarian still trying to get people banned for having a different viewpoint after all these years.

It's a crazy world.


----------



## magneze (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I got no answers; I got posts about my supposed personal failings and pseudo-academic waffle unconnected to the subject. You are continuing this tradition by avoiding the subject.


That was after. Messageboards are great for history.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Topcat the libertarian still trying to get people banned for having a different viewpoint after all these years.
> 
> It's a crazy world.



Why you telling me this? Tell it to TC.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Topcat the libertarian still trying to get people banned for having a different viewpoint after all these years.



What is your view point apart from setting up straw men, calling people cunts and refusing to answer questions? You are only here to stir shit.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 13, 2011)

TopCat said:


> What is your view point apart from setting up straw men, calling people cunts and refusing to answer questions? You are only here to stir shit.


He's like detective-boy only without the wit and bonhomie


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> You've read this thread and all the others?
> 
> In any case, I don't think they weren't a form of resistance to what's going on, albeit a purely selfish one. But what I'm really getting at is in the question I've posed: now that we've established that most rioters hate the police and are deprived, where does this lead politically, bearing in mind that the rioters would laugh at most of the self-styled revolutionaries on here?



i'm not sure they would tbh. i know you will probably laugh at this but the SP have been doing some work in those areas since the riots, my friend is actually from tottenham. they said that the response they were getting was quite positive. i think you're right in that a lot of the people who were involved in the riots would have laughed at "the left" but i think that people really need to try and listen to them tbh. one of the things my friend said (and i think he has a point) was that perhaps some sort of left wing "street movement" would go a long way towards avoiding things like the riots in the future. In terms of where it leads it could lead to any number of things tbh, bear in mind however that most of the people in the country (and most of the people in those areas even) were not involved in rioting, so I dont think the breakdown of society is imminent or anything. I think more definitely needs to be done by the left tbh (altho if you think the british left was bad in its response to the riots you want to look at some of the reactions from america and elsewhere).

sorry, i know this was a fairly crap reply


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TopCat said:


> What is your view point apart from setting up straw men, calling people cunts and refusing to answer questions? You are only here to stir shit.



As usual, people choose to write about my supposed personal flaws instead of what I've said (which seems to disproportionately offend them). I'm not usually the first to throw abuse, nor the first to call somebody a cunt on here. Five or six pages have been wasted by this nonsense. Disagreeing with people or refusing to share in their childish 'optimism' isn't stirring shit. And surely my viewpoint is implied in my question. Let's get back to it instead of writing about me:

Now that we've established that most of those who rioted in August hate the police and are deprived, what happens next considering that we've got austerity capitalism for years ahead no matter what government gets voted in, the police are not going away and the deprived, inclined to rioting or not, are going to remain deprived?

And bearing in mind that the vast majority of rioters don 't want to know the likes of most of those who post on here nor their real life political buddies


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> i'm not sure they would tbh. i know you will probably laugh at this but the SP have been doing some work in those areas since the riots, my friend is actually from tottenham. they said that the response they were getting was quite positive. i think you're right in that a lot of the people who were involved in the riots would have laughed at "the left" but i think that people really need to try and listen to them tbh. one of the things my friend said (and i think he has a point) was that perhaps some sort of left wing "street movement" would go a long way towards avoiding things like the riots in the future. In terms of where it leads it could lead to any number of things tbh, bear in mind however that most of the people in the country (and most of the people in those areas even) were not involved in rioting, so I dont think the breakdown of society is imminent or anything. I think more definitely needs to be done by the left tbh (altho if you think the british left was bad in its response to the riots you want to look at some of the reactions from america and elsewhere).
> 
> sorry, i know this was a fairly crap reply


 
I know 'the left' can get a positive response in 'riot areas.' It was the same in places like Moss Side in the early '80s. It led nowhere in much more favourable conditions.


----------



## TopCat (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> And bearing in mind that the vast majority of rioters don 't want to know the likes of most of those who post on here nor their real life political buddies



You keep asserting this but provide fuck all evidence to support it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> And bearing in mind that the vast majority of rioters don 't want to know the likes of most of those who post on here nor their real life political buddies



Try asking a question without the patronising insults, eh? You set yourself up as a spokesman for the rioters here. With what justification? You are a middle-aged university graduate yourself, just like many of the rest of us.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TopCat said:


> You keep asserting this but provide fuck all evidence to support it?


 
How can I prove it? It's a hunch.

Can you prove me wrong?


----------



## Crispy (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Now that we've established that most of those who rioted in August hate the police and are deprived, what happens next considering that we've got austerity capitalism for years ahead no matter what government gets voted in, the police are not going away and the deprived, inclined to rioting or not, are going to remain deprived?


This has been answered several times now. What do you think happens next?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Try asking a question without the patronising insults, eh? You set yourself up as a spokesman for the rioters here. With what justification? You are a middle-aged university graduate yourself, just like many of the rest of us.


 
I really haven't 'set myself up' as a spokesman for anything. And I'm not the type of graduate you are. Were you 30 when you graduated?

Go back to the question I asked yesterday and see who's responsible for letting the last five pages degenerate into what they did.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

TopCat said:


> You keep asserting this but provide fuck all evidence to support it?



Without that assertion he has nothing. He barely has anything to start with, except _HEAR MY DOOM AND COWER YOU CUNTS_


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 13, 2011)

I was 28 when I graduated. Went to uni as a mature student, like you.


----------



## ericjarvis (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I'm not necessarily getting at anything,



Precisely.

Look. From here at ground zero on the Angell Town Estate a few things are pretty clear. The police and the rest of the apparatus of the state treat a large proportion of the British people as a threat to be contained at all costs. Basically if you are poor, black, disabled, or otherwise "disadvantaged" then the state recognises that you are being shat on from a great height and are liable to be somewhat pissed off. They intend to deal with that by humbling and hamstringing you at every opportunity in order to minimise any threat you pose should you decide to do anything to try to improve your situation (or should you try to do pretty much anything at all if you are a young black working class man). Meanwhile phrases like "engaging in partnerships to build better communities for the disadvantaged" will be used at every opportunity, so long as it doesn't lead to any actual money being spent on doing anything other than paying middle class people to spout bullshit.

The police are engaged in an exercise of divide and rule, by persuading everyone who listens to them that the only course of action possible is to come down hard on anyone who won't play the game by the hugely biased rules. Leading to further emasculation of any dissent amongst the downtrodden.

The middle classes are beginning to feel the pinch as the measures the wealthy have taken to feather their own nests over the last couple of decades really start to bite the rest of us. However they are still generally too caught up in the "Daily Mail" style neo-liberal fantasy that passes for mainstream politics in the UK to do anything but blame it all on the poor, on the whole for no particular reason.

As always most of the action on the left of British politics is stymied by a small number of highly determined and hugely egotistical morons who take any useful initiative and try to turn it into something they can use to gain personal political power on a small scale rather than something that might make any real difference, and too bloody many other people simply follow any of these bastards that uses the right buzzwords to fit with their favoured theoretical approach to politics.

