# Is there a reason for the riots?



## 1%er (Aug 8, 2011)

BBC world news reports politicians saying "It is opportunist criminal action", is that the case or are there other reasons for this unrest.

Reading these boards it seems times are hard in the Uk at the moment, so I was wondering if people are kicking back?

I've looked at the many threads about the local situations, but other than reading the first riot was as a result of a shooting by police, I can't see anything about the cause in these other areas.


----------



## miss.w (Aug 8, 2011)

just scum wanting to cause mayhem


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 8, 2011)

> *"'When you cut facilities, slash jobs, abuse power, discriminate, drive people into deeper poverty and shoot people dead whilst refusing to provide answers or justice, the people will rise up and express their anger and frustration if you refuse to hear their cries. A riot is the language of the unheard." Martin Luther King.
> *


This  ^^^^^^^ and opportunism.


----------



## Daniel (Aug 8, 2011)

People seeing whats happened over last few days and thought they want a bit of that action.


----------



## belboid (Aug 8, 2011)

Lots of things.

Having had their communities shat upon for decades, massive inequalites of wealth, power, opportunities. Take away the EMA, close all the youth centres, no job opportunities.  Why not riot?


----------



## Geri (Aug 8, 2011)

I think there are different reasons for different people.


----------



## Eva Luna (Aug 8, 2011)

For me its this -

Did the Police wrongfully shoot that young man?
But did he have his gun out?
Did they believe he was a threat?
Even if he did not seem to be a threat / or even if he was a threat - have people had enough of police brutality from years ago?
Is there still police brutality?
Do people behave like shits tho?
Do they commit crime and then lie?
Are we too lenient?
Do we not understand the real reasons behind crime?
Do people who commit crimes rely on that?

I think these are some of the questions.

But I would add that imo there is a massive aspect of British society that behaves like shit.  Maybe they have learned it, maybe not.


----------



## Eva Luna (Aug 8, 2011)

belboid said:


> Lots of things.
> 
> Having had their communities shat upon for decades, massive inequalites of wealth, power, opportunities. Take away the EMA, close all the youth centres, no job opportunities. Why not riot?



Why is the state responsible for us tho?  Are we not responsible for ourselves?

I can see what you're saying but really, get out.  If you don't like it, get out and make a go of it yourself.


----------



## killer b (Aug 8, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> Why is the state responsible for us tho? Are we not responsible for ourselves?
> 
> I can see what you're saying but really, get out. If you don't like it, get out and make a go of it yourself.


on a fucking bicycle.


----------



## belboid (Aug 8, 2011)

Because that is what the state is for.

And get out of what? That comment makes zero sense. Dont you think people would if they could?


----------



## Eva Luna (Aug 8, 2011)

The state is not there for that.  Thats giving away your power, expecting someone else to come thro for you.  Many many people have lifted themselves out of situations.  There is a faction here who think they are owed a living.

However there is a history at work imo and yes those with power / the police (their tools) have misused it.  I just dont buy that this is all about that.  I think its people wanting trouble / a laugh / something free.


----------



## miss.w (Aug 8, 2011)

theres lots of people who have been given the opportunies i could only dream of and its not been enough.


----------



## roctrevezel (Aug 8, 2011)

belboid said:


> Lots of things.
> 
> Having had their communities shat upon for decades, massive inequalites of wealth, power, opportunities. Take away the EMA, close all the youth centres, no job opportunities. Why not riot?


 
Plus  government(s)/media 20 year propaganda hate campaign about "scroungers" and "fraud" which has now put the working poor attacking the non working poor. Divide and rule.


----------



## killer b (Aug 8, 2011)

miss.w said:


> theres lots of people who have been given the opportunies i could only dream of and its not been enough.



sweet jesus. fuck off.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 8, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> I just dont buy that this is all about that. I think its people wanting trouble / a laugh / something free.


 Of course there is this too. Many of those out kicking off  though are definately amongst those who don't have/don't see they have choices/opportunities.


----------



## belboid (Aug 8, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> The state is not there for that. Thats giving away your power, expecting someone else to come thro for you. Many many people have lifted themselves out of situations. There is a faction here who think they are owed a living.
> 
> However there is a history at work imo and yes those with power / the police (their tools) have misused it. I just dont buy that this is all about that. I think its people wanting trouble / a laugh / something free.


The state is precisely there to support things communities require, it is (or should be) the whole point of the state.  It should be there to ensure that even working class kids from Tottenham can afford go to college, can have youth centres to provide opportunities to youth who'd otherwise have nothing else to do.  It's the states role to support _all_ its citizens, not to discriminate against segments of it.


----------



## N_igma (Aug 8, 2011)

miss.w said:


> theres lots of people who have been given the opportunies i could only dream of and its not been enough.



It's like something from a Daily Fail column. Completely baseless statement that means fuck all.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 8, 2011)

miss.w said:


> theres lots of people who have been given the opportunies i could only dream of and its not been enough.



Thick bitch you wouldn't know what to do with opportunities if they knocked on your face.


----------



## miss.w (Aug 8, 2011)

lol, ffs you fucksticks, i wasnt fuckin serious.

love the insults of thick bitch etc... being thrown, least back in the day you got one post of debate prior to insults and abuse.  Tis great tobe back.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 8, 2011)

miss.w said:


> .
> 
> love the insults of thick bitch etc...



happy to help


----------



## miss.w (Aug 8, 2011)

Its almost arousing, keep it up ​


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 8, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> The state is not there for that. *Thats giving away your power*, expecting someone else to come thro for you. Many many people have lifted themselves out of situations. There is a faction here who think they are owed a living.



your 'power is directly contingent on your earnings in this society. Grow up. Or piss of and listen to 'search for the hero inside yourself' again.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 8, 2011)

miss.w said:


> Its almost arousing, keep it up ​



*rubs thighs*


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Aug 8, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> Why is the state responsible for us tho? Are we not responsible for ourselves?
> 
> I can see what you're saying but really, get out. *If you don't like it, get out and make a go of it yourself.*


How, how are people supposed to do this?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 8, 2011)

miss.w said:


> theres lots of people who have been given the opportunies i could only dream of and its not been enough.


 
Where the fuck are they all coming from? To use the Daily Mail language these fuckwits are so fond of, we're being "swamped" by right wing cock ends.


----------



## sim667 (Aug 8, 2011)

Agree with the media/cuts/shooting incidents...

Been building up since the terror laws IMHO, Charles de menezes and Ian Tomlinson cases might be contributing factors too.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 8, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Thick bitch you wouldn't know what to do with opportunities if they knocked on your face.



Eh 'Bitch'? I don't think that is necessary and makes you a dickhead.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Aug 8, 2011)

Geri said:


> I think there are different reasons for different people.


Agree with this.

Yes I am sure some of the looting is oppoetunistic but a lot of the anger that led to this situation is absolutely valid.

I watch the news, hear what is happening with the banks, see what this shower of shit government is doing in dismantaling what should be public services, read the lied about "scroungers" in the Fail etc..and I want to fucking riot. And I am someone who has had and still has opportunities!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 8, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Eh 'Bitch'? I don't think that is necessary and makes you a dickhead.


 I admit it


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 8, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I admit it



no need for a confession the evidence is overwhelmingly against you...


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 8, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> Why is the state responsible for us tho? Are we not responsible for ourselves?
> 
> I can see what you're saying but really, get out. If you don't like it, get out and make a go of it yourself.


You really are very irritating.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 8, 2011)




----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 8, 2011)

In my view there are two things going on.

Firstly there are some people who spend their lives poised on a knife edge waiting to dive off into total mayhem. They are being highlighted by the authorities but actually they are reacting to an "opportunity" to let go.

Mostly it's people who have been treated as worthless by the state for most of their life, and who have just been hit by yet another example of a justice system in which it appears that the lives and belongings of black and working class people are treated as having absolutely no value. If I was younger and healthier I might well be out there. I'm fed up to the back teeth with pompous arseholes in expensive suits telling me that when a policeman or a politician misbehaves there must be a full enquiry before anyone comments, and that as soon as there is any sign of any of the masses getting uppity it must be hit with the full force of the law immediately, no questions asked.

Fuck 'em. If burning down a shop is a crime that requires "our political leaders" to express their outrage by demanding the perpetrators be punished, then why isn't shooting dead a young black man a crime that requires a similar response. Obviously it's because the shop is owned by the sort of people who the government sees as its supporters, and the rest of us are simply scum with no value attached to our lives.

In those circumstances why the hell should anyone care about who they rob, what they destroy, who they harm. They are effectively being told by the rulers of the country that they are less than second class citizens who have no rights and no worth. What reason do they have to give a toss in that case?


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Aug 8, 2011)

rioting happens when  large numbers of people  feel angry and outcast

the reasons for this  can be  quite complex.

it's too easy to focus on the looting  whitch is more of a by product than a cause


----------



## where to (Aug 8, 2011)

lots of things, for different people as Geri says.

the scale is the immediate shock for me, i honestly never thought i would see this scale of rioting (etc) happening in broad daylight in mainland uk.

buildings on fire etc is horrific.  innocent people will be dying very soon if not already.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Aug 8, 2011)

Shippou-Sensei said:


> rioting happens when large numbers of people feel angry and outcast
> 
> the reasons for this can be quite complex.
> 
> *it's too easy to focus on the looting whitch is more of a by product than a cause*



Agree with this, people should be focusing on the causes of the riots and less on the looting


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 8, 2011)

It's by no means the first time it's happened !

(@ where to btw)


----------



## Flanflinger (Aug 8, 2011)

Don't these idiots realise their actions encourage this kind of shite.

http://soundoff.boardhost.com/viewforum.php?id=2


----------



## likesfish (Aug 8, 2011)

summer boredom people with nothing better to do.
 people who are angry may not no what they are angry about.


----------



## roctrevezel (Aug 8, 2011)

where to said:


> lots of things, for different people as Geri says.
> 
> the scale is the immediate shock for me, i honestly never thought i would see this sort of rioting (etc) happening in broad daylight in mainland uk.



Personally I have been expecting it to kick off for long time now, the way all young people have been demonised for decades is a disgrace.
The majority are decent, but get tarred with the same brush as the handful (as a percentage)  who do cause problems.
I am old enough for a bus pass by the way.


----------



## geminisnake (Aug 8, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> The state is not there for that. Thats giving away your power, expecting someone else to come thro for you. Many many people have lifted themselves out of situations. There is a faction here who think they are owed a living.
> 
> However there is a history at work imo and yes those with power / the police (their tools) have misused it. I just dont buy that this is all about that. I think its people wanting trouble / a laugh / something free.



Eh?? WTF are we paying taxes for then?? We live in a massively taxed country, there is a tax on virtually everything so why shouldn't we expect something BACK for all this tax?? Even unemployed people pay tax. Labour tried to make this country into a nanny state so it's no wonder young folk who've known feck all but a Labour Govt expect things that they probably aren't going to get.

It's not the rioters that fucked up this country, it was the bankers and their politican friends who deregulating banking and allowed the obscene milking of the country and its virtaul assets.
For years the Govt has been useless, the Police have been useless, the banks have been useless, do I need to continue??


----------



## unusual_solid (Aug 8, 2011)

no idea but it went nuts in croydon earlier and probably still is i myself vindicated a nice amp from rock bottom and sold it half an hour ago. fuck it if people are displeased it won't take alot to set thewm off.


----------



## roctrevezel (Aug 8, 2011)

likesfish said:


> summer boredom people with nothing better to do.
> people who are angry may not no what they are angry about.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 8, 2011)

One of the things which might have contributed is the media coverage. I was watching Sky news yesterday and I thought their coverage was pretty inflammatory, stoking the flames basically. Open encouragement.  It makes good tv.


----------



## where to (Aug 8, 2011)

reasons evolve.

right now it is obvious that in London the Police are totally outnumbered and overwhelmed.  imo looting is now happening in new areas where people know they will be able to get away with it.  the big forensic surveys they do/ pretend to do will never be repeated in the numbers of areas now being touched by this.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 8, 2011)

I detect the rows breaking out about motivation and character of looters and rioters (not here but generally) Let' not fall out about what to make of looters and rioters. We can have opinions about motivation and whether they are criminals, victims of capitalism or both. But the more we get taken in by the disagreement the more the real looters will laugh their heads off. The biggest heist in history continues apace as finance capital continues to hoover up real wealth via their funny money scams. Let's not forget that please.


----------



## kmarxs&sparks (Aug 8, 2011)

I'm still very limited in information but it's looking like a combination of factors from simple bastardism to long term social problems.
Commentaries are suggesting a large population without proper family support, low chance of real work, drug abuse and various other crap that would allow this sort of thing to kick off.
The answer, whatever that turns out to be, is going to take years to put together if it's ever found at all.
In the immortal words of the Kaiser chiefs, sort of, "I predict more riots".
COBRA is in session and the cops are running out of people so I, not Greenday, predict troops on the streets if this carries on for another couple of nights.


----------



## Zabo (Aug 8, 2011)

Why isn't the none elected Head Of State, The Queen, not making a mollifying speech at a time when her people need her wise words and comfort?

I am not impressed.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 8, 2011)

Police have basically lost control, did so sometime this afternoon when they ran out of bodies.

The rest is bullshit until Cameron gets back.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 8, 2011)

where to said:


> reasons evolve.
> 
> right now it is obvious that in London the Police are totally outnumbered and overwhelmed. imo looting is now happening in new areas where people know they will be able to get away with it. the big forensic surveys they do/ pretend to do will never be repeated in the numbers of areas now being touched by this.



They seem to be deliberately not putting proper numbers of OB on the streets. If there was a Anti-Capitalist demo on in town there'd be fucking thousands of filth.


----------



## Zabo (Aug 8, 2011)

"If there was a Anti-Capitalist demo on in town there'd be fucking thousands of filth."

I wonder if this semi-laid back attitude has anything to do with the impending police cuts? "There, you bastards, we told you so, didn't we?"


----------



## miss.w (Aug 8, 2011)

OB have drafted in loads of sussex officers, most of the officers out uesterday had been working a full day straight so they gotta have a break. Added to the fact that they cant do fuck all as  no ne in power have balls.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 8, 2011)

Yeah I'm surprised the Filth seem so outnumbered this early in the game...


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 8, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Police have basically lost control, did so sometime this afternoon when they ran out of bodies.
> 
> The rest is bullshit until Cameron gets back.


A minor but wonderful part... I don't think Cameron gets to leave the UK for longer than a few days anymore. 

Where the fuck is he. Riots on the fucking streets. Hold on...



> *9.19pm:* The prime minister will return to London, the BBC is reporting. He will fly overnight. Earlier Downing Street said Cameron had no plans to cut short his holiday.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Aug 8, 2011)

It seems simple and obvious to me that if a society takes no interest in it's people then those people will have no interest in society. If you demonise the already dispossessed, if you make people feel insecure, if you threaten to force people out of their homes and highlight their powerlessness at every opportunity they will rebel.
Its so simplistic that Nick Clegg predicted these riots in April 2010, saying that pushing through such drastic cuts as the Tories proposed might incite such anger as seen in Greece.
Lo and behold.


----------



## story (Aug 8, 2011)

> _*"'When you cut facilities, slash jobs, abuse power, discriminate, drive people into deeper poverty and shoot people dead whilst refusing to provide answers or justice, the people will rise up and express their anger and frustration if you refuse to hear their cries. A riot is the language of the unheard." Martin Luther King. *_





Rutita1 said:


> This ^^^^^^^ and opportunism.



Seems to me that if I look at things from a wider perspective, if I consider society as a single entity, then it makes sense:

We have cuts, increasing poverty, unwanted war and the blatant disregard of those in power, who are meanwhile getting fat on expenses, bonuses and misappropriated taxes. Attempts at reasonable discussion were undertaken by those best able to hold reasonable discussion: the mainly-white, better-educated middle classes (peaceful marches, letter campaigns, worthy discussion in the media etc.)

When that reasonable discussion made was ignored, anger increased. The single entity started shouting and banging the table top. (I'd date this to the student protests and the direct action of the Anti Cuts campaign.)

Now that the anger has developed into incoherent rage, those members of society who are least able to communicate coherent cogent reasoned arguments (the young, the ill-educated, the disenfranchised) are expressing the feelings of the single entity.

It looks to me as if it's all part of a single trajectory.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 8, 2011)

Whooo, go Shifty!


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Aug 8, 2011)

Zabo said:


> "If there was a Anti-Capitalist demo on in town there'd be fucking thousands of filth."
> 
> I wonder if this semi-laid back attitude has anything to do with the impending police cuts? "There, you bastards, we told you so, didn't we?"


Crossed my mind as well. What a cynical pair...

Quite why police are guarding Oxford Street while fires rage through Croydon because fire crews cannot be protected is a mystery to me


----------



## story (Aug 8, 2011)

Because capitalism means that our most important assets are consumerables, innit.


----------



## little_legs (Aug 8, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Yeah I'm surprised the Filth seem so outnumbered this early in the game...



They are _outnumbered_ for the poor areas, if it were Bond Street or the Parliament they'd be thousands of police officers. People from Peckham were calling the local BBC since 7pm reporting property damage, beatings and theft. And pretty much every caller said until 8pm that they haven't seen a single police officer.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Aug 8, 2011)

Clegg and Cameron talking about this during the 2010 election. It's almost funny.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItK1izQIwo&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 8, 2011)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Clegg and Cameron talking about this during the 2010 election. It's almost funny.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItK1izQIwo&feature=youtube_gdata_player


Awesome, thanks.   That's going on fb.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 8, 2011)

Tessa Jowell..."This is Walthamstow, not Athens" with a smirk.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 9, 2011)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Clegg and Cameron talking about this during the 2010 election. It's almost funny.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItK1izQIwo&feature=youtube_gdata_player



Makes me feel all punchy


----------



## Batboy (Aug 9, 2011)

Reason for riots..... ? 

Just Do It!


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 9, 2011)

tbf, the police are definitely being kept busy.  Zooming up the hill and down the hill.   More go up than go down.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 9, 2011)

Excellent tweet by rory bemner
I blame Blackberrys. First the bankers, now the rioters. Same result.


----------



## dirtyfruit (Aug 9, 2011)

Society is to blame. We are all in it together etc


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Excellent tweet by rory bemner
> I blame Blackberrys. First the bankers, now the rioters. Same result.


Except the bankers caused far more havoc, and ended up with bonuses.


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 9, 2011)

Well a lot of rioters have got bonuses too.   It's relative.   Dixons are going to sell ALL of their batteries when they open back up.


----------



## dirtyfruit (Aug 9, 2011)

DexterTCN said:


> Well a lot of rioters have got bonuses too. It's relative. Dixons are going to sell ALL of their batteries when they open back up.


Compared to the massive con of us all being enslaved to banks, and also paying them for the privilege, these "riots" are nothing. In a strange way it's a good sign. Although I am glad no one has been injured so far I must add. There is a glimmer of hope twinkling in todays youth. Sadly the vast majority of them are even more enslave d to the bullshit propaganda of rampant capatilism them older generartions.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> Clegg and Cameron talking about this during the 2010 election. It's almost funny.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItK1izQIwo&feature=youtube_gdata_player



a quick paraphrase for those who can't face watching the smug gits talking ...

"I think suggesting that riots are a natural consequence of tory government is a terribly silly thing to say"

"We're not like Johnny Foreigner, we know that we need to have our communities destroyed by capitalism so that bankers can have fat bonuses and we accept this as the price of being British"


----------



## where to (Aug 9, 2011)

1700 police on the streets tonight in a city of 6-8million.  3000 or more for the final student demo last year.

you have to say whatever way you look at it that that is bloody odd.


----------



## Peter Dow (Aug 9, 2011)




----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 9, 2011)

Criminal looting, driven by naked self interest, greed and rampant immorality. All conducted with absolutely no regard for the misery that their violence inflicts on the rest of us.

But enough about the bankers.

To me its clearly down to alinated working class youth siezing an opportunity to give a massive fuck you to society, give some shit to the police and grab a fistful of comsumer goodies normally out of their reach. Its also a massive, exhilirating, glouriously enpowering buzz.

And why not? For years they've been written off as feckless scum, 'chavs', 'hoodies' etc (plus racist slurs for those of them from minority communities), cajoled into mc jobs or left to rot on the dole, low job prospects, the chance of bettering themselves through education made increasingly remote (scrapping EMA - possibly the shitest thing these thatherires retreads have done), constantly harrassed by the (corrupt) cops and hectored by the (corrupt) media and politicians.

Well now some of them they are having a brief outburst of ugly, violent payback.


----------



## gavman (Aug 9, 2011)

miss.w said:


> just scum wanting to cause mayhem


just scum posting brainless comments on a bulletin board


----------



## gavman (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> The state is not there for that. Thats giving away your power, expecting someone else to come thro for you. Many many people have lifted themselves out of situations. There is a faction here who think they are owed a living.
> 
> However there is a history at work imo and yes those with power / the police (their tools) have misused it. I just dont buy that this is all about that. I think its people wanting trouble / a laugh / something free.


when people have no stake in society they have nothing to lose by rioting. that should be self evident. you don't go out smashing up your town centre if you have a stake in it, or a job there


----------



## gavman (Aug 9, 2011)

miss.w said:


> lol, ffs you fucksticks, i wasnt fuckin serious.
> 
> love the insults of thick bitch etc... being thrown, least back in the day you got one post of debate prior to insults and abuse.  Tis great tobe back.


you've got the response you deserve. now flounce back off.

abuse then victimisation...are you liz jones?


----------



## fuck seals (Aug 9, 2011)

Greed, thrills, + monkey see/ monkey do.

Truely spineless scum.


----------



## Termite Man (Aug 9, 2011)

fuck seals said:


> Greed, thrills, + monkey see/ monkey do.
> 
> Truely spineless scum.


 
yeah it's that simple. Nothing to do with social inequality etc.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> just scum posting brainless comments on a bulletin board


 Just scum who would shit themselves if faced with yer actual riots


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

I'm surprised that I'm surprised at the reactions of people to the riots. All over facebook people are dismissing it as greedy, violent youth jumping on a bandwagon. How fucking thick do you have to be to believe that? I find it _truly_ depressing.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> when people have no stake in society they have nothing to lose by rioting. that should be self evident. you don't go out smashing up your town centre if you have a stake in it, or a job there


 When I spent a year unemployed, I was pissed off but I didn't blame everyone else or smash shit up


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> I'm surprised that I'm surprised at the reactions of people to the riots. All over facebook people are dismissing it as greedy, violent youth jumping on a bandwagon. How fucking thick do you have to be to believe that? I find it _truly_ depressing.



Neighbour nearly had heart attack last night, I suppose I should have reassured her by telling her it's a revolution, nothing to be worried about?


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

likesfish said:


> summer boredom people with nothing better to do.
> people who are angry may not no what they are angry about.



So why didn't it happen last Summer or the Summer before?


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Neighbour nearly had heart attack last night, I suppose I should have reassured her by telling her it's a revolution, nothing to be worried about?


Where did I say it's nothing to be worried about?


----------



## albionism (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> I'm surprised that I'm surprised at the reactions of people to the riots. All over facebook people are dismissing it as greedy, violent youth jumping on a bandwagon. How fucking thick do you have to be to believe that? I find it _truly_ depressing.


Yep, but what i find more depressing is stories of people being burnt out of their homes, like this poor fella at the bottom here.
I will not be surprised if people got burnt to death last night...I mean ffs, burning shops knowing that there are flats above them!...Now that is fucking mindless.


----------



## rollinder (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> I'm surprised that I'm surprised at the reactions of people to the riots. All over facebook people are dismissing it as greedy, violent youth jumping on a bandwagon. How fucking thick do you have to be to believe that? I find it _truly_ depressing.


people are fucking clueless (and now that doesn't mean I think what's happening right now - i.e torching peoples homes, destroying local independent businesses and risking lives - is alright.)


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> Where did I say it's nothing to be worried about?



You wait until it spreads to your idyllic fens and fields, madz


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

Can we still do mulitquote? 

Anyway - @ rollinder and albionism - the other thing I am finding deeply, deeply depressing is that if you somehow attempt to argue that there may be deep rooted reasons for the unrest people assume you're condoning it. I'm not condoning it. I'm attempting to understand why it's happening.


----------



## rollinder (Aug 9, 2011)

little_legs said:


> They are _outnumbered_ for the poor areas, if it were Bond Street or the Parliament they'd be thousands of police officers. People from Peckham were calling the local BBC since 7pm reporting property damage, beatings and theft. And pretty much every caller said until 8pm that they haven't seen a single police officer.



(if) police are deliberately letting/let things get this bad/out of control just to prove a fucking point & /or because someone's decided poor areas aren't worth protecting then they're scum.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> You wait until it spreads to your idyllic fens and fields, madz


a) It won't.
b) Grow the fuck up and read my posts _properly_.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

rollinder said:


> (if) police are deliberately letting/let things get this bad/out of control just to prove a fucking point & /or because someone's decided poor areas aren't worth protecting then they're scum.



As bad as the misfits behind this, yes.


----------



## rollinder (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> Can we still do mulitquote?
> 
> Anyway - @ rollinder and albionism - the other thing I am finding deeply, deeply depressing is that if you somehow attempt to argue that there may be deep rooted reasons for the unrest people assume you're condoning it. I'm not condoning it. I'm attempting to understand why it's happening.


I mean't it's _them_ that's clueless not you.


----------



## Termite Man (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> I'm not condoning it. I'm attempting to understand why it's happening.


 
and to stop it happening again.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> a) It won't.
> b) Grow the fuck up and read my posts _properly_.



It won't. Exactly.

This is not about a search for justice or a cry of rage, this is about opportunism. If you were here you'd be bloody terrified. And don't fucking swear at me


----------



## albionism (Aug 9, 2011)

For sure it's not happening without reason, and i could not particularly give a fuck if
chain stores get looted and police/police vehicles get damaged,
but the sheer recklessness of the arson i find astounding.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

They fucking smashed up our *oxfam* shop, for fucks sake. If that's not greed and wanton violence, I dunno what is.


----------



## Termite Man (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> It won't. Exactly.
> 
> This is not about a search for justice or a cry of rage, this is about opportunism. If you were here you'd be bloody terrified. And don't fucking swear at me



The opportunism to get something, and IIRC in poor areas there is more crime , so yes it may be opportunistic looting but there are causes to why people will act in this way and if you dismiss it solely as opportunism then you will never address the social inequalities that lead to not only these riots but the low level street crime/burglaries that are prevalent in the less well off areas of our cities.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> It won't. Exactly.
> 
> This is not about a search for justice or a cry of rage, this is about opportunism. If you were here you'd be bloody terrified. And don't fucking swear at me


If you _genuinely_ believe that this is 'just' about opportunisitic youth and you don't even attempt to scratch beneath what the media are telling you and questioning _why_ this is happening then I'm afraid to say you are a bit stupid. At _no_ point have I supported the actions of the rioters or claimed it's not terrifying for people who are experiencing it. What I am doing is suggesting that it isn't and couldn't be as simple as greedy, opportunisitic youth simply kicking off from boredom and fecklessness. I find it hard to believe that _anyone_ could write off the most widespread, violent civil unrest we've seen in our lifetimes as something as simple as that.

No swearing - was that ok?


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

rollinder said:


> I mean't it's _them_ that's clueless not you.


Yeah - I know


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> If you _genuinely_ believe that this is 'just' about opportunisitic youth and you don't even attempt to scratch beneath what the media are telling you and questioning _why_ this is happening then I'm afraid to say you are a bit stupid. At _no_ point have I supported the actions of the rioters or claimed it's not terrifying for people who are experiencing it. What I am doing is suggesting that it isn't and couldn't be as simple as greedy, opportunisitic youth simply kicking off from boredom and fecklessness. I find it hard to believe that _anyone_ could write off the most widespread, violent civil unrest we've seen in our lifetimes as something as simple as that.
> 
> No swearing - was that ok?



Civil unrest? Don't romanticise it, ffs. This has been enabled by twitter and other networking sites - it's new in that sense but it's no uprising. This is not LA, it's not the Arab Spring, it's not 1969 - it's chaos.

Sorry to see you falling for the leftist hype. Didn't have you down as so impressionable.


----------



## scifisam (Aug 9, 2011)

belboid said:


> Lots of things.
> 
> Having had their communities shat upon for decades, massive inequalites of wealth, power, opportunities. Take away the EMA, close all the youth centres, no job opportunities. Why not riot?



Yup. Many of the most painful cuts have been to services that affect young people. Then the media constantly goes on about how horrible kids are, how easy A-levels and GCSEs are, how bad kids are at everything ever. It should be empathy that stops you damaging stuff people have worked hard for, but many people (especially younger ones) need more than that; they need something to lose. For a lot of kids there _is_ no job, money, college place or even reputation for them to lose - why not smash things up and get some freebies? I bet most of the rioters don't have politics in mind, but politics is behind it all in the end.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Civil unrest? Don't romanticise it, ffs. This has been enabled by twitter and other networking sites - it's new in that sense but it's no uprising. This is not LA, it's not the Arab Spring, it's not 1969 - it's chaos.
> 
> Sorry to see you falling for the leftist hype. Didn't have you down as so impressionable.



And I didn't have you down as being quite so stupid. You live and learn eh?


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> And I didn't have you down as being quite so stupid. You live and learn eh?



I'm not going to argue with you of all people.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm not going to argue with you of all people.


Fine. Your pm's suggest you don't think I should hold an opinion because it isn't happening here. I suggest that you're a bit too close to it to be logical and have no interest in understanding why it happened - you just want to lash out. Have a think about how that feels and consider for a moment if that's how any of the youth who are rioting maybe feel.


----------



## killer b (Aug 9, 2011)

dave hill's blog makes some reasonable points

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehillblog/2011/aug/08/things-i-believe-about-london-riots


----------



## scifisam (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Civil unrest? Don't romanticise it, ffs. This has been enabled by twitter and other networking sites - it's new in that sense but it's no uprising. *This is not LA,* it's not the Arab Spring, it's not 1969 - it's chaos.
> 
> Sorry to see you falling for the leftist hype. Didn't have you down as so impressionable.



I was caught up in a 'riot' (I didn't see much violence but apparently there was some and we were shut in a shop by the tooled-up riot cops) in LA last week. The cause? A band was meant to play, and didn't.


----------



## CNT36 (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> You wait until it spreads to your idyllic fens and fields, madz


I keep forgetting thats all cornwall is. Its all so fucking idyllic.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

CNT36 said:


> I keep forgetting thats all cornwall is. Its all so fucking idyllic.



Innit. Nothing more than fields, beaches and tractors.


----------



## killer b (Aug 9, 2011)

plus cider & incest.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Criminal looting, driven by naked self interest, greed and rampant immorality. All conducted with absolutely no regard for the misery that their violence inflicts on the rest of us.
> 
> But enough about the bankers.
> 
> ...



Quite ...

Why some insist that understanding the situation in those terms means 'condoning setting fire to little old ladies' or whatever, is something I find puzzling.


----------



## killer b (Aug 9, 2011)

i think some people are just very upset & angry bernie. it's a fairly explicable reaction to the events of the last few nights tbf.


----------



## CNT36 (Aug 9, 2011)

killer b said:


> plus cider & incest.


Do you work for the national trust or something?


----------



## killer b (Aug 9, 2011)

i do, but i post here in a personal capacity.


----------



## likesfish (Aug 9, 2011)

re Cornwall with out the Royal navy and tourists it would be Somali with pasties
  A lot of people who have no real stake in society think they can get away with it.
 first thing take the street back off the mob looting has got to be made to hurt.
 second thing is much harder cutting down the number of people who don't give a shit.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> And why not? For years they've been written off as feckless scum, 'chavs', 'hoodies' etc (plus racist slurs for those of them from minority communities), cajoled into mc jobs or left to rot on the dole, low job prospects, the chance of bettering themselves through education made increasingly remote (scrapping EMA - possibly the shitest thing these thatherires retreads have done), constantly harrassed by the (corrupt) cops and hectored by the (corrupt) media and politicians.


While being constantly shown consumerist porn: you want this, this, this and this.  Oh, but some of you can't have it.  You, there, you can't have it.

It amuses me when I hear BBC reporters (as I not long ago did) use "explanations" like "it wasn't local youths.  It was youths coming into the area.  It was just recreational looting".

"Just recreational looting".  It's like they don't want to understand what's going on.  _Of course_ it's recreational.  But if it's "just" recreational, why doesn't it happen every weekend?  It's "just" opportunist.  Well, _of course_ it's opportunist.  But if you think that's an _explanation_, then you're not trying very hard.  That's like looking at one pocketful of watches and not panning out to the whole scene.

Furthermore, to pick up on one point KT makes that won't be discussed by the morons with microphones standing in riot-torn streets: We've had over three decades now of the ravages of "Thatcherite retreads" inflicting their deep and lasting damage on communities.   Nobody flies back from Tuscany to address that.  No stunned news anchors sit on the sofa  gawping like goldfish in incomprehension at the daily effects of that.  There is no discussion of how policing might be brought to bear against those crimes.

So what language are people bearing the brunt of that supposed to use to be heard?  If the answer they give is loud, confused and ill-directed is it any wonder?  The only wonder is that it is so rarely voiced.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> Can we still do mulitquote?
> 
> Anyway - @ rollinder and albionism - the other thing I am finding deeply, deeply depressing is that if you somehow attempt to argue that there may be deep rooted reasons for the unrest people assume you're condoning it. I'm not condoning it. I'm attempting to understand why it's happening.



Funny enough I've just had that very conversation with my mother on the phone.  

There are deep rooted reasons for all this, but there's also elements of people joining in because they see others getting away with it and just want to grab what they can or burn something for the lolz, it's all very mixed up.

Trying to understand what has caused this and why it spread so fast and so wide is important, to do so doesn't mean you are condoning it in anyway whatsoever.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> There are deep rooted reasons for all this, but there's also elements of people joining in because they see others getting away with it and just want to grab what they can or burn something for the lolz, it's all very mixed up.


Why "but there's also"?


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Funny enough I've just had that very conversation with my mother on the phone.
> 
> There are deep rooted reasons for all this, but there's also elements of people joining in because they see others getting away with it and just want to grab what they can or burn something for the lolz, it's all very mixed up.
> 
> Trying to understand what has caused this and why it spread so fast and so wide is important, to do so doesn't mean you are condoning it in anyway whatsoever.



Exactly. How can it be condoned by anyone? Innocent people's lives being trashed and possibly only a matter of time before someone dies as a result. You can't put out a fire without knowing what caused it.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> Exactly. How can it be condoned by anyone? Innocent people's lives being trashed and possibly only a matter of time before someone dies as a result. You can't put out a fire without knowing what caused it.



Aha, but you can put out a fire without knowing what caused it. Dump a load of water on it. That's the pols line at the moment, of course.

You can prevent further fires later though....


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm not going to argue with you of all people.



I know what you mean, she's scary.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

5t3IIa said:


> Aha, but you can put out a fire without knowing what caused it. Dump a load of water on it. That's the pols line at the moment, of course.
> 
> You can prevent further fires later though....


I hope you're never first at the scene of a petrol fire then


----------



## Termite Man (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> I hope you're never first at the scene of a petrol fire then


or an electrical fire, or chip pan fire etc.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

Hang the DJ's.


----------



## past caring (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> While being constantly shown consumerist porn: you want this, this, this and this. Oh, but some of you can't have it. You, there, you can't have it.



This is true - but it goes deeper. Because the message is actually one of "It is what you have that is important, that signifies your success and worth as a human being. What you do, what you are - they don't signify."



> It amuses me when I hear BBC reporters (as I not long ago did) use "explanations" like "it wasn't local youths. It was youths coming into the area. It was just recreational looting".
> 
> "Just recreational looting". It's like they don't want to understand what's going on. _Of course_ it's recreational. But if it's "just" recreational, why doesn't it happen every weekend? It's "just" opportunist. Well, _of course_ it's opportunist. But if you think that's an _explanation_, then you're not trying very hard. That's like looking at one pocketful of watches and not panning out to the whole scene.
> 
> ...



There has always been and (unless we change this shitty society and start bringing about some serious shifts in the balance of power) always will be a lumpen element in working class communities. And that term can be fairly used to describe a large number (perhaps the majority) of those involved last night. But what has changed in the last thirty years is both the size of that lumpen element and its relative weight in working class communities. Much of the anti-social crime that has now become more or less accepted as the norm in many working class areas would not have tolerated when I was growing up - and much of the time it wouldn't have required the intervention of OB to stop it. But it did require a self-confident and self-aware working class that had an understanding of its own interests.