So the only question. THE ONLY QUESTION. Is how do we make something useful happen? What I know for certain is that the correct answer does not involve slagging each other off on bulletin boards.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

Crispy said:


> This has been answered several times now. What do you think happens next?



As I said, it's implied in the question. Political dead end. Impasse. We've been in one for more than two decades. And beyond that Third World Britain. The rule of oligarchs and their puppets. Social nihilism as witnessed in the August riots.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I was 28 when I graduated. Went to uni as a mature student, like you.



Oh.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

dp


----------



## TopCat (Dec 13, 2011)

Well s





LLETSA said:


> How can I prove it? It's a hunch.
> 
> Can you prove me wrong?


Stop presenting your ludicrous hunches as fact.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Without that assertion he has nothing. He barely has anything to start with, except _HEAR MY DOOM AND COWER YOU CUNTS_


 
I don't want anybody to cower, but why is implying doom (whatever this is supposed to mean) invalid? I didn't make the fucking world.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Well s
> Stop presenting your ludicrous hunches as fact.



I haven't presented it as fact. I made an assertion, like you do on a messageboard.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Precisely.
> 
> Look. From here at ground zero on the Angell Town Estate a few things are pretty clear. The police and the rest of the apparatus of the state treat a large proportion of the British people as a threat to be contained at all costs. Basically if you are poor, black, disabled, or otherwise "disadvantaged" then the state recognises that you are being shat on from a great height and are liable to be somewhat pissed off. They intend to deal with that by humbling and hamstringing you at every opportunity in order to minimise any threat you pose should you decide to do anything to try to improve your situation (or should you try to do pretty much anything at all if you are a young black working class man). Meanwhile phrases like "engaging in partnerships to build better communities for the disadvantaged" will be used at every opportunity, so long as it doesn't lead to any actual money being spent on doing anything other than paying middle class people to spout bullshit.
> 
> ...


 
The impasse we're in really isn't anything to do with 'the left' not getting its act together.

But at least it's a considered reply.

Anyway, I'm off to get some fucking dinner down me.


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I don't want anybody to cower, but why is implying doom (whatever this is supposed to mean) invalid? I didn't make the fucking world.



Because it's wrong, and even a pigheaded shitegob like you could see that if you didn't have your head so far up your own arse? You're not the first to predict the end of the world, and you won't be the last.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Because it's wrong, and even a pigheaded shitegob like you could see that if you didn't have your head so far up your own arse? You're not the first to predict the end of the world, and you won't be the last.


 
I haven't predicted the end of the world. Get a hold of yourself.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I know 'the left' can get a positive response in 'riot areas.' It was the same in places like Moss Side in the early '80s. It led nowhere in much more favourable conditions.



I think that without a mass movement which doesn't just (mostly) consist of long-time trade unionists and students its fairly useless tbh. I think some progress is being made in that direction. Like you i am really worried about the future, I think your analysis of Britain etc as becoming the same sort of "democracy" as Russia etc is accurate (and it's actually something I mentioned ages ago on here).


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> I haven't predicted the end of the world. Get a hold of yourself.



Doom, much? I'm only quoting your own words back to you.


----------



## love detective (Dec 13, 2011)

TruXta said:


> TBH I only saw your post when LLETSA quoted it. It's not something I have a ready-made pat reply to, nor will I ever I suspect. I take back the accusation of fatalism as directed at you, btw, on re-reading it you're not really one. LLETSA otoh...



well in any case - there's clearly little scope (or desire from anyone) for any kind of sensible discussion based on what i've seen from the last few pages of this thread (which is a shame as it's an important issue, one that's all to often swept under the carpet), so i'll leave you all to do whatever it is you are all doing


----------



## TruXta (Dec 13, 2011)

love detective said:


> well in any case - there's clearly little scope (or desire from anyone) for any kind of sensible discussion based on what i've seen from the last few pages of this thread (which is a shame as it's an important issue, one that's all to often swept under the carpet), so i'll leave you all to do whatever it is you are all doing



I second that.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> The impasse we're in really isn't anything to do with 'the left' not getting its act together.
> 
> But at least it's a considered reply.
> 
> Anyway, I'm off to get some fucking dinner down me.



Dinner? It's lunch time...


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Dinner? It's lunch time...


 
Not where I come from.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 13, 2011)

What time zone are you currently in?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> What time zone are you currently in?


 
Never mind, Jeffrey.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 13, 2011)

Wikipedia informs me that 'dinner' refers to the largest meal of the day, which is normally (though not always) tea/supper. What was this huge meal that you were stuffing yourself with at 12:30? Genuinely interested...


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 13, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Wikipedia informs me that 'dinner' refers to the largest meal of the day, which is normally (though not always) tea/supper. What was this huge meal that you were stuffing yourself with at 12:30? Genuinely interested...


Dinner happens at the middle of the day if you're northern. Altho I might occasionally call it lunch because I've been conditioned by people on this board!
It's still a lunch box because a dinner box would be silly.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Wikipedia informs me that 'dinner' refers to the largest meal of the day, which is normally (though not always) tea/supper. What was this huge meal that you were stuffing yourself with at 12:30? Genuinely interested...


 
Where I, and I would imagine many others on here, grew up, it's dinner around mid-day and tea in the evening, even if the latter meal is bigger than the former.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 13, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Dinner happens at the middle of the day if you're northern. Altho I might occasionally call it lunch because I've been conditioned by people on this board!
> It's still a lunch box because a dinner box would be silly.



My dad's from Mersyside (where I was born) and I've never heard that, so it's news to me.Thanks for informing me tho.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Where I, and I would imagine many others on here, grew up, it's dinner around mid-day and tea in the evening, even if the latter meal is bigger than the former.



Now I'm learning something- who said messageboards weren't informative?


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 13, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> My dad's from Mersyside (where I was born) and I've never heard that, so it's news to me.Thanks for informing me tho.


Yeah well scouseland is practically the midlands isn't it?
My dad says "lunch" but he's Irish who spent time in the midlands.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 13, 2011)

When I grew up we had dinner for lunch and then dinner for tea too.  Bloody confusing.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Dec 13, 2011)

> In the Middle Ages, great nobles ate the most formal dinner, around noon or one p.m. Their dinner was more than a meal; it was an ostentatious display, a statement of wealth and power, with dozens of servants attending in a ritualized performance. Cooking for this grand, daily show began hours in advance, and the preparations for presentation began at 10 or 11 a.m. The meal might take hours, and be eaten in the most formal and elaborately decorated chambers. Lesser nobles, knights and manor holders ate a far less formal dinner, but at the same time of day.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
http://www.history-magazine.com/dinner2.html

Who Knew?


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Yeah well scouseland is practically the midlands isn't it?
> My dad says "lunch" but he's Irish who spent time in the midlands.


 
 Mrs L says lunch but she's from Wiltshire.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I think that without a mass movement which doesn't just (mostly) consist of long-time trade unionists and students its fairly useless tbh. I think some progress is being made in that direction. Like you i am really worried about the future, I think your analysis of Britain etc as becoming the same sort of "democracy" as Russia etc is accurate (and it's actually something I mentioned ages ago on here).