What has happened in the last thirty years has been, in many ways, quite deliberate. Not just that attack on working class organisation and the attack on the kind of work that organically gives rise to working class organisation - but that shift where now, in many areas, the anti-social element is allowed to dominate. The message being clear, even when not stated aloud - "Only the state can protect you from this".

No such thing as society? The chickens are fucking coming home to roost now.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

I think message is clear that the state can't protect you.


----------



## past caring (Aug 9, 2011)

A stronger state might. And there's enough mugs on here falling for that one already.


----------



## past caring (Aug 9, 2011)

.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I think message is clear that the state can't protect you.


And the State also says we're all in this together, so we're just going to have to cancel the EMA, privatise education and create the highest youth unemployment figures ever recorded.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

past caring said:


> This is true - but it goes deeper. Because the message is actually one of "It is what you have that is important, that signifies your success and worth as a human being. What you do, what you are - they don't signify."


Absolutely.



> Much of the anti-social crime that has now become more or less accepted as the norm in many working class areas would not have tolerated when I was growing up - and much of the time it wouldn't have required the intervention of OB to stop it. But it did require a self-confident and self-aware working class that had an understanding of its own interests.
> [...]
> No such thing as society? The chickens are fucking coming home to roost now.


Indeed, and the Thatcherites and quasi Thatcherites throwing their hands up in horror can't even begin to comprehend that it's _their doing_.  I've had conversations with people of that persuasion even before these riots about anti social behaviour and they refuse to accept it's their doing.


----------



## likesfish (Aug 9, 2011)

even the bloke who'd lost his family furniture store was blaming the politicians.
 whats happening is mayhem its not a revolution or a protest that's coherent.
  but a fuck load of teenagers who think looting is something you can do is a big big problem


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

Always someone else's fault, Danny?


----------



## roctrevezel (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> Indeed, and the Thatcherites and quasi Thatcherites throwing their hands up in horror can't even begin to comprehend that it's _their doing_. I've had conversations with people of that persuasion even before these riots about anti social behaviour and they refuse to accept it's their doing.



Don't forget the gap between rich and poor got even wider under Tory Mark Two, (New Labour.)


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Always someone else's fault, Danny?


What, you think it's mine?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> And the State also says we're all in this together, so we're just going to have to cancel the EMA, privatise education and create the highest youth unemployment figures ever recorded.



Who's on this together?

It clearly looks like every man for himself.


----------



## past caring (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Always someone else's fault, Danny?



Fuck off back to noncing women on the naked thread, Emo.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> What, you think it's mine?



As much yours as anyone else's.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> As much yours as anyone else's.


You're determined to miss every point going, are you?


----------



## Stoat Boy (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> Indeed, and the Thatcherites and quasi Thatcherites throwing their hands up in horror can't even begin to comprehend that it's _their doing_. I've had conversations with people of that persuasion even before these riots about anti social behaviour and they refuse to accept it's their doing.



For me I think people need to move on from being so partizan about this. I accept that I am, as somebody who defines himself as right winger, part of the problem. I was born and grew up in inner London and rather than get involved in trying to stop the rot I took the easy way out and moved out to the 'burbs. My kids go to schools that are predominantely mono-cultural and thats the way its going to stay. But I can see that attitudes like mine have contributed to this.

But I also think the left have as much blame to accept as well. They are the ones who to my mind have fucked up the educational system with their notions of social engineering. They are the ones who have promoted the 'rights' agenda over that of responsibility and a whole host of other things that seems to look for excuses for shit behaviour rather than solutions based on out dated notions of a class struggle. Dead Germans just dont cut it anymore when it comes to looking for solutions to modern problems.

'Urban' culture will happily smack me in the mouth as much as anybody on the left. Thats the point of it. Its outside of the system and as things stand politically I see nobody with any hope of bringing it under any sort of direction. It will happily loot a corporate retail park and then go on to smash up nice Mr Patels little offy.

It simply does not give a fuck. And thats bloody difficult to deal with.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> You're determined to miss every point going, are you?


It's his speciality.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> Indeed, and the Thatcherites and quasi Thatcherites throwing their hands up in horror can't even begin to comprehend that it's _their doing_. I've had conversations with people of that persuasion even before these riots about anti social behaviour and they refuse to accept it's their doing.



I think that's also part of reason for all the people screaming: "How dare you ask 'why?' this is happening rather than mindlessly denouncing the rioters as 'animals' and demanding draconian measures ... "

If you've got anything at all invested in neo-liberal ideology and you let yourself start thinking honestly for a _second_ about 'why?' large chunks of the country just got set on fire by kids who see absolutely no reason to give a shit for society, the result is likely to be uncomfortable ...

So screaming at the people who look for reasons and having psychopathically punitive fantasies about the rioters becomes a necessity, to sort of shout down that little voice inside saying 'oh shit what have we done ... ? '


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Stoat Boy said:


> For me I think people need to move on from being so partizan about this.


I'm not being partizan when I use the term "Thatcherism".  I was following another posters' lead.  I prefer the term neoliberalism, because it's more accurate, and includes the Labour Party and the LibDems, too.  They are _all_ to blame for the policies that have led us here.

The, btw, "left" didn't "fuck up the educational system", if by that you mean comprehensive education.  This is foreign affairs for me, because comprehensive education was universally adopted in Scotland by the state sector.  In England, however, a dog's breakfast prevailed, because of patchy uptake.  You can't really blame "the left" for that. But that's really a whole other thread.


----------



## likesfish (Aug 9, 2011)

The riots need to be crushed that's done by violence. Its quick and messy but works.
 The next bit is more tricky and harder defuse the mentality of I don't give a fuck


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> You're determined to miss every point going, are you?



What point did I miss, Danny?

Are you a part of this society?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Stoat Boy said:


> out dated notions of a class struggle


What is so outdated?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

past caring said:


> Fuck off back to noncing women on the naked thread, Emo.





madzone said:


> It's his speciality.



You know... you two are made for each other.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> What point did I miss, Danny?
> 
> Are you a part of this society?


It's like talking through Babelfish translations.  Do you think I blame everyone in society for the riots?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

Why not?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Because you shouldn't think that.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Aug 9, 2011)

Tweet from Andrew Neil:



> The intifada of the underclass. Politicians, police and media perplexed and unprepared.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Tweet from Andrew Neil:


Wow.


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> What is so outdated?


Marx never mentioned twitter.  Not once.  therefore he, and all his works, are now irrelevant.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)




----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Because you shouldn't think that.



Why not?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Why not?


Because I've outlined my views on the matter in this and other threads.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Wow.



He may be evil, but he's (evidently) not *stupid* ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> He may be evil, but he's not *stupid* ...


I expect him to _understand_ it. It's just that he'd _say_ it.  Especially in an allegedly popular medium.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Because I've outlined my views on the matter in this and other threads.



Then it should be simple to summarize.

I don't think you have answered why you are not a part of this society.


----------



## Big Gunz (Aug 9, 2011)

Feel sorry for the middle classes and their tasting menu http://www.runawaysquirrels.com/2011/08/london-riots-comes-to-the-ledbury/


----------



## dylans (Aug 9, 2011)

Tariq Ali on the riots



> Why is it that the same areas always erupt first, whatever the cause? Pure accident? Might it have something to do with race and class and institutionalised poverty and the sheer grimness of everyday life? The coalition politicians (including new New Labour, who might well sign up to a national government if the recession continues apace) with their petrified ideologies can’t say that because all three parties are equally responsible for the crisis. They made the mess.
> They privilege the wealthy. They let it be known that judges and magistrates should set an example by giving punitive sentences to protesters found with peashooters. They never seriously question why no policeman is ever prosecuted for the 1000-plus deaths in custody since 1990. Whatever the party, whatever the skin colour of the MP, they spout the same clichés. Yes, we know violence on the streets in London is bad. Yes, we know that looting shops is wrong. But why is it happening now? Why didn’t it happen last year? Because grievances build up over time, because when the system wills the death of a young black citizen from a deprived community, it simultaneously, if subconsciously, wills the response.



http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2011/08/09/tariq-ali/why-here-why-now/


----------



## love detective (Aug 9, 2011)

past caring said:
			
		

> This is true - but it goes deeper. Because the message is actually one of "It is what you have that is important, that signifies your success and worth as a human being. What you do, what you are - they don't signify."






			
				past caring said:
			
		

> There has always been and (unless we change this shitty society and start bringing about some serious shifts in the balance of power) always will be a lumpen element in working class communities. And that term can be fairly used to describe a large number (perhaps the majority) of those involved last night. But what has changed in the last thirty years is both the size of that lumpen element and its relative weight in working class communities. Much of the anti-social crime that has now become more or less accepted as the norm in many working class areas would not have tolerated when I was growing up - and much of the time it wouldn't have required the intervention of OB to stop it. But it did require a self-confident and self-aware working class that had an understanding of its own interests.



good post pc

it's no surprise that riots in a neo-liberalised society take on a neo-liberal form themselves

while it might be energising/liberating to see the police being so effectively sidelined and shown to be powerless in the face of a mass (albeit of atomised individuals) who share a common purpose - is there anything else positive that can be taken from what's happened, personally I'm struggling

as the logic & motivations of the riots seem to be derived from the very same logic & motivations of the society that 'produced' them, there doesn't seem to be much there to actually threaten or dent the foundational basis of the system that they are supposedly reacting against. sure we can all go on about how looters are bypassing & causing ruptures to the normal circuits and flows of capital, but that in and off itself doesn't mean there's anything progressive about it - organised crime does the same thing to an extent and no one sees anything liberating or progressive about that

at least in the past, forms of protest and revolt against the system emerged and had some kind of life span before they were eventually recouperated by capital, but this kind of thing doesn't even need to be recouperated as its starting point is already squarely in the individualist neo-liberalising camp already. Even looters themselves were being robbed of their gear (I saw this myself at the back of the argo warehouse in catford) - no sign of even a collective solidarity amongst the looters. What basis is that to genuinely hold the kind of optimism that some on the left seem to be getting from this - the only thing to come from this will be to further bolster the confidence of the lumpen elements that are already making life a misery for a large element of the working class proper. The notion that lefty (by having 'street meetings') can somehow harness and direct this towards something more progressive is absurd

fair enough any kind of riot or disturbance is going to be a messy complicated affair and you can't hold out for a perfect/textbook reaction to capital/the state - but all this seems to do is to further shine an already bright light on the complete & utter failure of any kind of progressive/radical alternative to what's happening to our society


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Then it should be simple to summarize.
> 
> I don't think you have answered why you are not a part of this society.


Again with the babelfish.  I have not once said I am not part of society.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

love detective said:


> good post pc
> 
> it's no surprise that riots in a neo-liberalised society take on a neo-liberal form themselves
> 
> ...



Your enemies enemy is not your friend.


----------



## magneze (Aug 9, 2011)

Rumour of parliament being recalled on Thursday on the BBC.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Again with the babelfish.  I have not once said I am not part of society.



So you are a part of this terrible society that you believe is the cause of the trouble?

Good. So not someone else's fault then?

Yours, mine, ours, right?


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 9, 2011)

magneze said:


> Rumour of parliament being recalled on Thursday on the BBC.



Confirmed now on Sky.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 9, 2011)

The promise of managerialism is that capital can free itself from the organised working class, that capital and not labour can be the subject of history. But the costs are high, because the social machinery of the capitalist class isn't really up to the task of taking over from the degraded processes of working class self-organisation.

The intention of the ruling class is of course to press on, and to (as usual) shift these additional costs onto the working class as a whole - further removing its resilience and requiring an ever-greater effort on the part of the capitalist apparatus to step into the breach.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Aug 9, 2011)

love detective said:


> good post pc
> 
> it's no surprise that riots in a neo-liberalised society take on a neo-liberal form themselves
> 
> ...



Good post

I've just been thinking about it all for the last couple of hours.

It's a really interesting event. It's like an old school 18th century riot where the authorities lose control for days on end

The London Mob Stalks The Streets Again!

There's total lumpen elements in the centre of it though so if anybody on wants to celebrate it as a positive political event (as expected, there have been some) then they are going to get a shock when the mob come for them in their beds

Where's Butchers?


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Aug 9, 2011)

What with record plunges in shares at the same time it's watching some sort of disaster film! (but with me as the victim)


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> What with record plunges in shares at the same time it's watching some sort of disaster film! (but with me as the victim)



Yes ---- & the media aren't making the connections.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> So you are a part of this terrible society that you believe is the cause of the trouble?
> 
> Good. So not someone else's fault then?
> 
> Yours, mine, ours, right?


Why do you insist on pretending you think I said the riots are "somebody else's" fault?  I've outlined what I think, and your "replies" bear no relation at all to what I've said.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 9, 2011)

Parliament re-called for a day.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> Yes ---- & the media aren't making the connections.


Indeed.  (I think this has been covered in another thread - it's hard to keep up with which is which - and Bernie Gunther did a good job of going into detail).


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Why do you insist on pretending you think I said the riots are "somebody else's" fault?  I've outlined what I think, and your "replies" bear no relation at all to what I've said.



I'm looking to see what level of responsibility you will accept for the society you are part of.

I've seen none, so far.

Not just you, mind, but you, at least, have the smarts enough to be able to answer.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Indeed. (I think this has been covered in another thread - it's hard to keep up with which is which - and Bernie Gunther did a good job of going into detail).



Agreed


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Aug 9, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> Yes ---- & the media aren't making the connections.



That is what grimly amuses me as well. All the news reports with the stories side by side and no one goes "Hang on..."

Also watching Teresa May et al last night just served to emphasis, for me, the 'them and us' eliteness that exists in society. I know that it has been around for eons but in the last few days it has been just so visceral.


----------



## Santino (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet, take your cock-waving non-argument somewhere else, there's a poppet.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 9, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> That is what grimly amuses me as well. All the news reports with the stories side by side and no one goes "Hang on..."
> 
> Also watching Teresa May et al last night just served to emphasis, for me, the 'them and us' eliteness that exists in society. I know that it has been around for eons but in the last few days it has been just so visceral.



Quite


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I'm looking to see what level of responsibility you will accept for the society you are part of.


Why?


----------



## Garek (Aug 9, 2011)

love detective said:


> it's no surprise that riots in a neo-liberalised society take on a neo-liberal form themselves



Agree with the rest of your post, but this sums it up nicely. This is what rioting looks like when there is no cohesive background narrative of solidarity or aim. This was just a mob taking what they want. There has always been looting in riots, but this looks like the first time (in modern history) the looting was an explicit main aim.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

What is a communist riot?


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 9, 2011)

the sovereign violence of the proletarian general strike


----------



## Ich bin ein Mod (Aug 9, 2011)

likesfish said:


> re Cornwall with out the Royal navy and tourists it would be Somali with pasties
> A lot of people who have no real stake in society think they can get away with it.
> first thing take the street back off the mob looting has got to be made to hurt.
> second thing is much harder cutting down the number of people who don't give a shit.



First thing won't mean a jot til the underlying causes of the second are dealt with.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> What is a communist riot?


It'd be politically motivated or directed.  This isn't.  It's individualist.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

Fruitloop said:


> the sovereign violence of the proletarian general strike



So no looting?


----------



## Idris2002 (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I think message is clear that the state can't protect you.



I was thinking about this in relation to the idea of the army being sent in. In the north of Ireland, rioting tended to occur at strategic points in the urban environment - points to which the army could be deployed, and where the army and rioters could physically engage each other. This London rioting seems far more diffuse and unfocussed, so that might not be a feasible option in this case - and even in the north of Ireland, the army and the local militarised police force (RUC) and militia (UDR) contained (and participated in) violence, it never eliminated it. Even the largest army in the world can't be everywhere at once. . .


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 9, 2011)

proletarian shopping has a long history. depends what you're stealing and from whom, though.


----------



## Boppity (Aug 9, 2011)

belboid said:


> Lots of things.
> 
> Having had their communities shat upon for decades, massive inequalites of wealth, power, opportunities. Take away the EMA, close all the youth centres, no job opportunities. Why not riot?



I think you're giving alot of people too much credit.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 9, 2011)

Idris2002 said:


> I was thinking about this in relation to the idea of the army being sent in. In the north of Ireland, rioting tended to occur at strategic points in the urban environment - points to which the army could be deployed, and where the army and rioters could physically engage each other. This London rioting seems far more diffuse and unfocussed, so that might not be a feasible option in this case - and even in the north of Ireland, the army and the local militarised police force (RUC) and militia (UDR) contained (and participated in) violence, it never eliminated it. Even the largest army in the world can't be everywhere at once. . .


So many more people in London as well, it's a different ballgame.

Paris might be a better model. I remember a lot of Guardian professional blethers talking about what was do fundamentally different about UK society that stuff like the French riots never happened here.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Boppity said:


> I think you're giving alot of people too much credit.


For what?  Not rioting more often?  Not rioting when there's every provocation?  The question is why do more people not riot more often?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Why?



Because we are all responsible in some part.

From a general lack of respect for each other to a downright disregard of any other point of view.

Right down to the pig ignorant attitudes of the likes of Santino and past caring that just tell people to fuck off that they don't agree with...

... this generation have grown up watching our generation.

Not surprising, then, that they want to burn it all down.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> From a general lack of respect for each other to a downright disregard of any other point of view.


I'd agree.  In fact, if you'd read my posts on this subject, and on antisocial behaviour, over the years, you'd know that.

However, I don't agree with your hypothesis for where this stems from.  In fact, you don't appear to have one.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

I have read your posts... that's why I am discussing it with you.

As for a hypothesis for where this stems from... well, that's really easy.

Circumstances.

Do you think the fact that it's the summer holidays has had an effect, for example?


----------



## Giles (Aug 9, 2011)

ShiftyBagLady said:


> It seems simple and obvious to me that if a society takes no interest in it's people then those people will have no interest in society. If you demonise the already dispossessed, if you make people feel insecure, if you threaten to force people out of their homes and highlight their powerlessness at every opportunity they will rebel.
> Its so simplistic that Nick Clegg predicted these riots in April 2010, saying that pushing through such drastic cuts as the Tories proposed might incite such anger as seen in Greece.
> Lo and behold.



How should "society" "take an interest" in people?

No-one from society has, as far as I can tell, "taken an interest" in me, everything I have done or achieved I have done by myself.

These people need to be shot.

Giles..


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Aug 9, 2011)

> 11.31am: My Cairo colleague Jack Shenker draws our attention to a story on the website of Press TV, a broadcaster funded by the Iranian government. It seems Tehran is urging the British police to exercise restraint when dealing with the protesters:
> 
> Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast urged the British government to order the police to stop their violent confrontation with the people, IRNA reported in the early hours of Tuesday.
> 
> ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Do you think the fact that it's the summer holidays has had an effect, for example?