I don't see how the progress in that direction can result in anything different than it did last time around in conditions more favourable, which is to say not much-not least because a mass labour movement with a paper commitment to wide-ranging social change existed, as well as working class solidarity tied to neighbourhoods built around now absent mass employment industries.

The social atomisation arising in large part out of the destruction of all that is tailor made (some would say planned...) for the rise of the untouchable oligarchs with their bought-and-paid-for interchangeable political parties. As is the pseudo-individualism of the mass consumer culture which as it comes grinding to a halt (intractable problems-economic and resource-irreversible climate change and the resulting population crisis), is bound to produce ugly and unexpected results.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> He's like detective-boy only without the wit and bonhomie



And the wild rages.

LLETSA is too "can't give a fuck" to do d-b-style wild rages.


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 13, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> And the wild rages.
> 
> LLETSA is too "can't give a fuck" to do d-b-style wild rages.



Edit. Misread the post and thought it was more of a 'go' at me than it is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 13, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> Edit. Misread the post and thought it was more of a 'go' at me than it is.



Nah, purely a go at d-b's wild rages.


----------



## 8115 (Dec 19, 2011)

Theresa May says "they're not disenfranchised, they're very naughty boys".  Or something.  She also chose the Mail on Sunday to say it in.  Know your audience, I suppose.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/dec/18/london-riots-theresamay


----------



## BigTom (Dec 19, 2011)

Facebook "rioter" pleads not guilty and gets acquitted

plead guilty, get 4 years.. plead not guilty, get off..


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 20, 2011)

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24023103-inmates-targeted-riot-offenders.do



> Rioters sent to Feltham prison were attacked by other inmates angered by the violence inflicted on their families' home districts, an official report said today.
> The reprisals began after existing prisoners, worried about the fate of their family and friends, saw TV footage of their
> local communities suffering as rioters went on the rampage.



thought they would have got a standing ovation  judging by some of the posts on here


----------



## hipipol (Dec 20, 2011)

"Even the use of firearms by police to shoot arsonists who put lives in danger by setting fire to shops connected to housing could be justified, given the “immediacy of the risk and the gravity of the consequences”, according to legal advice published alongside the HMIC analysis."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ea4cd85c-2b1c-11e1-8a38-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1h6NKQXuJ

Exactly - this is how the Glorious President Assad has chosen to deal with groups of armed thugs in Syria
I would have made a Libyan comparison but I didn't want U75ers dying of laughter as they imagined a grimy Cameron being dragged from sewer before being shot - the logical extension of the "joke"

But it isnt a joke, the fuckwits behind this reprot WANT cops to have the power to use live ammo at crowds - not a good idea, as Wellington, trained as he was in sluaghtering little brown people in India during his wars against Mysore, found out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipu_Sultan


----------



## hipipol (Dec 20, 2011)

BigTom said:


> Facebook "rioter" pleads not guilty and gets acquitted
> 
> plead guilty, get 4 years.. plead not guilty, get off..



Depens how addicted to guff on "social websites" being reality

doubt many Judges are........never fess up less you have to - ie less yer Mum has grassed ya

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/872150-...a-ives-in-frenzied-attack-during-london-riots


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 20, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24023103-inmates-targeted-riot-offenders.do
> 
> thought they would have got a standing ovation judging by some of the posts on here



Instead it mirrors the deep antagonism of working class people generally on the out, toward the perps. Something the cheerleaders same strangely indifferent to. Are the lumpen the new proleteriat?


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 20, 2011)

Joe Reilly said:


> Instead it mirrors the deep antagonism of working class people generally on the out, toward the perps. Something the cheerleaders same strangely indifferent to. Are the lumpen the new proleteriat?



apparantly to even mention the term lumpen is equivalent to shitting on the Foucault inspired tradition that most of the cheerleaders learnt when they got their degrees in sociology


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 20, 2011)

hipipol said:


> Depens how addicted to guff on "social websites" being reality
> 
> doubt many Judges are........never fess up less you have to - ie less yer Mum has grassed ya
> 
> http://www.metro.co.uk/news/872150-...a-ives-in-frenzied-attack-during-london-riots


I completely support her mum for reporting her to the police and I hope that I'd have the courage to do the same. But like so many of the sentences handed down to rioters, two years is way too high and unfortunately all it means is that in future many parents will think twice if it happens to them.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> apparantly to even mention the term lumpen is equivalent to shitting on the Foucault inspired tradition that most of the cheerleaders learnt when they got their degrees in sociology



Oooh, someone has got a splinter up his arsehole! 

As for "lumpen", it's a perfectly reasonable descriptor if used accurately, while anyone getting a bee in their bonnet probably isn't aware of it. Of course, if they *did* have a degree in sociology, they *should* know the correct meaning!

Perhaps you should have use the "media studies degree" trope instead?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 20, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I completely support her mum for reporting her to the police and I hope that I'd have the courage to do the same. But like so many of the sentences handed down to rioters, two years is way too high and unfortunately all it means is that in future many parents will think twice if it happens to them.



Rather than turning their children over to the non-tender mercies of the state? Glad to hear it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2011)

62 more arrests this morning

Riot suspects arrested in scores of early-morning police raids 



> Police investigating the rioting and looting in London this summer have arrested 62 people during scores of early-morning raids across the capital.
> 
> A spokesman for the Metropolitan police said search warrants were executed at around 100 addresses in London by borough officers and staff from the Specialist Crime Directorate and the Territorial Support Group.
> 
> The action was part of Operation Winter Withern, the Met's effort to enlist the public's help in identifying those involved in the disorder.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> 62 more arrests this morning
> 
> Riot suspects arrested in scores of early-morning police raids



One suspects that very few of them were turned in by their parents, despite Andrew Hertford's wank-fantasies of family members informing on family members.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 21, 2011)

ironic that, calling for family on family grassing, like in nazi germany


----------



## xes (Dec 21, 2011)

hipipol said:


> "Even the use of firearms by police to shoot arsonists who put lives in danger by setting fire to shops connected to housing could be justified, given the “immediacy of the risk and the gravity of the consequences”, according to legal advice published alongside the HMIC analysis."
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ea4cd85c-2b1c-11e1-8a38-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1h6NKQXuJ
> 
> Exactly - this is how the Glorious President Assad has chosen to deal with groups of armed thugs in Syria
> ...


this is being grossly overlooked. They are basically talking about a "law" which would give the pig scum an excuse to open fire on any protest they deem to be out of control. In 1 way I hope they do, becasue I reckon the 'burbs of london are more heavily armed than the police, it'd be an interesting battle, and might even unite gang member together in a common cause, thus cutting crime


----------



## LLETSA (Dec 21, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> ironic that, calling for family on family grassing, like in nazi germany


 
It isn't anything whatsoever like Nazi Germany. The mother who told the police about her daughter almost certainly did so because she wanted her to grow up with a worthwhile life and not fall in with a bunch of no-marks. Whether she was right to do so is another matter.
Please try to take that road out of Toytown.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> One suspects that very few of them were turned in by their parents, despite Andrew Hertford's wank-fantasies of family members informing on family members.