Yes, of course.  But if that was enough, why aren't there riots every summer holiday?  Or, in fact, every holiday, or even every weekend?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

Giles said:


> No-one from society has, as far as I can tell, "taken an interest" in me, everything I have done or achieved I have done by myself.
> These people need to be shot.
> 
> Giles..



Do you honestly believe this?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

Giles said:


> How should "society" "take an interest" in people?
> 
> No-one from society has, as far as I can tell, "taken an interest" in me, everything I have done or achieved I have done by myself.
> 
> ...



Ah, so you walk everywhere and eschew all forms of technology and artifice that you have not yourself created? You need to be shot, in the face, with a load of wank.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Giles said:


> These people need to be shot.


Excellent.  Then what?


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 9, 2011)

ignore the clown


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Excellent. Then what?


Then we riot of course. Repeat to fade....


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> > _11.31am: My Cairo colleague Jack Shenker draws our attention to a story on the website of Press TV, a broadcaster funded by the Iranian government. It seems Tehran is urging the British police to exercise restraint when dealing with the protesters:_
> > _
> > Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast urged the British government to order the police to stop their violent confrontation with the people, IRNA reported in the early hours of Tuesday.
> >
> > ...



I think they lifted that from the Daily Mash.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, of course.  But if that was enough, why aren't there riots every summer holiday?  Or, in fact, every holiday, or even every weekend?



There may well be from now on.

But, holidays was an example of circumstances... there are a number... some major, some minor... but all circumstantial.

The advent of Twitter and YouTube... the general air of public dissatisfaction, the recent large scale demonstrations, the constant doom and gloom from the media and from us. The general lack of societal cohesiveness.

Fuck it... even down to the fact that neighbourhoods are fracturing as people find communities that are powerful online.... but weak geographically.

Blaming it entirely on the politics of the last 30 years is totally missing the point of everyday life is society.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 9, 2011)

Giles said:


> How should "society" "take an interest" in people?
> 
> No-one from society has, as far as I can tell, "taken an interest" in me,



that's because you're a cunt


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Fuck it... even down to the fact that neighbourhoods are fracturing


"_Fuck it ...even_"?  I'd say that was pretty high up the list.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 9, 2011)

Boppity said:


> I think you're giving alot of people too much credit.



you can riot because of something and not know why.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> Can we still do mulitquote?
> 
> Anyway - @ rollinder and albionism - the other thing I am finding deeply, deeply depressing is that if you somehow attempt to argue that there may be deep rooted reasons for the unrest people assume you're condoning it. I'm not condoning it. I'm attempting to understand why it's happening.


precisely!


----------



## Voley (Aug 9, 2011)

Giles said:


> How should "society" "take an interest" in people?
> 
> No-one from society has, as far as I can tell, "taken an interest" in me, everything I have done or achieved I have done by myself.
> 
> ...



Fucking hilarious.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Civil unrest? Don't romanticise it, ffs. This has been enabled by twitter and other networking sites - it's new in that sense but it's no uprising. This is not LA, it's not the Arab Spring, it's not 1969 - it's chaos.
> 
> Sorry to see you falling for the leftist hype. Didn't have you down as so impressionable.


christ, save me from these apolitical dripping wet wiberwals who wouldn't understand a socio-economic causal factor if it rose up and bit them in the arse


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> christ, save me from these apolitical dripping wet wiberwals who wouldn't understand a socio-economic causal factor if it rose up and bit them in the arse



and save me from the urban tossers who delight in wanton violence and terror.

always making excuse for scum who wouldn't piss on you if you're on fire.

thank fuck nobody listens to you and your ilk


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

love detective said:


> good post pc
> 
> it's no surprise that riots in a neo-liberalised society take on a neo-liberal form themselves
> 
> ...


terrific post.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> and save me from the urban tossers who delight in wanton violence and terror.
> 
> always making excuse for scum who wouldn't piss on you if you're on fire.
> 
> thank fuck nobody listens to you and your ilk



Who the fucking *FUCK* has delighted in what's happening?

Seriously, get a fucking grip.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

pretentious bullshit


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> Who the fucking *FUCK* has delighted in what's happening?
> 
> Seriously, get a fucking grip.


all the pseuds trying to explain away and make excuses for it.

will you be so touchy feely when your homes are burnt down?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> and save me from the urban tossers who delight in wanton violence and terror.
> 
> always making excuse for scum who wouldn't piss on you if you're on fire.
> 
> thank fuck nobody listens to you and your ilk


jesus, you're being thick here. NO-ONE is 'delighting' in this shit, it's a fucking tragedy.
But writing off a large cross-section of innercity youth as 'scum' is NOT the answer; simply because they are people, just like you and me.
trying to understand the causal factors does not mean you condone this, or make excuses; it means you want to find an answer, one that has to be rooted in far deeper societal faultlines - simply because that is the only way to solve the problem, and to avoid endless repeat occurrences.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> all the pseuds trying to explain away and make excuses for it.
> 
> will you be so touchy feely when your homes are burnt down?


 
No. It's people trying to *understand* it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> all the pseuds trying to explain away and make excuses for it.


If this is your deep and meaningful understanding/analysis of the world you are living in you are part of the problem IMO.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> all the pseuds trying to explain away and make excuses for it.
> 
> will you be so touchy feely when your homes are burnt down?


Name names.  Who is making excuses and being touchy feely?


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> all the pseuds trying to explain away and make excuses for it.
> 
> will you be so touchy feely when your homes are burnt down?


You're really getting on my tits now. I think as soon as we get the ignore function back I'll be using it to ignore you and the pigthick bollocks you're posting here.
No-one is making excuses, no-one is delighting in what has happened. People are as shocked and sickened by what's happening as they are anywhere else. Why do you refuse to see that? Finding reasons for why it's happening is nothing even resembling making excuses.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Name names. Who is making excuses and being touchy feely?


Well, clearly me


----------



## Voley (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> all the pseuds trying to explain away and make excuses for it.
> 
> will you be so touchy feely when your homes are burnt down?



Trying to understand why this happened is infinitely better than writing people off as 'scum'.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> Well, clearly me


Are the touchy feely people the same as the ones who delight in terror?  Just so I know.


----------



## trampie (Aug 9, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Criminal looting, driven by naked self interest, greed and rampant immorality. All conducted with absolutely no regard for the misery that their violence inflicts on the rest of us.
> 
> But enough about the bankers.
> 
> ...


Good post


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Are the touchy feely people the same as the ones who delight in terror? Just so I know.



Probably. I'm loving it me. Seeing all those buildings and cars on fire and knowing people are being made homeless is giving me the raging horn tbh.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> all the pseuds trying to explain away and make excuses for it.



Oh, FFS!

Trying to understand/explain what happened and why doesn't equal making excuses for anything that has gone on and certainly not attacks on members of the public and their homes.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> "_Fuck it ...even_"?  I'd say that was pretty high up the list.



Actually, so would I. I'd even go as far as suggesting that over and above any socio-economic causal factors... this fracturing of local community is the root cause of this kind of individualistic rioting.

Even though these businesses and houses are on their doorstep... somehow they are still not part of their 'community'.

That's a massive problem.

The reason I said 'fuck it' is because it's not easy to talk about things like that on a bulletin board that creates strong online communities but weaker geographical ones. One recurring question is why are all these kids on the street? Where are their parents?

At home on the internet?

Not that Urban is a particularly guilty of that. In fact Urban is a rare example of the opposite... little bits of it actually create local community spirit.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Actually, so would I. I'd even go as far as suggesting that over and above any socio-economic causal factors... this fracturing of local community is the root cause of this kind of individualistic rioting.


Then you put the blame far more directly in Thatcher's hands than even I would.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

this is how i'd see it.
these kids are NOT stupid, or deaf,dumb and blind. They've grown up in a society where govt policvies and the all-out attack on the w/class have seen all notions of social cohesion, national community etc utterly destroyed, and the credo of 'FUJIA' and 'every man for himself' exalted as a prime virtue. And all notions of w/c solidarity and organisation have equally been destroyed.
they have had all the joys of rampant consumerism stuffed down their throats at the same time as it being made plain as day that none of it is for them. So they sit and watch, faces pressed against the glass, until inevitably one of em decides to lob a brick at that glass...
They've seen the rich get richer, the bankers and the politicians totally dick them over....
They've seen their future stolen from them, opportunities trashed, and the message has come across loud and clear "there is nothing in this society for you, it does not work for your benefit' - what reason do they have to play by the rules of a society which only ever works against them?


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> this is how i'd see it.
> these kids are NOT stupid, or deaf,dumb and blind. They've grown up in a society where govt policvies and the all-out attack on the w/class have seen all notions of social cohesion, national community etc utterly destroyed, and the credo of 'FUJIA' and 'every man for himself' exalted as a prime virtue. And all notions of w/c solidarity and organisation have equally been destroyed.
> they have had all the joys of rampant consumerism stuffed down their throats at the same time as it being made plain as day that none of it is for them. So they sit and watch, faces pressed against the glass, until inevitably one of em decides to lob a brick at that glass...
> They've seen the rich get richer, the bankers and the politicians totally dick them over....
> They've seen their future stolen from them, opportunities trashed, and the message has come across loud and clear "there is nothing in this society for you, it does not work for your benefit' - what reason do they have to play by the rules of a society which only ever works against them?


Stop making excuses for them


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> this is how i'd see it.
> these kids are NOT stupid, or deaf,dumb and blind. They've grown up in a society where govt policvies and the all-out attack on the w/class have seen all notions of social cohesion, national community etc utterly destroyed, and the credo of 'FUJIA' and 'every man for himself' exalted as a prime virtue. And all notions of w/c solidarity and organisation have equally been destroyed.
> they have had all the joys of rampant consumerism stuffed down their throats at the same time as it being made plain as day that none of it is for them. So they sit and watch, faces pressed against the glass, until inevitably one of em decides to lob a brick at that glass...
> They've seen the rich get richer, the bankers and the politicians totally dick them over....
> They've seen their future stolen from them, opportunities trashed, and the message has come across loud and clear "there is nothing in this society for you, it does not work for your benefit' - what reason do they have to play by the rules of a society which only ever works against them?


 They've seen a flash pair of sneakers as well


----------



## trampie (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> You're really getting on my tits now. I think as soon as we get the ignore function back I'll be using it to ignore you and the pigthick bollocks you're posting here.
> No-one is making excuses, no-one is delighting in what has happened. People are as shocked and sickened by what's happening as they are anywhere else. Why do you refuse to see that? Finding reasons for why it's happening is nothing even resembling making excuses.



Good post, people like 'krtek a houby' dont want a reasoned debate.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Then you put the blame far more directly in Thatcher's hands than even I would.



Well, there's no denying that capitalism benefits from weak social structures. The more fractured the community... the more the individual relies on the state.

But that's beyond Thatcher.

That's beyond neo-liberalism. That's about trust.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

trampie said:


> Good post, people like 'krtek a houby' dont want a reasoned debate.


Debate like how English troops are in Ireland, you mean? Stick to your usual racist shite, it much more becomes you.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

Anyone just see Dr Clifford Stott on BBC news? He talked a lot of sense and condemed cameron's overly simplistic understanding of events. Apparently he's a psychologits of crowd behaviour and public order policing at Liverpool Uni. It was refreshing to see someone talking some sense at last.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> all the pseuds trying to explain away and make excuses for it.



(reposted from fb)

IMMA GODWIN THIS THREAD: The Nazis rose to power due to large-scale, social, economic and political reasons. Knowing how and why this happened does not mean excusing the genocide. Knowing how and why british society has managed to produce such amoral people/behaviour does not mean excusing the behaviour itself.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

Summary of what he said?


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> You're really getting on my tits now. I think as soon as we get the ignore function back I'll be using it to ignore you and the pigthick bollocks you're posting here.
> No-one is making excuses, no-one is delighting in what has happened. People are as shocked and sickened by what's happening as they are anywhere else. Why do you refuse to see that? Finding reasons for why it's happening is nothing even resembling making excuses.



It's simple why its happening. Criminals doing criminal stuff.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> It's simple why its happening. Criminals doing criminal stuff.



There isn't a big enough facepalm.


----------



## trampie (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Debate like how English troops are in Ireland, you mean? Stick to your usual racist shite, it much more becomes you.


Ireland, the riots are currently in England you stupid fool.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> It's simple why its happening. Criminals doing criminal stuff.


...and muppets like you are doing what you do best too. All is as it should be.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> It's simple why its happening. Criminals doing criminal stuff.


No it's not, and a 12-year-old could tell you that.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> There isn't a big enough facepalm.


 Oh, ok. It's the poor disaffected youth, then. The poor lambs.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

Crispy said:


> (reposted from fb)
> 
> IMMA GODWIN THIS THREAD: The Nazis rose to power due to large-scale, social, economic and political reasons. Knowing how and why this happened does not mean excusing the genocide. Knowing how and why british society has managed to produce such amoral people/behaviour does not mean excusing the behaviour itself.



Except that you weren't there in the thirties... hindsight is wonderful.

Judging something you are part of is much much harder.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Except that you weren't there in the thirties... hindsight is wonderful.
> 
> Judging something you are part of is much much harder.


Undoubtedly. But Krtek here is saying that there isn't even any need to attempt it.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> No it's not, and a 12-year-old could tell you that.



He or she'd probably be nicking my sneakers


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Oh, ok. It's the poor disaffected youth, then. The poor lambs.


Tosser.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Undoubtedly. But Krtek here is saying that there isn't even any need to attempt it.



I'm not saying don't attempt to understand it; I haven't read anything convincing yet 

I'm still open to persuasion but it's difficult on such an emotive subject.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Oh, ok. It's the poor disaffected youth, then. The poor lambs.


Reread other people's posts, please. You're misrepresenting what others are saying back to them, which suggests to me that you haven't understood them.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Undoubtedly. But Krtek here is saying that there isn't even any need to attempt it.



That's 'coz he thinks it's obvious.

It's not. But it's also not that complicated.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Reread other people's posts, please. You're misrepresenting what others are saying back to them, which suggests to me that you haven't understood them.



He doesn't _want_ to understand them.


----------



## magneze (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> It's simple why its happening. Criminals doing criminal stuff.


Sadly this seems to be the level of analysis coming from the government too so far. You're so short-sighted you can probably see the back of your head.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> Tosser.



Yeah, that's really explaining things.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm not saying don't attempt to understand it; I haven't read anything convincing yet
> 
> I'm still open to persuasion but it's difficult on such an emotive subject.


Sorry, I don't understand this at all. You don't understand it, you think it is good to try to understand it, you aren't convinced by other people's theories, so you just talk as if you aren't interested in understanding: Criminals doing criminal stuff is not an attempt at understanding.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Yeah, that's really explaining things.


There are nine pages of explanation here. NINE pages. Either read them and attempt to understand what people are saying or fuck off.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm not saying don't attempt to understand it; I haven't read anything convincing yet



There are no absolutes in this, it is complex, no wonder you are not convinced, there is not just one 'convincing' anaylsis...you need to synthesise the information you have and accept the different dynamics/viewpoints/experiences.



> I'm still open to persuasion but it's difficult on such an emotive subject.


 Of course it is. Keep a check on your emotions though...they seem to be blocking your ability to respond sensibly.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Oh, ok. It's the poor disaffected youth, then. The poor lambs.


alright then genius, answer me this; if these riots have nothing to do with poverty, deprivation and social exclusion, how come they always happen in blighted innercity areas, and not in places like ascot, cheltenham, eton and hove?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

But it is accurate.

On one level. There may be others... however that doesn't mean each has it's own truths and needs.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Well, there's no denying that capitalism benefits from weak social structures. The more fractured the community... the more the individual relies on the state.
> 
> But that's beyond Thatcher.
> 
> That's beyond neo-liberalism. That's about trust.


It is about trust, but that's a description not a reason; it's a deliberate policy of neoliberalism, which is (one reason) why I see neoliberalism as the ideology which has caused the circumstances to fall into place which brings us where we are now.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

trampie said:


> Ireland, the riots are currently in England you stupid fool.


 Referring to our debate on the other thread, idiot.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> alright then genius, answer me this; if these riots have nothing to do with poverty, deprivation and social exclusion, how come they always happen in blighted innercity areas, and not in places like ascot, cheltenham, eton and hove?



Less criminals?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Less criminals?


More criminals. Undoubtedly. Just the kind of sneaky criminal who does their thievery within the law.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> alright then genius, answer me this; if these riots have nothing to do with poverty, deprivation and social exclusion, how come they always happen in blighted innercity areas, and not in places like ascot, cheltenham, eton and hove?



Clapham and Ealing are hardly blighted inner city areas.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Less criminals?


Fewer.

But that's not right either.  They're the wrong sort of criminals.


----------



## trampie (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Referring to our debate on the other thread .


Other thread, if you want to contribute to another thread carry on, this thread is about 'riots'.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> More criminals. Undoubtedly. Just the kind of sneaky criminal who does their thievery within the law.


And often not even that, it's just that those are less likely (proportionately) to receive custodial sentences.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> I'm not saying don't attempt to understand it;


but you are - unless you have mis-expressed yourself. That is _precisely_ what you do when you write the whole thing off as simply an expression and outburst of mindless criminality.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> There are no absolutes in this, it is complex, no wonder you are not convinced, there is not just one 'convincing' anaylsis...you need to synthesise the information you have and accept the different dynamics/viewpoints/experiences.
> 
> Of course it is. Keep a check on your emotions though...they seem to be blocking your ability to respond sensibly.



I've been mugged, beaten and abused in this country, lots of really shit things have happened to me but I'm not setting people's homes on fire, Rutita. Yes, emotions are running high; my wife shaking with fear last night.

Maybe I need some distance from this all.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

Giles said:


> How should "society" "take an interest" in people?
> 
> No-one from society has, as far as I can tell, "taken an interest" in me, everything I have done or achieved I have done by myself.
> 
> ...


If you believe this, you really are too dense to be allowed to breed


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> It is about trust, but that's a description not a reason; it's a deliberate policy of neoliberalism, which is (one reason) why I see neoliberalism as the ideology which has caused the circumstances to fall into place which brings us where we are now.



A degrading of social trust is a description and a reason.

It exists over and above any ideology. It has to do with sheer numbers of people and the way those numbers of people are organised socially.

At that level the responsibility for social organisation is down to each individual.

So while I can see and agree that the capitalist ideology benefits from the breakdown of community I don't think it has the power to produce an effect if the individual human being takes responsibility for themselves, their circumstances and their community.

This is where the breakdown is.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

trampie said:


> Other thread, if you want to contribute to another thread carry on, this thread is about 'riots'.


 Well, then keep your snout out of it, racist


----------



## Crispy (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Clapham and Ealing are hardly blighted inner city areas.


Plenty of estates in both areas, plus the gangs are mobile.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Clapham and Ealing are hardly blighted inner city areas.


no, but they have council estates, and they are in proximity to poorer areas - rioters can walk, you know!
now please can I have a PROPER answer to a perfectly valid question, which was:


> if these riots have nothing to do with poverty, deprivation and social exclusion, how come they always happen in blighted innercity areas, and not in places like ascot, cheltenham, eton and hove?


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Well, then keep your snout out of it, racist



It's like a veil has been lifted.....


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Plenty of estates in both areas, plus the gangs are mobile.


fuck, beat me to it!


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Plenty of estates in both areas, plus the gangs are mobile.



Ok, can someone explain to me why a charity shop was looted? What's the reason behind that?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> while I can see and agree that the capitalist ideology benefits from the breakdown of community I don't think it has the power to produce an effect if the individual human being takes responsibility.


Well, you see, not everyone was rioting.  Only a very few were.  And that's all it takes.  Whereas community cohesion can  remind people not to "shit on their own doorsteps" etc, all that is needed is for community cohesion to have fractured _enough_.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 9, 2011)

Quite a lot of them have bikes now by the looks of it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Ok, can someone explain to me why a charity shop was looted? What's the reason behind that?


What do you think?  Seriously.


----------



## dylans (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> It's simple why its happening. Criminals doing criminal stuff.



One person committing a crime you could dismiss as merely criminal. But hundreds of people from across the country engaged in massive social unrest is a sociological phenomenon. One that requires understanding and consideration if society is to avoid further chaos of this type. It may make you feel good to dismiss all this as merely the actions of immoral criminals but your post actually says nothing at all because if this is nothing more than an outbreak of criminality, then you need to explain why it didn't happen last week or last year or why it doesn't happen in Knightsbridge. You have to explain why the same communities that erupted before are erupting now. And if it is merely criminality with no social context then you have to assume that there is something uniquely criminal about areas like Tottenham.  This is what your argument reduces to, that poor (and black) people in areas like Tottenham are just genetically bad. This is what you are really saying


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> What do you think? Seriously.



Whatever I say will illicit the usual derision. I don't know why they would attack a charity shop like oxfam, it's sick.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Ok, can someone explain to me why a charity shop was looted? What's the reason behind that?



Opportunistic greed and mob violence
(which of course, do not spring, fully formed, from the void)


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Whatever I say will illicit the usual derision.


Give it a go anyway.



> I don't know why they would attack a charity shop like oxfam, it's sick.


Yes, it's sick.  But still, have a stab at why.


----------



## trampie (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Well, then keep your snout out of it


You are on this thread, apparently refering to another thread, you are talking absolute shite, which seems to be normal for you from what ive seen on this site.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

dylans said:


> This is what your argument reduces to, that poor (and black) people in areas like Tottenham are just genetically bad. This is what you are really saying


----------



## magneze (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Clapham and Ealing are hardly blighted inner city areas.


Nothing to do with inequality then eh? You really are showing yourself as a moron here. Engage brain if possible.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

trampie said:


> You are on this thread, apparently refering to another thread, you are talking absolute shite, which seems to be normal for you from what ive seen on this site.



Well then you're in good company, aren't you?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Opportunistic greed and mob violence


I said K a H, not you.  I'll have to think of another question for him now.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 9, 2011)

magneze said:


> Nothing to do with inequality then eh? You really are showing yourself as a moron here. Engage brain if possible.


 oooh, look at me, I post on urbanz and what I say is gospel and anyone who says different is a dumb ass


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, you see, not everyone was rioting.  Only a very few were.  And that's all it takes.  Whereas community cohesion can  remind people not to "shit on their own doorsteps" etc, all that is needed is for community cohesion to have fractured _enough_.



Or for the young to feel excluded from their own community...


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Or for the young to feel excluded from their own community...


Indeed, yes.


----------



## trampie (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> I've been mugged, beaten and abused in this country, lots of really shit things have happened to me but I'm not setting people's homes on fire, Rutita. Yes, emotions are running high; my wife shaking with fear last night.
> 
> Maybe I need some distance from this all.


Are you a man or a mouse .


----------



## Garek (Aug 9, 2011)

Actually on the points earlier about this being a neo-liberal riot, anyone think these riots are more akin to what happened in LA than any of the previous riots here?


----------



## dylans (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


>



Don't you roll eyes at me you fucking prick. You are the one person on here dismissing out of hand any attempt to explain why poor areas of the country are engaged in massive unrest. You are in effect celebrating ignorance, putting your fingers in your ears and screaming lalalalal.  You are claiming this is entirely a situation of criminality and immoraly, therefore the onus is on you to explain why these communities are on fire and not Knightsbridge. Follow your own logic and have to balls to admit what is patently obvious from your drivel. That you think poor black people are just genetically disposed to rioting and crime.


----------



## magneze (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> oooh, look at me, I post on urbanz and what I say is gospel and anyone who says different is a dumb ass


Well done for summing up your position succinctly.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Ok, can someone explain to me why a charity shop was looted? What's the reason behind that?


because when a large number of young people feel utterly alienated and go beserk, all sense of social restraint tends to fly out of the window. NOW could you PLEASE answer my question?
To wit: if these riots have nothing to do with poverty, deprivation and social exclusion, how come they always happen in blighted innercity areas, and not in places like ascot, cheltenham, eton and hove?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

Garek said:


> Actually on the points earlier about this being a neo-liberal riot, anyone think these riots are more akin to what happened in LA than any of the previous riots here?


Yes, I think there's a fair slice of truth in that, although the race factor is less to the fore


----------



## Eva Luna (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> alright then genius, answer me this; if these riots have nothing to do with poverty, deprivation and social exclusion, how come they always happen in blighted innercity areas, and not in places like ascot, cheltenham, eton and hove?



People there know how to behave.  They do not expect a house to be given to them, or a job, or qualifications.

Granted I would suggest there is less likelihood that they would face absent parents, drug or alcohol addicted parents, a dangerous estate to grow up on and so on.

I am sympathetic to the social reasons behind disaffected youth.  But the longer I root about within that issue, the less sympathy I have for those who do not help themselves.  You can't jiust moan that nothing is being done 'for' you.  You have to do it for yoursdelf, alone, skint, walking, getting up early, choosing not to interact with old 'mates', choosing to work, save, go it alone.

It always astonishes me that people think everyone else is rich and gets everything given to them, and then say 'Well I want it given to me too!'


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> People there know how to behave. They do not expect a house to be given to them, or a job, or qualifications.
> 
> Granted I would suggest there is less likelihood that they would face absent parents, drug or alcohol addicted parents, a dangerous estate to grow up on and so on.
> 
> ...



OMFG. I'm speechless.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> People there know how to behave. They do not expect a house to be given to them, or a job, or qualifications.
> 
> Granted I would suggest there is less likelihood that they would face absent parents, drug or alcohol addicted parents, a dangerous estate to grow up on and so on.
> 
> ...


Unbelievable.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

I doubt that.


----------



## Eva Luna (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> OMFG. I'm speechless.


Why are you speechless?  Did you see the youths pick the kid up off the floor, look like they were helping him, and then a few more of them gather round and just lift his stuff like it was nothing.  There is some shameless behaviour going on.  I am tired of trying to say it is because people are angry at the government and so on.  Maybe they haven't been taught right from wrong, maybe they have suffered many wrongs.  But seriously.


----------



## Garek (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Yes, I think there's a fair slice of truth in that, although the race factor is less to the fore



True. Wasn't really thinking of the racial element. More the heavy gang element and priority looting.


----------



## dylans (Aug 9, 2011)

> People there know how to behave. They do not expect a house to be given to them, or a job, or qualifications



_Yes they do. Mommy will leave them the house, daddy will get them the job and the best school money can buy will get them the qualifications followed by the gap year and the internship with daddy's company. The kids rioting on the streets right now are rioting, not because they expect these things to be given to them but because they are increasingly convinced they will never get them no matter what they do or how hard they work for the simple reason that these things are not meant for the likes of them. Society has told them to fuck off and this is their reply_


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> Why are you speechless? Did you see the youths pick the kid up off the floor, look like they were helping him, and then a few more of them gather round and just lift his stuff like it was nothing. There is some shameless behaviour going on. I am tired of trying to say it is because people are angry at the government and so on. Maybe they haven't been taught right from wrong, maybe they have suffered many wrongs. But seriously.


And you said it was of because of where they were from.  You probably didnt actually mean to say that, but you did. 'ooh, these dirty working-class oiks/black people, they just don't know how to behave like us nice respectably middle-class folk.'

Attitudes like that are part of the fucking problem.


----------



## trampie (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> People there know how to behave. They do not expect a house to be given to them, or a job, or qualifications.
> 
> Granted I would suggest there is less likelihood that they would face absent parents, drug or alcohol addicted parents, a dangerous estate to grow up on and so on.
> 
> ...


People from disadvantaged backgrounds will often stay disadvantaged [some escape the trap of course but lots dont, most dont probably] if society limits or eradicates this then we would have a more fair society, 'but for the grace of God go I'.


----------



## Eva Luna (Aug 9, 2011)

I am glad however that water cannomns are not beibng considered, or army or whatever else other foreign heads of state are suggesting the British do.  I don't think we should do that.

But I DO think that this thuggish brutal behaviour needs to really be looked at.

And alongside that, the reasons behind people's upset.  Lying, faking, stealing, and so on, I can't ba sred to type it all; out now.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Indeed, yes.



But the key point is the responsibility of the community to be inclusive... not to blame the government or anyone else for the exclusion of youth... for the lack of community centres, etc.

Using socio-economic social factors as your explanation absolves the need to look at the problem more personally and locally.


----------



## kittyP (Aug 9, 2011)

dylans said:


> One person committing a crime you could dismiss as merely criminal. But hundreds of people from across the country engaged in massive social unrest is a sociological phenomenon. One that requires understanding and consideration if society is to avoid further chaos of this type. It may make you feel good to dismiss all this as merely the actions of immoral criminals but your post actually says nothing at all because if this is nothing more than an outbreak of criminality, then you need to explain why it didn't happen last week or last year or why it doesn't happen in Knightsbridge. You have to explain why the same communities that erupted before are erupting now. And if it is merely criminality with no social context then you have to assume that there is something uniquely criminal about areas like Tottenham. This is what your argument reduces to, that poor (and black) people in areas like Tottenham are just genetically bad. This is what you are really saying



Excellent comment!!


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> Why are you speechless? Did you see the youths pick the kid up off the floor, look like they were helping him, and then a few more of them gather round and just lift his stuff like it was nothing. There is some shameless behaviour going on. I am tired of trying to say it is because people are angry at the government and so on. Maybe they haven't been taught right from wrong, maybe they have suffered many wrongs. But seriously.



I'm speechless at your crass, arrogant, ignorant, blinkered, _astonishingly_ sneering pontification.

Seriously knocked sideways by it.


----------



## Eva Luna (Aug 9, 2011)

belboid said:


> And you said it was of because of where they were from. You probably didnt actually mean to say that, but you did. 'ooh, these dirty working-class oiks/black people, they just don't know how to behave like us nice respectably middle-class folk.'
> 
> Attitudes like that are part of the fucking problem.



No I did not say that.  Anyone can live anywhere, thats my whole point.  I think people who are nicely brought up don't behave like this.

What sort of standard of behaviour is all this???  Hoodies breaking into old grannies houses??  Setting fire to people in their houses???


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> No I did not say that. Anyone can live anywhere, thats my whole point. I think people who are nicely brought up don't behave like this.
> 
> What sort of standard of behaviour is all this??? Hoodies breaking into old grannies houses?? Setting fire to people in their houses???


What the fuck does _nicely_ brought up mean?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

dylans said:


> _Yes they do. Mommy will leave them the house, daddy will get them the job and the best school money can buy will get them the qualifications followed by the gap year and the internship with daddy's company. The kids rioting on the streets right now are rioting, not because they expect these things to be given to them but because they are increasingly convinced they will never get them no matter what they do or how hard they work for the simple reason that these things are not meant for the likes of them. Society has told them to fuck off and this is their reply_



This is new?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> But the key point is the responsibility of the community to be inclusive... not to blame the government or anyone else for the exclusion of youth... for the lack of community centres, etc.
> 
> Using socio-economic social factors as your explanation absolves the need to look at the problem more personally and locally.


Well, I think you misunderstand me then.  I think the solution lies in the hands of the community.  It isn't about community centres being "provided"; quite the opposite, it's about communities coming together to direct their own futures.


----------



## Eva Luna (Aug 9, 2011)

..


----------



## kittyP (Aug 9, 2011)

I think a few things a posted on the other thread would be more appropriate here.


Exactly.

I know that these events are not directly linked to the banks etc but look what happens when 100's of thousands of people do peacefully protest.... nothing!

Do you think that even though they are involved in criminal behavior, that these rioters don't live in fear and poverty daily themselves. I think it quite likely they do.

The powers that be carry on fucking us over and live quite comfortably with their lives.

I am not saying its an excuse but you can surely see why these things happen.​


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> People there know how to behave. They do not expect a house to be given to them, or a job, or qualifications.
> 
> Granted I would suggest there is less likelihood that they would face absent parents, drug or alcohol addicted parents, a dangerous estate to grow up on and so on.
> 
> ...


 
We have a high rate of unemployment.

We have a VERY high rate of youth unemployment.

The above , set against a background of cuts , unaffordable education, a commodity focused society, high rents , inflation etc ----

To simply "get by" is a struggle for many----- & your answer is for people to pull their sock up.

Really ?


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> No I did not say that.


Yes you did.



Eva Luna said:


> People [in places like ascot, cheltenham, eton and hove]know how to behave.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> No I did not say that. Anyone can live anywhere, thats my whole point.


No they can't.  Someone on a cleaner's wage can't live in a big house in Surrey.


----------



## rikwakefield (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> People there know how to behave.



Probably because they have something to lose.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> People there know how to behave. They do not expect a house to be given to them, or a job, or qualifications.
> 
> Granted I would suggest there is less likelihood that they would face absent parents, drug or alcohol addicted parents, a dangerous estate to grow up on and so on.
> 
> ...



Good grief. Some shocking prejudices coming to the fore there.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, I think you misunderstand me then.  I think the solution lies in the hands of the community.  It isn't about community centres being "provided"; quite the opposite, it's about communities coming together to direct their own futures.



Irrespective of government?

Then we agree.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> I'm not surprised Madzone. Your life isnt exactly a picture of success is it. Except its _not your fault_. Its someone elses.


 Worra fucking bitch.

To paraphrase something I said to somoene else - my left labia is more successful than you could ever dream of being.


----------



## kittyP (Aug 9, 2011)

dylans said:


> _Yes they do. Mommy will leave them the house, daddy will get them the job and the best school money can buy will get them the qualifications followed by the gap year and the internship with daddy's company. The kids rioting on the streets right now are rioting, not because they expect these things to be given to them but because they are increasingly convinced they will never get them no matter what they do or how hard they work for the simple reason that these things are not meant for the likes of them. Society has told them to fuck off and this is their reply_



Again excellent!!


----------



## Eva Luna (Aug 9, 2011)

_Yes they do. Mommy will leave them the house, daddy will get them the job and the best school money can buy will get them the qualifications followed by the gap year and the internship with daddy's company. The kids rioting on the streets right now are rioting, not because they expect these things to be given to them but because they are increasingly convinced they will never get them no matter what they do or how hard they work for the simple reason that these things are not meant for the likes of them. Society has told them to fuck off and this is their reply_

I can't remember who posted this, but its about as out of touch as those who think all Xs are Y.

If this is what poorer people really think of the rest of us, seriously, open your eyes.  People are struggling just as much as you, but we suck it up because we have to.  Who else is going to help us if we dont help our selves??​


----------



## Eva Luna (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> Worra fucking bitch.
> 
> To paraphrase something I said to somoene else - my left labia is more successful than you could ever dream of being.



I doubt it.  I hate people like you Madzone, listing off your problems but unprepared to do anything about them.


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> Who else is going to help us if we dont help our selves??


Well, you should be very proud of all the kids who are going out there helping themselves then.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2011)

(((the rich and middle class)))


----------



## trampie (Aug 9, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> We have a high rate of unemployment.
> 
> We have a VERY high rate of youth unemployment.
> 
> ...


Good post.


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> (((the rich and middle class)))


poor babies, struggling to get by without having to sell of their second homes, worrying about the weekend break to Tuscany, they might not even be able to fly to NY to do the xmas shopping this year


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> I doubt it. I hate people like you Madzone, listing off your problems but unprepared to do anything about them.



I'm not playing Eva, baby. This thread is interesting and I'm not going to collude with you in derailing it. Suffice it to say that any problems I may or may not have pale into insignificance compared with your vile hatred for your fellow human. How quickly you got deeply personal with me is testament to the fact that you're a nasty little cunt. You have a nice life now


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> I am sympathetic to the social reasons behind disaffected youth. But the longer I root about within that issue, the less sympathy I have for those who do not help themselves.



They were helping themselves.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Irrespective of government?
> 
> Then we agree.


Yes, irrespective of government. I think I already said that.  But to be explicit: governments of every flavour serve the same interests. And in modern times, more specifically all have been neoliberal since (and including) the first monetarist PM, Callaghan.


----------



## Eva Luna (Aug 9, 2011)

I think there is a gross social divide in this country and I am tired of trying to bridge the gap.  We all have problems.  Some worse than others.  In this country we have a lot more than many other oeople in the world.  So I have little sympathy for those who think they have it hard.  We all have hard choices.  Your behaviour under conditions of fire will define you.  We may not like the choices we have but suck it the fuck up.  Looting, mugging, hurting people, lying, stealing (governments as well), all of it, I hate it.

Anyway this has really pissed me off.


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> I think there is a gross social divide in this country and I am tired of trying to bridge the gap.


Go away and live on your own little island and never bother the rest of us again, then. You vile parasitic cunt.