My god panda, you do talk some utter utter shite sometimes. The point I was making was that parents who might've turned in their child if they had committed a serious crime such as this will be less likely to do so in future because of the overly harsh sentences already handed down to other rioters. I don't see that as a positive, perhaps you do, but then you're a bit of a riot fetishist aren't you.

Talking of wank fantasies, how about the ""Fact" that _the majority of rioters didn't indulge in any violence, arson or theft?_


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 21, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> My god panda, you do talk some utter utter shite sometimes. The point I was making was that parents who might've turned in their child if they had committed a serious crime such as this will be less likely to do so in future because of the overly harsh sentences already handed down to other rioters. I don't see that as a positive, perhaps you do, but then you're a bit of a riot fetishist aren't you.



And yet you started your post with "*I completely support her mum for reporting her to the police and I hope that I'd have the courage to do the same*" (my emphasis). You only then went on to make any point about sentence length.

Surely, if your pint was as you claim in this post, you'd have made an issue of tackling the question of sentence length first?



> Talking of wank fantasies, how about the ""Fact" that _the majority of rioters didn't indulge in any violence, arson or theft?_



You mean the one I've already answered? The one where I ask the persons claiming that the majority of rioters did commit such acts to prove their claims, and then questioned both the volume of arrests over known numbers of rioters, and the fact that *as the riots happened*, various posters "on the ground" gave very different tales to those that the media put out?

But by all means, embarrass yourself some more. I'll think of it as a Yuletide gift from you to me.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 21, 2011)

xes said:


> this is being grossly overlooked. They are basically talking about a "law" which would give the pig scum an excuse to open fire on any protest they deem to be out of control. In 1 way I hope they do, becasue I reckon the 'burbs of london are more heavily armed than the police, it'd be an interesting battle, and might even unite gang member together in a common cause, thus cutting crime



Jesus.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Dec 21, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Jesus.



Shouldn't he on the Duggan thread? Lot's of support over there!


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 21, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> And yet you started your post with "*I completely support her mum for reporting her to the police and I hope that I'd have the courage to do the same*" (my emphasis). You only then went on to make any point about sentence length.
> 
> Surely, if your pint was as you claim in this post, you'd have made an issue of tackling the question of sentence length first?
> 
> ...



But I do support the mum, I do hope I'd have the courage to do the same. What's your problem?

As for your claim that it was a "fact" the majority of rioters weren't involved in "violence, arson or theft", I've asked you more than once to come up with some evidence to back this up and you've consistently failed to do so.


----------



## purenarcotic (Dec 24, 2011)

I caught up with a mate yesterday who is on a year abroad in France.  She said that the French thought we were about to have a revolution; there were posters everywhere calling for solidarity for the rioters and there was a lot of talk about the possibility of organising trips over here to help rioting and help the revolutionary cause.

She said they all believed it to be true 'socialism in action'.  Found it very interesting.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But I do support the mum, I do hope I'd have the courage to do the same. What's your problem?


you bloody tout


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 24, 2011)

purenarcotic said:


> I caught up with a mate yesterday who is on a year abroad in France. She said that the French thought we were about to have a revolution; there were posters everywhere calling for solidarity for the rioters and there was a lot of talk about the possibility of organising trips over here to help rioting and help the revolutionary cause.
> 
> She said they all believed it to be true 'socialism in action'. Found it very interesting.



spirit of 68


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 24, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But I do support the mum, I do hope I'd have the courage to do the same. What's your problem?



Fucking hell.  You'd shop your own kids, thinking jail "would do them good" or somesuch bollocks.  That's my problem with you.  Facepalms fail me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 24, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But I do support the mum, I do hope I'd have the courage to do the same. What's your problem?



Because the promotion of a culture of informing, whether it is born of wholesome motives or not, inevitably leads to a state of existence where such behaviour is expected of all.



> As for your claim that it was a "fact" the majority of rioters weren't involved in "violence, arson or theft", I've asked you more than once to come up with some evidence to back this up and you've consistently failed to do so.



And yet again, I'd invite anyone thing Mr. Hertford has a point to re-read the thread and decide whether he's using this claim of mine (which I explained as I made it) as a diversion from the wankitude of his own claims.


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 24, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But I do support the mum, I do hope I'd have the courage to do the same. What's your problem?
> 
> As for your claim that it was a "fact" the majority of rioters weren't involved in "violence, arson or theft", I've asked you more than once to come up with some evidence to back this up and you've consistently failed to do so.


i read recently that someone researching the jack the ripper killings tried, and failed, to obtain information from the met about their informants at the time. bear in minds that this happened 123 years ago. the police rationale for refusing access under foi was essentially that informants expected confidentiality and that this would continue for ever - in layman's terms, informing is seen as so far beyond the pale the police were concerned about what people might do to those informants' descendants. do you think touting worth your sins being visited on your great grandchildren?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 24, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> Fucking hell. You'd shop your own kids, thinking jail "would do them good" or somesuch bollocks. That's my problem with you. Facepalms fail me.


Yeah, yeah, yeah, same old u75 fake indignation. Been there, done that.

Look at the point I originally made: Most parents, ie the ones who don't carry around an anti police agenda with them all the time, who like me struggle to do what's best for our kids, will now have to make even more difficult judgements as to what is the right thing to do in the light of these draconian sentences. I do admire this mum's courage, she must have been so angry at her daughter. Who wouldn't be? The fact that the police actually had video of her committing the crime will have been a major factor in her decision as well.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 24, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because the promotion of a culture of informing, whether it is born of wholesome motives or not, inevitably leads to a state of existence where such behaviour is expected of all.
> 
> And yet again, I'd invite anyone thing Mr. Hertford has a point to re-read the thread and decide whether he's using this claim of mine (which I explained as I made it) as a diversion from the wankitude of his own claims.



It's you that's creating the diversion by continually drawing attention to it, not me! We all make mistakes mate, you don't have to prove to anyone around here that you're a very intelligent poster so no one is going to think any less of you as a result.

Happy Christmas.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i read recently that someone researching the jack the ripper killings tried, and failed, to obtain information from the met about their informants at the time. bear in minds that this happened 123 years ago. the police rationale for refusing access under foi was essentially that informants expected confidentiality and that this would continue for ever - in layman's terms, informing is seen as so far beyond the pale the police were concerned about what people might do to those informants' descendants. do you think touting worth your sins being visited on your great grandchildren?



That is fascinating indeed. I'm not sure it would have any part in deciding what would be for the best if one of my kids committed a serious crime though. 

Happy Christmas to you too mate.


----------



## fractionMan (Dec 24, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Yeah, yeah, yeah, same old u75 fake indignation. Been there, done that.
> 
> Look at the point I originally made: Most parents, ie the ones who don't carry around an anti police agenda with them all the time, who like me struggle to do what's best for our kids, will now have to make even more difficult judgements as to what is the right thing to do in the light of these draconian sentences. I do admire this mum's courage, she must have been so angry at her daughter. Who wouldn't be? The fact that the police actually had video of her committing the crime will have been a major factor in her decision as well.



It doesn't take courage to be angry at your kids.  In what way is shopping her daughter ''the right thing to do'.  What the hell are you on about?