----------



## Eva Luna (Aug 9, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> They were helping themselves.


See you think this violence and scrounging is funny.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

Jesus H christ, who let the Tory halfwit in here?


Eva Luna said:


> People there know how to behave. They do not expect a house to be given to them, or a job, or qualifications.


No it is NOT! It is because you do not riot if you have a decent job, home standard of living and opportunities. If you grow up in those areas you know - from day one - you grow up in an environment that offers you those things, and that society is constructed to see you right. You get good schools, where you get the 'nice' accent (like I have), university, the right social networks - the lot. If you grow up in a deprived background in west ham, life a constant struggle to get by - you do NOT get those things. It's called a 'class system', and it is still a dominant force in Britain today.


> Granted I would suggest there is less likelihood that they would face absent parents, drug or alcohol addicted parents,


Yeah, cos working class parents are just shit, aren't they? 
Or, alternatively, poverty, unemployment and deprivation might just possibly play their part.


> a dangerous estate to grow up on and so on.


bingo! she's getting there!


> I am sympathetic to the social reasons behind disaffected youth


No, you're not.


> But the longer I root about within that issue, the less sympathy I have for those who do not help themselves.


Looks to me that that is precisely what they've done in the past few days - help themselves. 
More seriously, why should they play by the rules of a society that is stacked against them, and in favour of the wealthy, from day one?


> You can't jiust moan that nothing is being done 'for' you.


I'd say they have every reason to gripe when everything is done for the bankers, the MPs, and the tax-avoiders


> You have to do it for yoursdelf, alone, skint, walking, getting up early, choosing not to interact with old 'mates', choosing to work, save, go it alone.


What the FUCK makes you think w'c youth don't want to do it for themselves? They just want SOME of the tools with which to do it - and SOME of the chances.


> It always astonishes me that people think everyone else is rich and gets everything given to them, and then say 'Well I want it given to me too!'


see above - especially in relation to bankers. These kids don't want it all handed on a plate - any more than you or I do - they just want something that shows they have a stake in society, and that it will give them a chance.
sorry, but you're talking utter, tebbitesque tripe, and you couldn't have got it more wrong.


----------



## Eva Luna (Aug 9, 2011)

belboid said:


> Go away and live on your own little island and never bother the rest of us again, then. You vile parasitic cunt.


Don't use language like that to me pls.  See, what low standards; excellent.  You are what they term Broken Britain.


----------



## ChrisFilter (Aug 9, 2011)

Wow, Eva Luna, what a dick


----------



## kittyP (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> _Yes they do. Mommy will leave them the house, daddy will get them the job and the best school money can buy will get them the qualifications followed by the gap year and the internship with daddy's company. The kids rioting on the streets right now are rioting, not because they expect these things to be given to them but because they are increasingly convinced they will never get them no matter what they do or how hard they work for the simple reason that these things are not meant for the likes of them. Society has told them to fuck off and this is their reply_​
> I can't remember who posted this, but its about as out of touch as those who think all Xs are Y.​
> If this is what poorer people really think of the rest of us, seriously, open your eyes. People are struggling just as much as you, but we suck it up because we have to. Who else is going to help us if we dont help our selves??​



Its not out of touch at all. This is what it look like to people who are really living/exsisting on the bottom rung.

I have a job, my husband earns reasonably well, my parents come from a very working class background but have always worked hard and are fairly ok off for money now.
I am probably on the same socioeconomic rung as you Eva.

However, even though I didn't have what is described by Dylans, it still looks like that (and often is) to the people who are trapped by their position.

We are not looking at you and saying that that up bringing is a fact but it does happen, a lot, and makes those who have nothing feel even more isolated.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> Don't use language like that to me pls. See, what low standards; excellent. You are what they term Broken Britain.


Stop being a vile cunt if you don't want to be called it.

Personally I'd call you a vile, _thick_ cunt.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> because when a large number of young people feel utterly alienated and go beserk, all sense of social restraint tends to fly out of the window. NOW could you PLEASE answer my question?
> To wit: if these riots have nothing to do with poverty, deprivation and social exclusion, how come they always happen in blighted innercity areas, and not in places like ascot, cheltenham, eton and hove?


an answer please, krtek a houby....


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> Don't use language like that to me pls. See, what low standards; excellent. You are what they term Broken Britain.


Sorry, do you need an explanation of what 'parasitic' means?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> I'm not playing Eva, baby. This thread is interesting and I'm not going to collude with you in derailing it. Suffice it to say that any problems I may or may not have pale into insignificance compared with your vile hatred for your fellow human. How quickly you got deeply personal with me is testament to the fact that you're a nasty little cunt. You have a nice life now



You did the same thing to me. Hypocrite.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> See you think this violence and scrounging is funny.


 
Nobody said it was funny.

People are laughing at YOU.

& btw , I , for one, think your attacks on Madz are out of order.


----------



## Eva Luna (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite you talk a lot of sense.

But really, who are all these rich bankers?  Maybe half a percent?  The rest of us are just like you!  except we have to pay our own massive rents and mortgages, we have to save every penny, we have to bend over to keep our shitty jobs and take shit off nobs.  Get a grand in the bank and you can't get benefits.  Also people save so that if they lose their jobs they have money to back themselves up with.

I can see a lot of what you are saying but it isnt all true.  People can't go around behaving like this last night and bnlame someone else all the time!

Urban really has to get over the idea that people are either poor or bankers!  What about nurses, teachers, office workers?  All struggling along.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You did the same thing to me. Hypocrite.



Did I drag your personal life intio an argument? I don't think so. I might have said you were a bit of a tosser.

Because you are.


----------



## doddles (Aug 9, 2011)

Some really good posts on here, esp. by PC and dlr.
PC's point about neoliberal riots mirroring neoliberalism is spot on. In fact, I'd go further than saying "why should people give a shit about society if society doesn't give a shit about them." Neoliberalism in its current form in the UK has turned into something more than just "not giving a shit about others". It's become a system that actively promotes selfishness and material accumulation above all else, and promotes the open flaunting of outrageous wealth in a society that becomes more unequal every year. It's one thing to have a system that minimises financial regulation and state control and hope (or even promote) that those with wealth and power exercise their social/moral compasses, don't abuse their freedoms and turn around and help those in need(a hopelessly naive idea, but one that at least might be done with good intentions). It's quite another to create a society in which the underlying message is "if it's legal, then go for it" and then applaud when people and businesses who (legally) screw society for whatever they can get and parade it in front of us all.

OK. I'm not a political scientist or sociologist. But I am an expert in the neurobiology of human emotions. We have systems that have evolved to generate emotions, that use emotions to guide our actions, and more recently developed systems, both neurobiological and social to regulate our emotional behaviour. They do not all operate according to our modern ideas of "rational" behaviour. When parts of our brain detect that relative to others, we're not getting our fair share - and this can happen without or even despite any conscious notion of unfairness - we get angry or aggressive. We might be angry, but not know why. We might feel like violence, but not know why. In a functioning society in which we've been brought up to believe in consideration for others, the anger or violence will be checked by other parts of our brain. Or by the people around us. But if we grow up in a society in which the message is "get whatever you can - look after yourself", then there will be no such checks.

I only say this, because I hear too many people "explaining" the riots/looting as "mindless violence". Well, yes - in some ways it is, to the extent that the parts of the brain that normally control such violent urges aren't doing their job. But that's "mindless violence" is no explanation for why the regulating parts of our brains are not doing their job, nor for why the rioters are so angry/violent in the first place. To understand such "mindless violence" you have to look at the context and history of the communities in which it occurs, and PC's and dlr's points about neoliberalism and unequal societies, are, I think, full of insight.


----------



## dylans (Aug 9, 2011)

belboid said:


> poor babies, struggling to get by without having to sell of their second homes, worrying about the weekend break to Tuscany, they might not even be able to fly to NY to do the xmas shopping this year


You just can't get good domestic staff these days. Little Tarquin hasn't been the same since we had to let nanny go


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> Did I drag your personal life intio an argument? I don't think so. I might have said you were a bit of a tosser.
> 
> Because you are.


I'm a tosser to you because you are a hypocrite who always brings personal issues into it.

Fix up with your bad attitude and I will be nicer to you.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> Urban really has to get over the idea that people are either poor or bankers! What about nurses, teachers, office workers? All struggling along.



And all not rioting. It's the people at the very bottom of the pile that have nothing to lose.


----------



## Eva Luna (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> I'm not playing Eva, baby. This thread is interesting and I'm not going to collude with you in derailing it. Suffice it to say that any problems I may or may not have pale into insignificance compared with your vile hatred for your fellow human. How quickly you got deeply personal with me is testament to the fact that you're a nasty little cunt. You have a nice life now



I do not hate human beings Madzone!  I have tried and tried to help people who suffer and my conclusion is that sometimes they input into their own suffering, and hide behind politics.

I think there is an element of that in these riots.

But all along I have said there is another side to it of course, but you dont want to hear that.  Anyway lets not debate, we aren't likely to get along now are we.  Plus, I have to get back to work.  No-one pays my living.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I'm a tosser to you because you are a hypocrite.
> 
> Fix up with your bad attitude and I will be nicer to you.


What makes you think I'm even remotely interested in you being nice to me? What makes you think I'm even remotely interested in anything _about_ you? The way you and I have sparred is nothig like what Eva just did. But it says more about me than it does about her so I couldn't really give a flying fuck.

Right. Back to the subject at hand?


----------



## Eva Luna (Aug 9, 2011)

dylans said:


> You just can't get good domestic staff these days. Little Tarquin hasn't been the same since we had to let nanny go



What if someone said the same sort of thing about poor people?  Its just a joke.  If you think thats life for most working people in the UK you'd be wrong.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> I do not hate human beings Madzone! I have tried and tried to help people who suffer and my conclusion is that sometimes they input into their own suffering, and hide behind politics.
> 
> I think there is an element of that in these riots.
> 
> But all along I have said there is another side to it of course, but you dont want to hear that. Anyway lets not debate, we aren't likely to get along now are we. Plus, I have to get back to work. No-one pays my living.



No apology?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> No-one pays my living.


How does that work, then?


----------



## kittyP (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> Urban really has to get over the idea that people are either poor or bankers! What about nurses, teachers, office workers? All struggling along.



Most of urban fit in to that 'middle ground' so I am sure we are fulling understanding of the idea, but that's not what we are talking about.


----------



## juice_terry (Aug 9, 2011)

Brilliant just now on Sky, Boulton interviewing Hip Hop artist JAJA, in Ealing, when an old guy buts in shouting "Buckingham palace and the House of Commons are next on the list for the anarchists "


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

doddles said:


> To understand such "mindless violence" you have to look at the context and history of the communities in which it occurs, and PC's and dlr's points about neoliberalism and unequal societies, are, I think, full of insight.



Poor people are kept poor by rich people and they get angry and steal stuff?

Is this what passes for insight round here?


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> See you think this violence and scrounging is funny.



Not at all, I do not support what has gone on in any way whatsoever.

I did, however, think my reply was all your post deserved.


----------



## story (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> No I did not say that. Anyone can live anywhere, thats my whole point. I think people who are nicely brought up don't behave like this.


 
Jaysus...


----------



## kittyP (Aug 9, 2011)

Seriously guys.
Whether madz talks about her personal life or not has got fuck all to do with it.
Some of you are being really horrible.

We are talking about a serious subject


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Poor people are kept poor by rich people and they get angry and steal stuff?
> 
> Is this what passes for insight round here?


Is _that_ what passes for a precis?


----------



## kittyP (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Poor people are kept poor by rich people and they get angry and steal stuff?
> 
> Is this what passes for insight round here?



Just because something has been said before doesn't make it not true and worth saying again.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> People there know how to behave. They do not expect a house to be given to them, or a job, or qualifications.
> 
> Granted I would suggest there is less likelihood that they would face absent parents, drug or alcohol addicted parents, a dangerous estate to grow up on and so on.
> 
> ...



Oh you fucking idiot.

"People there know how to behave". Oh and I suppose people who come from other places - like Tottenham and Hackney, they don't. They are the scum who don't behave properly are they?

Do you think there are many people in Eton and Ascot and Windsor who have to try and manage of the minimum wage or on benefits?

I'm sorry but your post has just made me so angry. Yeah let's forget about all the people who are just trying to survive, just trying to get by. Yeah, fuck them they don't need help they can do it themselves. Let's just take away all their benefits and then they'll _have_ to manage. No they don't need 'opportunities' they should be able to find those themselves. And let's remeember they don't know how to behave! They should be doffing their hats to their betters and shouting "Thank you, thank you!" for whatever crumbs they are left with.

Jesus Christ


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

kittyP said:


> Seriously guys.
> Whether madz talks about her personal life or not has got fuck all to do with it.
> Some of you are being really horrible.
> 
> We are talking about a serious subject


That's sweet of you but it's only a mentaller and a narcissist who are being mean. Matter do it? 

Whenever Eva posts I'm reminded of Luna Lovegood from the Harry Potter movies. That's probably unfair on poor Luna though.

And I don't care if I've spelled narcissist wrong.


----------



## kittyP (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> That's sweet of you but it's only a mentaller and a narcissist who are being mean. Matter do it?
> 
> Whenever Eva posts I'm reminded of Luna Lovegood from the Harry Potter movies. That's probably unfair on poor Luna though.
> 
> And I don't care if I've spelled narcissist wrong.



Oh noes! I love Luna Lovegood!

Oh and bloody hell, it's gotta be bad coz she has made the lovely Quoggy angry


----------



## past caring (Aug 9, 2011)

dylans said:


> _Yes they do. Mommy will leave them the house, daddy will get them the job and the best school money can buy will get them the qualifications followed by the gap year and the internship with daddy's company. The kids rioting on the streets right now are rioting, not because they expect these things to be given to them but because they are increasingly convinced they will never get them no matter what they do or how hard they work for the simple reason that these things are not meant for the likes of them. Society has told them to fuck off and this is their reply_





Kizmet said:


> This is new?



The privileged trying to retain and extend their privilege at the expense of the rest of us? No.

But the "victory" of Thatcherism/neo-liberalism (and the defeat of "socialism" - of even social democracy) in the political sphere has very much led to something new - there being absolutely no counterweight which is visible and seen as viable. In other words, no collective belief that we - acting collectively - might be able to create a better, more equitable, more just society. That is new - there being no polar attraction to "me" and "I".


----------



## story (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> _Yes they do. Mommy will leave them the house, daddy will get them the job and the best school money can buy will get them the qualifications followed by the gap year and the internship with daddy's company. The kids rioting on the streets right now are rioting, not because they expect these things to be given to them but because they are increasingly convinced they will never get them no matter what they do or how hard they work for the simple reason that these things are not meant for the likes of them. Society has told them to fuck off and this is their reply_​
> I can't remember who posted this, but its about as out of touch as those who think all Xs are Y.​
> If this is what poorer people really think of the rest of us, seriously, open your eyes. People are struggling just as much as you, but we suck it up because we have to. Who else is going to help us if we dont help our selves??​



Eva Luna... wow... the degree of blinkered ignorance is astonishing.

Of course people struggle, rich people struggle too, with their own issues and problems. And there is plenty of shabby shoddy shitty behaviour amongst the rich too.

It's not just about the struggle though, is it: it's about being entirely without hope, without prospects, without a safety net, without education, without prospects or back up, without the wherewithal to make things better. It's about being failed already by the society and/or family into which one was born, knowing that in order to make a difference in your own life (and no-one else is going to help, so it is down to you alone) then you have to change everything, every single thing in your life. And how does a person do that without a good education, without hope, without options, without a safety net?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> Don't use language like that to me pls. See, what low standards; excellent. You are what they term Broken Britain.


sorry, eva, but if you post stuff as offensive and ill-informed as you have here, you're gonna get called on it. The interweb is no place for fragile little petals.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Poor people are kept poor by rich people


Yes, I believe they call it 'capitalism'


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Yes, irrespective of government. I think I already said that.  But to be explicit: governments of every flavour serve the same interests. And in modern times, more specifically all have been neoliberal since (and including) the first monetarist PM, Callaghan.



Irrespective of government is important, though.

Because while many people are using these riots to push agendas the real issue is how to reconnect the youth and the disaffected with the communities they live in.

How?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

kittyP said:


> <snip>
> I know that these events are not directly linked to the banks etc but look what happens when 100's of thousands of people do peacefully protest.... nothing!​<snip>



To be fair, something happened, if you mean the G20 protesters.

The police beat the shit out of a whole bunch of them and also managed to kill an innocent bystander (and then lie about it)


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Aug 9, 2011)

kittyP said:


> Oh noes! I love Luna Lovegood!
> 
> *Oh and bloody hell, it's gotta be bad coz she has made the lovely Quoggy angry*





I shall make a nice cup of tea to calm down!


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 9, 2011)

It's depressing when people you thought were your friends turn out to be Daily Fail reading reactionary, racist bigots.


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> I think there is a gross social divide in this country and I am tired of trying to bridge the gap. We all have problems. Some worse than others. In this country we have a lot more than many other oeople in the world. So I have little sympathy for those who think they have it hard. We all have hard choices. Your behaviour under conditions of fire will define you. We may not like the choices we have but suck it the fuck up. Looting, mugging, hurting people, lying, stealing (governments as well), all of it, I hate it.
> 
> Anyway this has really pissed me off.



who says that the rioting will fix anything? has anyone said they support it?


----------



## dylans (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> What if someone said the same sort of thing about poor people? Its just a joke. If you think thats life for most working people in the UK you'd be wrong.



You were not talking about most working people in the UK. You made the outrageous statement that the rich and upper middle class, people in areas like Ascot, Cheltenham and Eton don't riot because they are simply better behaved than people in Tottenham


----------



## lopsidedbunny (Aug 9, 2011)

Bank bail out, bonuses for the rich via tax payer's money, MP on forever hoildays, MP's fiddling accounts, Police fiddling accounts, strikes, marches ... etc...


----------



## Mation (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> No I did not say that. Anyone can live anywhere, thats my whole point. I think people who are nicely brought up don't behave like this.


That's some breathtaking stupidity, right there.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> who says that the rioting will fix anything? has anyone said they support it?



If what people actually are saying is too difficult to argue with but too painful to contemplate, should you consider for the moment that it might be true, it's always easier to make up something they aren't saying and argue with that instead


----------



## dylans (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Irrespective of government is important, though.
> 
> Because while many people are using these riots to push agendas the real issue is how to reconnect the youth and the disaffected with the communities they live in.
> 
> How?