Yeah, it must be fake, it couldn't possibly be real that I think you're a fucking piece of shit and a weirdo for applauding the mum in this instance.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 28, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> It doesn't take courage to be angry at your kids. In what way is shopping her daughter ''the right thing to do'. What the hell are you on about?
> 
> Yeah, it must be fake, it couldn't possibly be real that I think you're a fucking piece of shit and a weirdo for applauding the mum in this instance.


As well as getting sweary why don't you try putting your brain into gear and think the situation through? Do you really think she's only in prison because the mum went to the police? Amongst other things there's film evidence of her, the mum would've rightly concluded that there was a greater than even chance that she'd eventually be arrested anyway and this would've been one of the factors she'd have to have considered.

What would you have done in the mum's place? Smuggle her out of the country? Hide her in the attack for a couple of years? Change her identity?

It's a good thing that most parents do what they think is right in the long term for their child rather than sticking to some kind of nutjob political principles they might have.


----------



## yield (Dec 28, 2011)

Attack? Attic? I'd argue against a prison sentence being the best thing for her children "long term".

People do stupid things I know I have. I hope my parents would support me without reporting me to the police as thankfully they did.

But then you're one of the liberal apologists so you go right ahead.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 28, 2011)

One of the most fucked up people I've ever met got that way 'cos his Mum grassed him up.

She was a very straight pillar of society, who took exception to him smoking dope and set the cops on him. Except that when the cops kicked his door in, he was in possession of a large quantity of acid (they were actually more or less for personal use plus the odd few for friends, but he had no way to prove that he wasn't the Mr Big dealer the cops pretended he was) and hence he went down for it.

He was never the same, betrayal on that sort of level just wrecked him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 29, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> One of the most fucked up people I've ever met got that way 'cos his Mum grassed him up.
> 
> She was a very straight pillar of society, who took exception to him smoking dope and set the cops on him. Except that when the cops kicked his door in, he was in possession of a large quantity of acid (they were actually more or less for personal use plus the odd few for friends, but he had no way to prove that he wasn't the Mr Big dealer the cops pretended he was) and hence he went down for it.
> 
> He was never the same, betrayal on that sort of level just wrecked him.



In Hertford-world he deserved it for possessing illegal drugs, mmkay? And there was probably a greater than even chance of him going to prison anyway, mmkay?


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 29, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> As well as getting sweary why don't you try putting your brain into gear and think the situation through? Do you really think she's only in prison because the mum went to the police? Amongst other things there's film evidence of her, the mum would've rightly concluded that there was a greater than even chance that she'd eventually be arrested anyway and this would've been one of the factors she'd have to have considered.
> 
> What would you have done in the mum's place? Smuggle her out of the country? Hide her in the attack for a couple of years? Change her identity?
> 
> It's a good thing that most parents do what they think is right in the long term for their child rather than sticking to some kind of nutjob political principles they might have.


Why is it political not to want to shop your own kid? I'd say it was a natural response.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2011)

'right in the long term' to give them a couple of years in jail?

Wow. Maybe there are a few on here who've been in jail for a couple of years who can comment on the good it did them 'in the long term'. I've not been in prison, but I know some people who have. Prison messes people up mostly. How could it not?

Find out your son is a serial rapist or something, realise that your child is a danger to others and that you need to protect others from them. That's one thing. But I find the idea that you're shopping them for their own good extraordinary.


----------



## _angel_ (Dec 29, 2011)

LLETSA said:


> It isn't anything whatsoever like Nazi Germany. The mother who told the police about her daughter almost certainly did so because she wanted her to grow up with a worthwhile life and not fall in with a bunch of no-marks. Whether she was right to do so is another matter.
> Please try to take that road out of Toytown.


If you don't want your kid to fall in with the wrong crowd, sending them to prison with criminals is probably a bit of a logic fail.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 29, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> As well as getting sweary why don't you try putting your brain into gear and think the situation through? Do you really think she's only in prison because the mum went to the police? Amongst other things there's film evidence of her, the mum would've rightly concluded that there was a greater than even chance that she'd eventually be arrested anyway and this would've been one of the factors she'd have to have considered.



Hang on. 'You'd have probably been done anyway, so I thought I'd just make sure and save the police a bit of bother.' What kind of thinking through of the situation is that?

Also, you said earlier that you thought some of the sentencing was too severe. These were exemplary sentences after a riot. Perhaps a little thinking through before shopping the person involved might lead to the conclusion that sentences after a riot will be massively severe - as they always have been and always will be. These excessive sentences were wholly predictable. They are not calculated for the good of the individual offender and their rehabilitation. They are calculated for a wider cause of maintaining order in the future - and the well-being of individuals will be sacrificed for such a cause - people's lives will willingly be fucked up in order to pursue it.

In such circumstances, if you understand this, shopping your child is pretty unforgivable. I can only assume the parents involved did not understand this. Do you?


----------



## cemertyone (Dec 29, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Do you really think she's only in prison because the mum went to the police? Amongst other things there's film evidence of her, the mum would've rightly concluded that there was a greater than even chance that she'd eventually be arrested anyway and this would've been one of the factors she'd have to have considered.
> .



Just because the old bill have "Film" evidence of someone being a bit naughty does not mean that they are
automatically going to be arrested (as you surmise above)..the old bill had me on the first page of their bocklets
after the N-30 thing at Euston....and they have yet to bother me,,,,LOL...


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 31, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Hang on. 'You'd have probably been done anyway, so I thought I'd just make sure and save the police a bit of bother.' What kind of thinking through of the situation is that?
> 
> Also, you said earlier that you thought some of the sentencing was too severe. These were exemplary sentences after a riot. Perhaps a little thinking through before shopping the person involved might lead to the conclusion that sentences after a riot will be massively severe - as they always have been and always will be. These excessive sentences were wholly predictable. They are not calculated for the good of the individual offender and their rehabilitation. They are calculated for a wider cause of maintaining order in the future - and the well-being of individuals will be sacrificed for such a cause - people's lives will willingly be fucked up in order to pursue it.
> 
> In such circumstances, if you understand this, shopping your child is pretty unforgivable. I can only assume the parents involved did not understand this. Do you?



My original point (ignored for effect by everyone else) was just that, that the sentences are far too severe in comparison to similar crimes not in the context of a riot. I don't know whether the mum involved expected such a sentence but like you I don't suppose she did. What she expected by coming clean to the police, naively you might say, was that her daughter would stand a better chance of receiving a fairer punishment in return. Presented with the damning evidence on TV, you can see why she made that decision and imo most parents would've done the same.

My gripe is with the courts who're now sending out the message that it'll make no difference to the severity of your punishment whether you hand yourself in, or wait for the cops to find you. The risk is that the apprehension of criminals will be that much harder in future.

No one wants to see their kids get banged up, but if one of mine committed a violent crime then yes I would expect them to go to prison if they're over 18.