Well the police could make a start by not publicly executing people in the street by blowing their heads off


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 9, 2011)

It never ceases to amaze me that people of a right-wing conservative belief system cant seem to seperate condoning something bad happening from explaining why it happens.

It's like bashing your head against a brick wall.

"It happens because of xyz"

"No they are just cunts"

"They are cunts for a reason"

"No they aren't, they're just cunts and should be shot"

etc..


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

Interesting if overly short statement form a crowd psychology expert. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=417086#.TkEXaHYtOUt.facebook


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Oh you fucking idiot.
> 
> "People there know how to behave". Oh and I suppose people who come from other places - like Tottenham and Hackney, they don't. They are the scum who don't behave properly are they?
> 
> ...


well said QoG - but I still think my demolition job is better.
Eva, you really haven't got a bloody scooby, have you?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> That's sweet of you but it's only a mentaller and a narcissist who are being mean. Matter do it?



Am I the mentaller or the narcissist?


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Interesting if overly short statement form a crowd psychology expert. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=417086#.TkEXaHYtOUt.facebook


I mentioned that earlier


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Am I the mentaller or the narcissist?



It's not rocket science


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> I mentioned that earlier



Sorry! Can't keep up.


----------



## Garek (Aug 9, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> It never ceases to amaze me that people of a right-wing conservative belief system cant seem to seperate condoning something bad happening from explaining why it happens.
> 
> It's like bashing your head against a brick wall.
> 
> ...



"We should understand a little less, and condemn a little more"


----------



## trampie (Aug 9, 2011)

doddles said:


> Some really good posts on here, esp. by PC and dlr.
> PC's point about neoliberal riots mirroring neoliberalism is spot on. In fact, I'd go further than saying "why should people give a shit about society if society doesn't give a shit about them." Neoliberalism in its current form in the UK has turned into something more than just "not giving a shit about others". It's become a system that actively promotes selfishness and material accumulation above all else, and promotes the open flaunting of outrageous wealth in a society that becomes more unequal every year. It's one thing to have a system that minimises financial regulation and state control and hope (or even promote) that those with wealth and power exercise their social/moral compasses, don't abuse their freedoms and turn around and help those in need(a hopelessly naive idea, but one that at least might be done with good intentions). It's quite another to create a society in which the underlying message is "if it's legal, then go for it" and then applaud when people and businesses who (legally) screw society for whatever they can get and parade it in front of us all.
> 
> OK. I'm not a political scientist or sociologist. But I am an expert in the neurobiology of human emotions. We have systems that have evolved to generate emotions, that use emotions to guide our actions, and more recently developed systems, both neurobiological and social to regulate our emotional behaviour. They do not all operate according to our modern ideas of "rational" behaviour. When parts of our brain detect that relative to others, we're not getting our fair share - and this can happen without or even despite any conscious notion of unfairness - we get angry or aggressive. We might be angry, but not know why. We might feel like violence, but not know why. In a functioning society in which we've been brought up to believe in consideration for others, the anger or violence will be checked by other parts of our brain. Or by the people around us. But if we grow up in a society in which the message is "get whatever you can - look after yourself", then there will be no such checks.
> ...


Nice post.


----------



## dennisr (Aug 9, 2011)

past caring said:


> The privileged trying to retain and extend their privilege at the expense of the rest of us? No.
> 
> But the "victory" of Thatcherism/neo-liberalism (and the defeat of "socialism" - of even social democracy) in the political sphere has very much led to something new - there being absolutely no counterweight which is visible and seen as viable. In other words, no collective belief that we - acting collectively - might be able to create a better, more equitable, more just society. That is new - there being no polar attraction to "me" and "I".



worth repeating - spot on again pc


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 9, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Interesting if overly short statement form a crowd psychology expert. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=417086#.TkEXaHYtOUt.facebook



thanks for that, interesting but as you say quite short...


----------



## kittyP (Aug 9, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> To be fair, something happened, if you mean the G20 protesters.
> 
> The police beat the shit out of a whole bunch of them and also managed to kill an innocent bystander (and then lie about it)



Well yes there was that.

I meant nothing happened politically because people had made their collective voice heard


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

past caring said:


> The privileged trying to retain and extend their privilege at the expense of the rest of us? No.
> 
> But the "victory" of Thatcherism/neo-liberalism (and the defeat of "socialism" - of even social democracy) in the political sphere has very much led to something new - there being absolutely no counterweight which is visible and seen as viable. In other words, no collective belief that we - acting collectively - might be able to create a better, more equitable, more just society. That is new - there being no polar attraction to "me" and "I".



What, in your opinion made it invisible and unviable?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> Why is the state responsible for us tho? Are we not responsible for ourselves?



Have you ever heard of "the social compact", Eva?
It's a socio-political and constitutional idea that says "we, the governed, give the government our consent to be governed, in return for the government fulfilling certain cares and duties to us". That's been the case for as long as we've claimed to have democratic governance.

That being the case, yes, the state *is* PARTIALLY responsible for us, insofar as it has to meet those cares and duties, just as we are responsible for ourselves insofar as those cares and duties that the government *hasn't* committed itself to fulfill.

The problem is that the government has, over the course of the last three decades, progressively moved the goal-posts on the social compact, committing themselves to less and less while expecting the governed to allocate them more and more power.

Something has got to give.



> I can see what you're saying but really, get out. If you don't like it, get out and make a go of it yourself.



Yes, it really is that simple, isn't it?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> It never ceases to amaze me that people of a right-wing conservative belief system cant seem to seperate condoning something bad happening from explaining why it happens.
> 
> It's like bashing your head against a brick wall.
> 
> ...



Truth is too painful.

The neo-liberal policies that most of the people acting like that have been supporting for the last 30 years created as a completely predictable (and much predicted) consequence, a large irredeemably alienated violent underclass who are now burning and looting our cities.

A moment's honest thought would make that clear, so that moment's honest thought can't be allowed to occur.

Hence all the hysterical screaming of thought-suppressing cliches at people who keep pointing it out, the misrepresentation of what they're saying as being in favour of burning old ladies in the streets etc.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Is _that_ what passes for a precis?



Of that level of insight, yes. Your posts have provided more.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 9, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> It never ceases to amaze me that people of a right-wing conservative belief system cant seem to seperate condoning something bad happening from explaining why it happens.
> 
> It's like bashing your head against a brick wall.
> 
> ...



It is extraordinary isnt it?   In years to come when historians etc are picking over the bones of these events I rather suspect their conclusions won't consist of 'well they were just a bunch of cunts who had just discovered twitter.'


----------



## trampie (Aug 9, 2011)

past caring said:


> The privileged trying to retain and extend their privilege at the expense of the rest of us? No.
> 
> But the "victory" of Thatcherism/neo-liberalism (and the defeat of "socialism" - of even social democracy) in the political sphere has very much led to something new - there being absolutely no counterweight which is visible and seen as viable. In other words, no collective belief that we - acting collectively - might be able to create a better, more equitable, more just society. That is new - there being no polar attraction to "me" and "I".


True


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

kittyP said:


> Just because something has been said before doesn't make it not true and worth saying again.



It does, however, get boring if it leads to nothing ... as in this case.


----------



## trampie (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Irrespective of government is important, though.
> 
> Because while many people are using these riots to push agendas the real issue is how to reconnect the youth and the disaffected with the communities they live in.
> 
> How?


Equality.


----------



## rover07 (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> Why is the state responsible for us tho?  Are we not responsible for ourselves?
> 
> I can see what you're saying but really, get out.  If you don't like it, get out and make a go of it yourself.



Thats what the rioters are doing.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> It is extraordinary isnt it?   In years to come when historians etc are picking over the bones of these events I rather suspect their conclusions won't consist of 'well they were just a bunch of cunts who had just discovered twitter.'



That depends on who wins.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

trampie said:


> Equality.



Doesn't exist.


----------



## past caring (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> What, in your opinion made it invisible and unviable?



It's a difficult discussion and one for another thread - I'm happy to have that discussion (wouldn't be the first time on these boards if you'd like to do a search) but not right now on this thread.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Truth is too painful.
> 
> The neo-liberal policies that most of the people acting like that have been supporting for the last 30 years created as a completely predictable (and much predicted) consequence, a large irredeemably alienated violent underclass who are now burning and looting our cities.



Why has it not affected you? Why are you not in this underclass?

How are you less affected by these all pervading all consuming policies?


----------



## trampie (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Doesn't exist.


Exactly, thats why we have a problem.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

trampie said:


> Exactly, thats why we have a problem.



It has never existed.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> I doubt it. I hate people like you Madzone, listing off your problems but unprepared to do anything about them.



how fucking _dare_ you.


----------



## cha0skain (Aug 9, 2011)

Blah


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

past caring said:


> It's a difficult discussion and one for another thread - I'm happy to have that discussion (wouldn't be the first time on these boards if you'd like to do a search) but not right now on this thread.



It's quite relevant in this context.

I am talking about individual responsibility, after all.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Why has it not affected you? Why are you not in this underclass?
> 
> How are you less affected by these all pervading all consuming policies?



What's your point?


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 9, 2011)

Good Gawd !!

(@ cha0s---)

You REALLY think it's 'cos of child benefit ????


----------



## weepiper (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> What if someone said the same sort of thing about poor people? Its just a joke. If you think thats life for most working people in the UK you'd be wrong.



and open your fucking eyes, people say the same sort of thing about poor people constantly, a constant drip drip of venom and barely concealed corrosive disgust for benefits claimants from the government and in the media.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

That you are either immune somehow.. or it isn't as big a factor in this as you think.


----------



## kittyP (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> If you watch the videos of the riot you will see that all the rioters are chav scumbags who blah blah snip snip tory/new labour ill advised waffle!
> 
> ALL THANKS TO THE CHILD BENEFIT SCHEME.
> 
> We don't need it, its very simple people, you want something ? work for it.



I can't even begin to answer


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 9, 2011)

kittyP said:


> I can't even begin to answer


Don't bother, its just some cut n paste nonsense.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> That you are either immune somehow.. or it isn't as big a factor in this as you think.



I'm not really following your logic there, do you want to spell it out a bit more?


----------



## weepiper (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> The reason these people exist is because of child benefits
> Step 1: Girl gets knocked up by some random guy
> Step 2: Girl gives birth
> Step 3: Free House and more money than actual working people get.
> ...



I seem to have gone wrong somewhere between steps two and three, perhaps that's why my children are not growing up ungrateful scumbags


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 9, 2011)

i would like my free house plz


----------



## cha0skain (Aug 9, 2011)

Fruitloop said:


> i would like my free house plz


pop out a baby quit your job and hey presto


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

@ Bernie I asked you some questions because it was your logic I was having trouble following.

You're claiming something is a social factor in causing riots... and I want to know how you are immune from them.


----------



## Teaboy (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> Step 3: Free House and more money than actual working people get.



If you have a rubbish house and job you really should work harder, you have no one to blame but yourself.


----------



## cha0skain (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I asked you some questions because it was your logic I was having trouble following.
> 
> You're claiming something is a social factor in causing riots... and I want to know how you are immune from them.


because i actualy work and didnt have dirty scrubbers for parents. My parents arent rich, pretty damn poor but they work for what they have.


----------



## OutSauce (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> If you watch the videos of the riot you will see that all the rioters are chav scumbags who just go on job seekers and get the money and then never get a job and have kids so they can have a free house and get over 1000 pounds a month. They are not hard working, i live on an estate and they're all the same, all they do with their day is drink, smoke and play their xbox's and ps3's us hard working British people pay for. Me and My girlfriend have not been in well of family's but we dont expect everything to be given to us and neither do any other respectable people in this country who have more than 1 brain cell, we work full time 5 days a week and get less money than these people who sit on their ass all day and they're the ones complaining ???!?!?!?! You defend them because they're not given equal opportunities ? everyone has an opportunity to make something of themselves at school and these rioters are exactly the same people who didn't give a crap in school and just didn't try.
> 
> The reason these people exist is because of child benefits
> Step 1: Girl gets knocked up by some random guy
> ...


FFS - is it really that simple?


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> pop out a baby quit your job and hey presto



Not another one.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> because i actualy work and didnt have dirty scrubbers for parents. My parents arent rich, pretty damn poor but they work for what they have.



Yeah, I think I saw your mum's card in a phonebox.


----------



## cha0skain (Aug 9, 2011)

Teaboy said:


> If you have a rubbish house and job you really should work harder, you have no one to blame but yourself.


actually i do work as hard as i possibly can shame about the money i have to give these scumbags brings that brings my standard of living down.


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> because i actualy work and didnt have dirty scrubbers for parents. My parents arent rich, pretty damn poor but they work for what they have.



Did you have clean scrubbers for parents then?


----------



## cha0skain (Aug 9, 2011)

madzone said:


> Yeah, I think I saw your mum's card in a phonebox.


lol im sure you did atleast she fucking works


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> because i actualy work and didnt have dirty scrubbers for parents. My parents arent rich, pretty damn poor but they work for what they have.



I wasn't replying to you. Sorry... was for Bernie.


----------



## trampie (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It has never existed.


We have had more equality at various times in the past and we need more of it now.


----------



## story (Aug 9, 2011)

weepiper said:


> and open your fucking eyes, people say the same sort of thing about poor people constantly, a constant drip drip of venom and barely concealed corrosive disgust for benefits claimants from the government and in the media.



For example, cha0skain's earlier post.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

More of something that doesn't exist?


----------



## cha0skain (Aug 9, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> Did you have clean scrubbers for parents then?


no they actually work and wasn't around at all when i was a kid so they could keep the house etc etc but to be honest it doesnt bother me its only when people i pay for are ungrateful dicks


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> @ Bernie I asked you some questions because it was your logic I was having trouble following.
> 
> You're claiming something is a social factor in causing riots... and I want to know how you are immune from them.



Why do I have to be immune from them though? I'm old enough to be the grandad of most of the people currently rioting, so it's very hard to see how I'm at all relevant.


----------



## story (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> no they actually work and wasn't around at all when i was a kid so they could keep the house etc etc but to be honest it doesnt bother me its only when people i pay for are ungrateful dicks



The dicks I pay for are mostly very grateful. Unless I pay them to be ungrateful.


----------



## kittyP (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> because i actualy work and didnt have dirty scrubbers for parents. My parents arent rich, pretty damn poor but they work for what they have.



He he he he!


----------



## cha0skain (Aug 9, 2011)

story said:


> For example, cha0skain's earlier post.


i am not talking about poor people, just people who go on benefits and have no intention to work . . . . the majority who are on child benefits


----------



## gavman (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> When I spent a year unemployed, I was pissed off but I didn't blame everyone else or smash shit up


i would hope your threshold is a little higher than that. for most people it might take, say a lifetime of being stopped and searched by racist thugs. possibly being strip searched in front of strangers. maybe even experiencing the aggravated burglary of a police raid on your home looking for cannabis. experiences such as these might provoke an uncontrolled release of tension at any chance to even the score.

i have no idea what you think it is about sitting on your arse playing video games for a year that gives you insight into the minds of todays urban youth. perhaps you can enlighten us


----------



## story (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> i am not talking about poor people, just people who go on benefits and have no intention to work . . . . the majority who are on benefits


 
Drip... drip... drip...


----------



## weepiper (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> i am not talking about poor people, just people who go on benefits and have no intention to work . . . . the majority who are on child benefits



actually, the majority of people claiming housing benefit and tax credits do work. Like me. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant though, will you.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Why do I have to be immune from them though? I'm old enough to be the grandad of most of the people currently rioting, so it's very hard to see how I'm at all relevant.



Does that mean you'd be looting too if you could?


----------



## gavman (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> They fucking smashed up our *oxfam* shop, for fucks sake. If that's not greed and wanton violence, I dunno what is.


how is smashing up oxfam a sign of greed?


----------



## cha0skain (Aug 9, 2011)

Get the facts then come back here and tell me im wrong because i would love to know that the majority of tax money i pay goes to decent people and not these scum, so please someone prove me wrong


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Does that mean you'd be looting too if you could?



You're not making much sense I'm afraid. If you have a valid point, articulate it clearly and I'll engage with it ...


----------



## OutSauce (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> Get the facts then come back here and tell me im wrong because i would love to know that the majority of tax money i pay goes to decent people and not these scum, so please someone prove me wrong


most of your tax money goes to the NHS and Defence


----------



## kittyP (Aug 9, 2011)

OutSauce said:


> most of your tax money goes to the NHS and Defence



Just ignore


----------



## cha0skain (Aug 9, 2011)

We have a population problem anyway, all these rioters probably don't work or contribute to society, they should be shot, wouldn't be a loss would it.


----------



## krink (Aug 9, 2011)

boris johnson getting harangued by the people on radio5 just now. people sounded very angry and he was blustering nonsense.


----------



## cha0skain (Aug 9, 2011)

OutSauce said:


> most of your tax money goes to the NHS and Defence


the part which goes on child benefits


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> Get the facts then come back here and tell me im wrong because i would love to know that the majority of tax money i pay goes to decent people and not these scum, so please someone prove me wrong


So people on benefits aren't decent people? ....nice!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> pretentious bullshit



This is what I like to see - rigourous self-criticism.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> pretentious bullshit



This is what I like to see - rigourous self-criticism.

So relevant I said it twice!


----------



## cha0skain (Aug 9, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> So people on benefits aren't decent people? ....nice!


if you have a baby and rely on government to bail you out then yes, adopt so it can have a better life, or abort it.

You want something, Earn it


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

Everybody pays tax, cha0skain, in various forms -- VAT being a prime example. The only tax you pay that somebody on benefits doesn't is income tax and NI. So tell us -- how much income tax and NI do you actually pay?

If you need help then try this: you pay nothing on your first £7,475 and 20% thereafter (at least until you get to £42,500-ish). And national insurance is 11% above about £7,140 per year (changing to 1% when you get to about £42,500-ish). In total, if you work out 31% of your earnings above £7,500, it should be about right.

Less than a third of tax goes on TOTAL benefits including ones you will be benefitting from and ones that go to places that are nothing to do with your complaints. Unemployment and child benefit is about a sixth, say. So if you take a sixth of your 31%, that's about your contribution. If you need help then a sixth of 31% is just over 5%, so you could just work out 5% of your earnings above £7,500. If you're on the median salary of about £22,500, that's £750 per year, or £15 per week.

Then again, many people earning this level of salary will also be benefitting from some kind of benefit -- child support, for example. For many, their net contribution will be nil.

I think it would really help to know the quantum of your complaint. Just how much money are you personally objecting to shelling out?