What always makes me laugh is the 'never go to the police' attitude that permeates these threads, often I suspect by people who don't have any children in their care and who would never have to face making such a decision. Rioting aside, I don't agree that the law has no interest in the individual and their rehabilitation. I know of parents whose child has committed a crime and they have subsequently gone to the police, who in return have been both helpful and sympathetic. In these cases, involving the police was _without doubt_ the best thing to do in respect of the child.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Dec 31, 2011)

cemertyone said:


> Just because the old bill have "Film" evidence of someone being a bit naughty does not mean that they are
> automatically going to be arrested (as you surmise above)..the old bill had me on the first page of their bocklets
> after the N-30 thing at Euston....and they have yet to bother me,,,,LOL...



Ooh you hero. What did you do?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 31, 2011)

You come across as extremely naive, AH. I don't have kids but there are plenty of posters on this thread who do, and who also have a more realistic idea about the justice system. Why do you say 'rioting aside'? I was talking specifically about the riots. What have you been talking about?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 3, 2012)

With respect, those coming across as extremely naive are the ones who haven't experienced bringing up children but still like to preach to others about what not to do when a teenager commits a crime. So far as I can tell no one has been able to say what they would've done if they'd been this poor parent, only what they emphatically _would not_ have done.

Perhaps most naive of all is to pretend that if you and your child don't voluntarily go to the police when she has been seen on the TV news committing a crime _against the police_ then the problem will somehow go away, that the cops won't try and identify her, that she won't in all probability end up in prison anyway. In fact that the situation could well end up a whole lot worse.

Initially I _was_ talking specifically about the riots and the case that hippol brought up, but in response to the kind of "never fess up and never grass" type comments that inevitably come from some of the armchair revolutionaries on u75, I was interested to know if such an iron principle should also be applied to other crimes committed by teenagers who they might be (or recently were) responsible for. 

I do have a realistic view of the justice system, certainly one that isn't distorted by being a cop-hater by default. I have teenage children, one of whom is already showing signs that she may be drawn to the wrong side of the law along with some of the friends she now goes around with, but our kids are under no illusions about the fact that if they did commit a crime then we'd do whatever we could for them and to prevent them committing crime again. That would include being honest with and co-operating with the police. Ensuring that they would have to face up to the consequences of their actions is basic parenting.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Jan 3, 2012)

Interesting piece on the radio this evening about prison. A prison governor saying that in his experience prison always damages the one being locked up and that he saw his job as that of mitigating that damage. I would urge anyone thinking of sending their child to prison for their own good to think again.

And don't pull the 'I'm a parent' card on this one. There are plenty of parents who would disagree with you.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 3, 2012)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Perhaps most naive of all is to pretend that if you and your child don't voluntarily go to the police when she has been seen on the TV news committing a crime _against the police_ then the problem will somehow go away, that the cops won't try and identify her, that she won't in all probability end up in prison anyway. *In fact that the situation could well end up a whole lot worse.*



Didn't the girl in question nick 2 left trainers or am I thinking of someone else? How is this a crime against the police?
and if the person wasn't already known to the police, I'd bet there is little chance of them managing to identify them from cctv and other footage from the night.

anyway..  lets look at two recent cases, both of people putting up riot event/pages on facebook.  two people pleaded guilty and got 4 years. One pleaded not guilty and got found not guilty.  of course this is slightly different, as there is no handing into police involved cos it's facebook, so the police can easily identify the people involved.
point is though that pleading guilty doesn't always help.  Be interesting to compare some theft or disorder cases from the riots to see whether handing yourself in / pleading guilty actually gets any leniency.

There are similar cases with anti-cuts people handing themselves in and pleading guilty to violent disorder and getting 12 months, others pleading not guilty and getting off, or being found guilty and getting similar 12 month sentences. These people could easily have handed themselves in and pleaded guilty and would have got 12 months for doing so.

So it's wrong to think that you are better off handing yourself in and pleading guilty in terms of the sentence you receive. You should be, but in terms of the riots (and anti-cuts protests) it looks like you are better off pleading not guilty.

I'm not a parent, but if I was I'm certain I wouldn't hand my child in to get locked up.  I'd prefer to deal with it myself. How exactly I don't know because it would depend too much on the particular circumstance, and on what kinds of things I'd done before to manage my child's behaviour / help them grow up.


----------



## LLETSA (Jan 3, 2012)

Why not write to the mother of the girl concerned, expressing your concerns and pointing out the error of her ways?


----------



## smokedout (Jan 3, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> And don't pull the 'I'm a parent' card on this one. There are plenty of parents who would disagree with you.



quite, I just not only wouldn't hand him in but would do everything in my power to help ensure he didn't get caught - perhaps it's a class thing, you know seeing your child and someone to love and protect rather than a project to replicate yourself and your values


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2012)

"It's a parent thing. You wouldn't understand".


----------



## cemertyone (Jan 3, 2012)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Ooh you hero. What did you do?



I could tell you ..but you would probably grass me up to the police..LOL..


----------



## grit (Jan 3, 2012)

smokedout said:


> quite, I just not only wouldn't hand him in but would do everything in my power to help ensure he didn't get caught - perhaps it's a class thing, you know seeing your child and someone to love and protect rather than a project to replicate yourself and your values



Its nothing to do with class, its about protecting your child. I got up to a lot of mischief which upset my very middle class parents, however both parents always said to me that they would always fight to keep me out of prison.


----------



## BlackArab (Jan 3, 2012)

grit said:


> Its nothing to do with class, its about protecting your child. I got up to a lot of mischief which upset my very middle class parents, however both parents always said to me that they would always fight to keep me out of prison.



Whereas I know quite a few wc parents including mine who would dragged their kids screaming down to the copshop if they thought it might prevent their kids going further off the rails. Really don't see how smokedout comes to that conclusion.


----------



## grit (Jan 3, 2012)

BlackArab said:


> Whereas I know quite a few wc parents including mine who would dragged their kids screaming down to the copshop if they thought it might prevent their kids going further off the rails. Really don't see how smokedout comes to that conclusion.



Its just the usual urban75 bollocks of trying to equate every single thing in the world to the person's class


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2012)

grit said:


> Its just the usual urban75 bollocks of trying to equate every single thing in the world to the person's class



This is just the usual Urban 75 bollocks of misrepresenting what someone has written. 

He said "perhaps it's a class thing". He didn't say "it *is* a class thing".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2012)

BlackArab said:


> Whereas I know quite a few wc parents including mine who would dragged their kids screaming down to the copshop if they thought it might prevent their kids going further off the rails. Really don't see how smokedout comes to that conclusion.



He didn't. 
He speculated that it *might* be a factor. hence his use of "perhaps".

I know quite a w/c few parents who'd have done that, in fact my own did, exactly once, with my older brother. The shit the Old Bill gave my brother from then on convinced my parents they'd been fucking stupid. It's the nature of people who've only had tangential dealings with the OB to assume the essential decency of the OB. This is often a big mistake, as they're not only often thieves and thugs themselves, but are in a position to be incredibly vindictive.


----------



## grit (Jan 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> This is just the usual Urban 75 bollocks of misrepresenting what someone has written.
> 
> He said "perhaps it's a class thing". He didn't say "it *is* a class thing".