Personally, I don't mind paying for benefits at all. I think they should be set much higher, actually.


----------



## story (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> We have a population problem anyway, all these rioters probably don't work or contribute to society, they should be shot, wouldn't be a loss would it.



 


cha0skain said:


> if you have a baby and rely on government to bail you out then yes, adopt so it can have a better life, or abort it.
> 
> You want something, Earn it




Brilliant!


----------



## OutSauce (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> We have a population problem anyway, all these rioters probably don't work or contribute to society, they should be shot, wouldn't be a loss would it.


Tosser  why don;t you fuck off and live somewhere like Damascus. you would enjoy it there


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> no they ... wasn't around at all when i was a kid



Ah, right.  That explains a lot.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> You're not making much sense I'm afraid. If you have a valid point, articulate it clearly and I'll engage with it ...



It was a straight question.


----------



## cha0skain (Aug 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Everybody pays tax, cha0skain, in various forms -- VAT being a prime example. The only tax you pay that somebody on benefits doesn't is income tax and NI. So tell us -- how much income tax and NI do you actually pay?
> 
> If you need help then try this: you pay nothing on your first £7,475 and 20% thereafter (at least until you get to £42,500-ish). And national insurance is 11% above about £7,140 per year (changing to 1% when you get to about £42,500-ish). In total, if you work out 31% of your earnings above £7,500, it should be about right.
> 
> ...


750 a year is still too much for me and anyway forget about that its all about the kind of people the child benefit scheme is breeding. These rioters for example.


----------



## Ivana Nap (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> the part which goes on child benefits



How do you feel about the portion of your tax that pays child benefit to higher rate tax payers earning over 43k?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Oh, ok. It's the poor disaffected youth, then. The poor lambs.



No, you arrant knob-fungus, it's not one or the other, there's no simplistic binary opposition such as you're proposing. What there *is*, is a complex web of factors, circumstances and events that have all contributed to what's happened.


----------



## cha0skain (Aug 9, 2011)

story said:


> Brilliant!


yeh why not, survival of the fittest, getting rid of all the scum would make our country actually good again


----------



## cha0skain (Aug 9, 2011)

or you could just slit their throats on the street, i mean we run the risk of being stabbed by these scum bags just walking to the post office


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> We have a population problem anyway, all these rioters probably don't work or contribute to society, they should be shot, wouldn't be a loss would it.



Would that apply to you, should you ever find yourself in the position of losing your job?

I hope so, and I hope your place of work burns to the ground tonight.


----------



## cha0skain (Aug 9, 2011)

no one would stab anyone then


----------



## cha0skain (Aug 9, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Would that apply to you, should you ever find yourself in the position of losing your job?
> 
> I hope so, and I hope your place of work burns to the ground tonight.


dont give them credit, they dont want to work, if you dont want to work or contribute then fuck of your just making our country worse and worse


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Clapham and Ealing are hardly blighted inner city areas.



Clapham and Ealing both have very visible divides between the "poor" and "wealthy" parts, just as many London boroughs do. It's what happens when social housing gets residualised: You end up concentrating the poor into particular areas.


----------



## agricola (Aug 9, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, you arrant knob-fungus, it's not one or the other, there's no simplistic binary opposition such as you're proposing. What there *is*, is a complex web of factors, circumstances and events that have all contributed to what's happened.



I agree, but all of that is not especially important right now - what has to happen is that this has to stop now, otherwise the only choices will be to let it happen until everything in the city is looted, or to stamp down on the disorder in a way that hasnt been seen in this country for many, many years.


----------



## cha0skain (Aug 9, 2011)

agricola said:


> I agree, but all of that is not especially important right now - what has to happen is that this has to stop now, otherwise the only choices will be to let it happen until everything in the city is looted, or to stamp down on the disorder in a way that hasnt been seen in this country for many, many years.


second one sounds sweet


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> If you believe this, you really are too dense to be allowed to breed



That would mean recourse to the same disgusting eugenics as Giles favours, so we can only hope that any children he has will receive a decent education that teaches them how vile a person their father is.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> survival of the fittest


people who don't understand science always quote this, but actually don't understand what it actaully means. It means that which fits its environment best, not that which is strongest.


----------



## cha0skain (Aug 9, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> people who don't understand science always quote this, but actually don't understand what it actaully means. It means that which fits its environment best, not that which is strongest.


ok then let me rephrase that for you
everyone who wants to contribute to society stays
everyone who just wants to leech and bring the country down kill or deport


----------



## TopCat (Aug 9, 2011)

agricola said:


> I agree, but all of that is not especially important right now - what has to happen is that this has to stop now, otherwise the only choices will be to let it happen until everything in the city is looted, or to stamp down on the disorder in a way that hasnt been seen in this country for many, many years.


Yeah well even if you let your dogs loose you will find out harshly that you are few and the people are many.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> That would mean recourse to the same disgusting eugenics as Giles favours, so we can only hope that any children he has will receive a decent education that teaches them how vile a person their father is.


one can but hope!


----------



## past caring (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> dont give them credit, they dont want to work, if you dont want to work or contribute then fuck of your just making our country worse and worse



How's your wife's problem with the Islamic Bank coming along?


----------



## agricola (Aug 9, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Yeah well even if you let your dogs loose you will find out harshly that you are few and the people are many.



And "the people" are on the side of the people that are burning their neighbours out?  Who are robbing them?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Doesn't exist.


then it damn well should do, and fighting for it should be No 1 priority; the worst thing that has happened - the most socially damaging thing - is the huge widening of the gap between rich and poor, one of the main causal factors behind the catastrophe of the last few days.


----------



## gavman (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Ok, can someone explain to me why a charity shop was looted? What's the reason behind that?


well it obviously wasn't greed


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> People there know how to behave. They do not expect a house to be given to them, or a job, or qualifications.



Does anyone?

I mean, despite what you've read in some shit-awful rag, does anyone actually *expect* those sort of things? Not in my experience, which is of the exact opposite: That young people round here *know* that unless they're very lucky, they'll still be living with their parents (if they haven't been ejected) when they're 30, and that the chance of a job, however far they're prepared to travel, and however many qualifications they have and training programmes they've been on, is slim.



> Granted I would suggest there is less likelihood that they would face absent parents, drug or alcohol addicted parents, a dangerous estate to grow up on and so on.
> 
> I am sympathetic to the social reasons behind disaffected youth. But the longer I root about within that issue, the less sympathy I have for those who do not help themselves. You can't jiust moan that nothing is being done 'for' you. You have to do it for yoursdelf, alone, skint, walking, getting up early, choosing not to interact with old 'mates', choosing to work, save, go it alone.
> 
> It always astonishes me that people think everyone else is rich and gets everything given to them, and then say 'Well I want it given to me too!'



Which people think this? Give me some examples, please.


----------



## TopCat (Aug 9, 2011)

agricola said:


> And "the people" are on the side of the people that are burning their neighbours out? Who are robbing them?


Nearly all the looting is from shops as well you know.


----------



## gavman (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Whatever I say will illicit the usual derision. I don't know why they would attack a charity shop like oxfam, it's sick.


it jars with your prejudices about the motives of the people on the streets. hence your confusion


----------



## krink (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> ...



is that you marcus?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

dylans said:


> _Yes they do. Mommy will leave them the house, daddy will get them the job and the best school money can buy will get them the qualifications followed by the gap year and the internship with daddy's company. The kids rioting on the streets right now are rioting, not because they expect these things to be given to them but because they are increasingly convinced they will never get them no matter what they do or how hard they work for the simple reason that these things are not meant for the likes of them. Society has told them to fuck off and this is their reply_



Yep, more proof of a regression to a Victorian-era idea of "how things are".


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> pop out a baby quit your job and hey presto


what absolute utter, fucking tripe. have you EVER had an original, coherent thought of your own, or do you simply recycle and regurgitate daily mail editorials every day?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> We have a high rate of unemployment.
> 
> We have a VERY high rate of youth unemployment.
> 
> ...



We also have a horrific differential between black and white youth unemployment which averages out UK-wide at the former running at double the latter.


----------



## gavman (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> People there know how to behave. They do not expect a house to be given to them, or a job, or qualifications.
> 
> Granted I would suggest there is less likelihood that they would face absent parents, drug or alcohol addicted parents, a dangerous estate to grow up on and so on.
> 
> ...


the riot was provoked by heavy handed police action. you are ignoring this


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> Get the facts then come back here and tell me im wrong because i would love to know that the majority of tax money i pay goes to decent people and not these scum, so please someone prove me wrong


OK, you're wrong, ignorant and thoroughly stupid. More of your money goes on defence, police and NHS than anything else, and IME most benefit claimants want to work, simply cos being on the dole ain't no fun.
ignorant twat


----------



## agricola (Aug 9, 2011)

TopCat said:


> Nearly all the looting is from shops as well you know.



In Croydon at least there were numerous robberies, the murder, at least two fires set (one in London Road and one in Central Parade) which burned numerous people out of flats above, assorted assaults and quite a few burglaries of homes, and individual businesses and shops (ie: not part of a chain). To portray this as mere looting of big businesses is not accurate, lots of people were victimized last night.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> the riot was provoked by heavy handed police action. you are ignoring this



No, it was just an excuse to go looting.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

agricola said:


> I agree, but all of that is not especially important right now - what has to happen is that this has to stop now, otherwise the only choices will be to let it happen until everything in the city is looted, or to stamp down on the disorder in a way that hasnt been seen in this country for many, many years.


I really think that a heavy crack down would be disastrously counterproductive. This country is verging on complete social breakdown


----------



## agricola (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I really think that a heavy crack down would be disastrously counterproductive. This country is verging on complete social breakdown



I dont think that "the country" is, but I agree that a heavy crack down would be a disaster.  The problem is that there are increasingly few options left, unless this stops soon.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> Streathamite you talk a lot of sense.
> 
> But really, who are all these rich bankers? Maybe half a percent? The rest of us are just like you! except we have to pay our own massive rents and mortgages, we have to save every penny, we have to bend over to keep our shitty jobs and take shit off nobs. Get a grand in the bank and you can't get benefits. Also people save so that if they lose their jobs they have money to back themselves up with.
> 
> ...



Sorry, but your argument is so simplistic it makes a village idiot look like a polymath.

We've heard a lot of rhetoric about "the squeezed middle", but has anyone bothered to unpack *why* the "middle" is squeezed? Nothing to do with a relentless turn to neo-liberalism that has locked most people into *having* to buy property in order to have a home; a relentless culture of consumerism whereby people are judged by what they own, not what they've achieved; a relentless and ever-widening cleavage betwen the "haves" and "have-nots", with the have-nots, *however hard they try*, having less chance of "making good" than the haves.

Really, go and loot yourself a clue, eh?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

I'm not sure what a "heavy crack down" could consist of, other than a few savage exemplary beatings ... which while they'll no doubt provide unspeakable gratification to thug cops administering them and Daily Mail readers fondling their wizened organs over the pictures, are likely to be counterproductive from any other, more rational perspective.

For example, I can't see how a curfew could be enforced ... the rioters are just going to swarm to places the police aren't at.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

e2a: @ agricola, re; his last post

OK fair enough - the big cities are, or at least large swathes of them>
I'm in tears here - I actually love this country, and it's falling down in front of my horrified stare


----------



## gavman (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> I am glad however that water cannomns are not beibng considered, or army or whatever else other foreign heads of state are suggesting the British do. I don't think we should do that.
> 
> But I DO think that this thuggish brutal behaviour needs to really be looked at.
> 
> And alongside that, the reasons behind people's upset. Lying, faking, stealing, and so on, I can't ba sred to type it all; out now.


you post like someone with no first hand experience of how police treat urban youth.
when you are bullied, tortured and humiliated you burn with the desire to get your own back. it never goes away.
modern british police handcuffs are instruments of torture. the solid bar and ratchet tighteners can inflict unbelievable pain when applied or manipulated by the kind of untouchable sadists employed by the met


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Am I the mentaller or the narcissist?



And do you aspire to be both?


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I really think that a heavy crack down would be disastrously counterproductive. This country is verging on complete social breakdown



I disagree. I think the emergency services and the general public are united in efforts to rid the streets of this feral vermin.

The only people a heavy crackdown would upset would be those looting and those revolutionaries here who think a modicum of solidarity is owed to the cunts who are attacking fire crews and ambulance services and looting charity shops and small businesses. Nobody can wail and whine and be surprised if skulls are cracked tonight, either by cops or organised groups of people simply protected the property they worked hard for.

If this were a targeted attack upon banks, for example, then I would broadly support it. And perhaps if they wanted to fight with the cops over the shooting in Tottenham, one might see that as inevitable.

But no, zero solidarity with these fuckers. They deserve everything they get if they kick off again tonight.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

cha0skain said:


> 750 a year is still too much for me and anyway forget about that its all about the kind of people the child benefit scheme is breeding. These rioters for example.



That's a telling shift of goalposts.  Previously, you were arguing that you resented personally paying for others -- an essentially libertarian argument that removes from the equation the concept of the state needing to provide and plan.  Now you discover, however, that your personal input is minimal (and that by the libertarian logic, you should, therefore, have basically no say in how the benefit money is spent), you have reverted to a statist argument about population control.  That idea of state manipulation doesn't sit easily with your otherwise right-wing idealogy though.

Not that you even answered the question, of course.  Are you meaning to imply that you are, indeed, on median wage?  Because a salary of 15,000 would mean 7.50 per week, ie £375 per year, not £750 per year.  And in truth, at that level, you will almost certainly be a net recipient of benefits anyway.  And thus, by your previous logic, have less than no right at all to complain about where the benefit money goes.

FYI too, of the £7.50 per week or £15 per week or negative £10 per week, some will be going to those earning more than £50,000 rather than those earning nothing.  We haven't even touched on that part.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> If this were a targeted attack upon banks, for example, then I would broadly support it. And perhaps if they wanted to fight with the cops over the shooting in Tottenham, one might see that as inevitable.
> 
> But no, zero solidarity with these fuckers. They deserve everything they get if they kick off again tonight.



Sorry, a targeted attack upon banks you would support because, why? It's not like that would achieve any more or anything positive than what has been going on. A few million quid spent on refurbing branches. Drop in the fucking ocean.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

trampie said:


> Equality.



Equality in practice (i.e. what you might describe as "real equality") is a chimera. It's bait dangled in front of people as a promise of "jam tomorrow".

Of course, the corollary of "jam tomorrow" is "shit today".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

trampie said:


> We have had more equality at various times in the past and we need more of it now.



Not "more equality", but rather "slightly less inequality", IMO.


----------



## trampie (Aug 9, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Equality in practice (i.e. what you might describe as "real equality") is a chimera. It's bait dangled in front of people as a promise of "jam tomorrow".
> 
> Of course, the corollary of "jam tomorrow" is "shit today".


That bait has not been dangled for quarter of a century, they no longer promise ''jam tomorrow'' {for everyone}, they promise ''jam today'' {for you}.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Sorry, a targeted attack upon banks you would support because, why? It's not like that would achieve any more or anything positive than what has been going on. A few million quid spent on refurbing branches. Drop in the fucking ocean.



I think broadly, if these looters had even the tiniest moral compass and restricted their attacks to the bankers that have got away with ripping millions out of the public purse, they'd have the support of much of the public. If they attacked News International, same. But no. They're robbing the most vulnerable, going house to house and attacking working class families.

Oh and give the fire crews weapons. They have axes - I'd say if they used them to defend themselves they should be exempt from prosecution.


----------



## past caring (Aug 9, 2011)

agricola said:


> I agree, but all of that is not especially important right now - what has to happen is that this has to stop now, otherwise the only choices will be to let it happen until everything in the city is looted, or to stamp down on the disorder in a way that hasnt been seen in this country for many, many years.



Actually no - I'd say that thinking about the real causes becomes even more important. Because unless that happens - and at least to some degree informs any response - there's the risk of things being made worse, even in the short term. To take one example - garf has posted a thread stating that black people on his road and from the nearby estate are currently being stopped by police if they have what appears to be new trainers/clothing and being told to turn up at the local nick with the receipts for same if they wish to avoid arrest (yes, I know there's a certain degree of contradiction there, but I'm just paraphrasing garf). Now if something like that is happening is it likely to make things worse, both in the short term and longer term?


----------



## trampie (Aug 9, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Not "more equality", but rather "slightly less inequality", IMO.


True, thanks for tidying my explanations up for the masses.


----------



## Hozza (Aug 9, 2011)

So what do the rioters expect to happen as a result of carnage on thier own community?

What happens now? Im guessing this is going to keep going for a few days. What is the average non-rioter expected to do if living in the middle of it, to protect themselves and neighbours - hide?!

I guess youve seen the footage of the guy being helped up only to be robbed by about 10 yobs? wtf


----------



## agricola (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> But no, zero solidarity with these fuckers. They deserve everything they get if they kick off again tonight.



It isnt as simple as that though.  Yes, increased use of force might quell this disorder but it might not, and the inevitable consequence of a failure being that the level of force used gets raised to an even higher point than it is now.

There is also have the precedent that this increased use of force sets, both for disturbances of this kind and for demonstrations as a whole - once Police are used to (and have been cleared to, by the state - lets face if this hasnt stopped by Thursday MPs are going to be falling over themselves to be seen to be tough on this) use severe levels of repression against people then the chances of them doing it again increase.  For all the criticism of policing here, it is surely the case that our police are a lot less heavy-handed than seen elsewhere in Europe, this disorder has a good chance of ending that (at least in public order terms) for the forseeable future.


----------



## gavman (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> If this were a targeted attack upon banks, for example, then I would broadly support it. And perhaps if they wanted to fight with the cops over the shooting in Tottenham, one might see that as inevitable.


erm....why have you overlooked the many confrontations with police?

wouldn't it be inevitable that if consent were withdrawn from being policed by the met
that law and order would then break down? and some people would take advantage?
but that wouldn't be the cause of the trouble, just a symptom of what happens (anarchy) when you have had incompetent and heavy handed policing that loses legitimacy?

do you think the whole cause of the riots was greed, or that people are indulging themselves now the police have lost control?


----------



## Wraith37 (Aug 9, 2011)

Divisive Cotton said:


> Tweet from Andrew Neil:



Shows only that he knows nothing of the context of the Intifada (either of them) - but then, this is Andrew Neil.  All he does know is a good strapline.


----------



## kittyP (Aug 9, 2011)

Why are you guys still even entertaining this twunt?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> I*'