This is just the usual typical grit bollocks of reading too fast


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2012)

grit said:


> This is just the usual typical grit bollocks of reading too fast





I do it myself, sometimes. Fortunately I usually proof-read my replies and notice my more egregious cock-ups before posting.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 3, 2012)

I think this (including linked reports going back a decade or so) is worth reading ...



> Already, the research is challenging some of the instant reactions:
> 
> The extent of reported hatred of the police is remarkable, and surely beyond anything anyone suspected. Some 85% of the rioters said that policing was a major cause of the disturbances, and the apparent and intense dislike of the police is clear in the interviews. Even if Mark Duggan's death was identified as an immediate spark, it seems clear the riots were somehow an expression of a deeper – and darker – set of perceived injustices and feelings about the police.
> Many were quick to blame gangs. But for the duration of the riots, they actually worked together – suspending hostilities in the face of an opportunity to loot, and united in opposition to the police. In 2008, the JRF studied territoriality among young people, showing the strength of highly local loyalties, and conflicts with groups from other areas. This was not the case in August; the gangs suspended business as usual.
> ...



http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2011/12/riots-challenging-received-wisdom


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 3, 2012)

Bernie Gunther said:


> I think this (including linked reports going back a decade or so) is worth reading ...
> 
> http://www.jrf.org.uk/blog/2011/12/riots-challenging-received-wisdom



Read it and it actually contradicts a kit of what JRF said earlier about the riots based on their experiences.ie lack of civic leadership, community capacity etc  which of course gangs, rioters and looters all contribute to negatively . I think others have also made the point that the actual numbers of convicted rioters interviwed were small and the rest were 'volunteers' .

The gang truce bit is interesting though and I am not surprised by the anti police attitude as they would have been on their case during the years . What the report doesn't pick up on though is that despite the anti police stuff the prime target for the rioters were shops and looting not the Police.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 3, 2012)

The39thStep said:


> Read it and it actually contradicts a kit of what JRF said earlier about the riots based on their experiences.ie lack of civic leadership, community capacity etc which of course gangs, rioters and looters all contribute to negatively . <snip>


 Could you expand a bit on this? Not quite sure what you have in mind.


----------



## smokedout (Jan 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> This is just the usual Urban 75 bollocks of misrepresenting what someone has written.
> 
> He said "perhaps it's a class thing". He didn't say "it *is* a class thing".



thank you, yes I did, and anyway I was only winding up dickhead

although it is true that middle class parents don't love their children as much


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 3, 2012)

smokedout said:


> thank you, yes I did, and anyway I was only winding up dickhead
> 
> although it is true that middle class parents don't love their children as much



They do, they just disguise it in the hopes that their children will need expensive therapy later in life, thus providing the parents with reasons for angst and self-recrimination (and employment for their middle  class therapist peers).


----------



## cantsin (Jan 3, 2012)

Andrew Hertford said:


> With respect, those coming across as extremely naive are the ones who haven't experienced bringing up children but still like to preach to others about what not to do when a teenager commits a crime. So far as I can tell no one has been able to say what they would've done if they'd been this poor parent, only what they emphatically _would not_ have done.
> 
> Perhaps most naive of all is to pretend that if you and your child don't voluntarily go to the police when she has been seen on the TV news committing a crime _against the police_ then the problem will somehow go away, that the cops won't try and identify her, that she won't in all probability end up in prison anyway. In fact that the situation could well end up a whole lot worse.
> 
> ...




even if those possible consequences could involve a prison sentence, which in turn has been more likely to ensure further problems, rather  rehabilitation / reform ?


----------



## BlackArab (Jan 3, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> He didn't.
> He speculated that it *might* be a factor. hence his use of "perhaps".
> 
> I know quite a w/c few parents who'd have done that, in fact my own did, exactly once, with my older brother. The shit the Old Bill gave my brother from then on convinced my parents they'd been fucking stupid. It's the nature of people who've only had tangential dealings with the OB to assume the essential decency of the OB. This is often a big mistake, as they're not only often thieves and thugs themselves, but are in a position to be incredibly vindictive.



My old dear had no such illusions about the police just obvious concerns about the path to crime so many of my peers were caught up in.


----------



## TopCat (Jan 4, 2012)

grit said:


> Its nothing to do with class, its about protecting your child. I got up to a lot of mischief which upset my very middle class parents, however both parents always said to me that they would always fight to keep me out of prison.


I would lie, cheat, steal, whatever to protect my kids from going to prison.


----------



## Joe Reilly (Jan 4, 2012)

BlackArab said:


> Whereas I know quite a few wc parents including mine who would dragged their kids screaming down to the copshop if they thought it might prevent their kids going further off the rails. Really don't see how smokedout comes to that conclusion.



That's wc parents who have never had any interaction with the police. Anyone that has would steer well clear.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 6, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Didn't the girl in question nick 2 left trainers or am I thinking of someone else? How is this a crime against the police?
> and if the person wasn't already known to the police, I'd bet there is little chance of them managing to identify them from cctv and other footage from the night.
> 
> anyway.. lets look at two recent cases, both of people putting up riot event/pages on facebook. two people pleaded guilty and got 4 years. One pleaded not guilty and got found not guilty. of course this is slightly different, as there is no handing into police involved cos it's facebook, so the police can easily identify the people involved.
> ...



But it wasn’t just cctv etc, the girl (she was actually18 and was, I think, throwing stuff at a police car as well as nicking stuff) was shown doing what she did on television news, so the chances that somebody who knew her, lived near her, or someone angry about the impact of the riots on their community recognising her and identifying her to the police would have been very high. 

It makes me angry that the courts are now sending out a clear message that there will be no leniency even if somebody does decide to co-operate. 

But you're right, pleading not guilty seems to work in the defendant's favour in these cases, not that there would've been much point in this particular case with the filmed evidence.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 6, 2012)

cantsin said:


> even if those possible consequences could involve a prison sentence, which in turn has been more likely to ensure further problems, rather rehabilitation / reform ?



I'm not talking minor stuff like shoplifting, but if they committed a serious crime then yes, they know they'd probably end up in prison if they were old enough. It’s called deterrent. Hopefully they have no intention of either committing crime or of going to prison.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 6, 2012)

TopCat said:


> I would lie, cheat, steal, whatever to protect my kids from going to prison.



No matter what they'd done?


----------



## TopCat (Jan 6, 2012)

Andrew Hertford said:


> No matter what they'd done?


Yup.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 6, 2012)

Andrew Hertford said:


> But it wasn’t just cctv etc, the girl (she was actually18 and was, I think, throwing stuff at a police car as well as nicking stuff) was shown doing what she did on television news, so the chances that somebody who knew her, lived near her, or someone angry about the impact of the riots on their community recognising her and identifying her to the police would have been very high.
> 
> It makes me angry that the courts are now sending out a clear message that there will be no leniency even if somebody does decide to co-operate.
> 
> But you're right, pleading not guilty seems to work in the defendant's favour in these cases, not that there would've been much point in this particular case with the filmed evidence.



Is the the girl in question? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-16095252
The CCTV footage shown there which is stated as "the main evidence" against her isn't very clear, if she denied it was her would it really be beyond reasonable doubt that it wasn't (without other evidence as well)?  I don't know, perhaps the video on the BBC site is not as clear as the original footage or the photo that was released from it.
There's no mention of throwing stuff at a police car, perhaps there is a different case?  Certainly she was jailed for stealing two shoes (which she threw away almost immediately - presumably having realised they were both left foot), and not for violent disorder or whatever they'd charge them with for throwing stuff at a police car (I think there is a charge called "rioting" actually which is the most serious of the set of charges that violent disorder is part of (affray is one of the others).

Anyway, since handing yourself in and pleading guilty doesn't seem to gain you anything over waiting to see if they catch you then deciding whether to plead guilty or not guilty, pleading not guilty in the hope that the CPS fuck up or decide that actually it's not in the public interest to prosecute (very unlikely in case of the riots), or that the "that's not me" defence will be enough for enough jurors (if it's a crown court case, which this wouldn't be afaik) to go for reasonable doubt.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 9, 2012)

This was the one:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/872150-...a-ives-in-frenzied-attack-during-london-riots


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jan 9, 2012)

TopCat said:


> Yup.



No doubt the parents of Gary Dobson and David Norris would've agreed with you.


----------



## scifisam (Jan 9, 2012)

Andrew Hertford said:


> My original point (ignored for effect by everyone else) was just that, that the sentences are far too severe in comparison to similar crimes not in the context of a riot. I don't know whether the mum involved expected such a sentence but like you I don't suppose she did. What she expected by coming clean to the police, naively you might say, was that her daughter would stand a better chance of receiving a fairer punishment in return. Presented with the damning evidence on TV, you can see why she made that decision and imo most parents would've done the same.
> 
> My gripe is with the courts who're now sending out the message that it'll make no difference to the severity of your punishment whether you hand yourself in, or wait for the cops to find you. The risk is that the apprehension of criminals will be that much harder in future.
> 
> ...



I agree that the mother probably didn't expect the result to be as severe, and I agree that the severity of the sentencing might make people less likely to shop even those who actually do merit it, but how on Earth would the Mum shopping her have made any difference to her sentence?

I wouldn't have shopped anyone for nicking stuff in the riots. Nobody. Not even the little shits round here.

This wasn't like dragging a 7-year-old back to the corner shop to apologise to the owner because they snuck some juicy fruits up their sleeve and they just get a highly-embarrassing telling-off. The daughter threw stuff at a a police car and she was 18 - that is never going to get you just a caution - unless, perhaps, you're very rich and well-connected. But it's also not the kind of thing where I would think 'oh this person is a danger to others, better get her off the streets!'

And I am a parent.


----------



## BigTom (Jan 9, 2012)

Andrew Hertford said:


> This was the one:
> http://www.metro.co.uk/news/872150-...a-ives-in-frenzied-attack-during-london-riots



ah, we're talking about different people then.  There's part of me that says that if it's very clear that you are going to get identified then you might do better to hand yourself in, but tbh I would prefer to take the risk of someone grassing me, I wouldn't grass on someone for any of what she did, and I would hope that others wouldn't either.  I do more or less agree with you that the chances are that if you are clearly caught on camera, someone who knows you will report it.  I reckon I'd rather take my chances, get rid of any evidence, and hope that no-one does me in, or that if they do the cps don't proceed with the case or are incompetent.

In theory, handing youself in, pleading guilty, you should get a lesser sentence.  But that wasn't going to happen for the riots, especially since the first ones to get a sentence doled out are those who plead guilty, and they are the ones who take the political backlash against the rioters, the need that politicians (and possibly courts) feel to be taking a stand (bad expression but I'm sure people know what I mean, I can't think of the right words).


----------



## cemertyone (Jan 11, 2012)

BigTom said:


> ah, we're talking about different people then. There's part of me that says that if it's very clear that you are going to get identified then you might do better to hand yourself in, but tbh I would prefer to take the risk of someone grassing me, I wouldn't grass on someone for any of what she did, and I would hope that others wouldn't either. I do more or less agree with you that the chances are that if you are clearly caught on camera, someone who knows you will report it. I reckon I'd rather take my chances, get rid of any evidence, and hope that no-one does me in, or that if they do the cps don't proceed with the case or are incompetent.
> quote]
> 
> Your right not to give yourself in..(despite what Andrew silly bollocks tells you) After the violence at the N-30 Euston thing
> ...


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 1, 2012)

Things still not great on the Pembury Estate in Hackney:
http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/new...s_mount_on_hackney_s_pembury_estate_1_1194995


----------



## JHE (Feb 1, 2012)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Things still not great on the Pembury Estate in Hackney:
> http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/new...s_mount_on_hackney_s_pembury_estate_1_1194995



Perhaps there was a time when the Pembury Estate was not an impoverished drug and thug-infested dump, but I don't know when that was.  When I used to live near there, it was notorious.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Feb 1, 2012)

JHE said:


> Perhaps there was a time when the Pembury Estate was not an impoverished drug and thug-infested dump, but I don't know when that was. When I used to live near there, it was notorious.



Well I'm not suggesting we should look back to an idealised Pembury, more that the conditions which caused the riots are still very much there...


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 16, 2012)

"Hackney Hero" Pauline Pearce is now running for Hackney Council. For the lib dems. 

http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/heroine_of_hackney_pauline_runs_for_council_1_1240345


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Mar 16, 2012)

Has anyone on here read David Lammy's book?
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Ashes-B...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331911924&sr=1-1


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 16, 2012)

Fozzie Bear said:


> "Hackney Hero" Pauline Pearce is now running for Hackney Council. For the lib dems.
> 
> http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/heroine_of_hackney_pauline_runs_for_council_1_1240345


 
I was once on the same FE college course as Pauline back in the 1980's.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 22, 2012)




----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 23, 2012)

JHE said:


> Perhaps there was a time when the Pembury Estate was not an impoverished drug and thug-infested dump, but I don't know when that was. When I used to live near there, it was notorious.


that's because it would be before your time


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 23, 2012)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Things still not great on the Pembury Estate in Hackney:
> http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/new...s_mount_on_hackney_s_pembury_estate_1_1194995


 
it was bad in the 70s and early 80s too


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 23, 2012)

my college was going to  do NEET  training.

but there is no money in it so we're not any more


----------



## JHE (Mar 23, 2012)

Do people need training to be NEETs?


----------



## coley (Mar 23, 2012)

gunneradt said:


> it was bad in the 70s and early 80s too


Jeez, who would want to live in London?


----------



## gunneradt (Mar 23, 2012)

coley said:


> Jeez, who would want to live in London?


 not me anymore


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Mar 23, 2012)

JHE said:


> Do people need training to be NEETs?


 
depends on what you mean by neet

personally i first heard about NEETs  thought  manga  so  my  impression of NEETism is  heavaly coloured.


plus   i have  been teaching on jobcenter funded courses fort 5 years  so  i have a  slightly diffrent perspective from most


(actually  most 25+  students on  JC courses  are a dream to teach.  the major  problem is  young uns.    it's  so bloody difficult to get engagement)


----------

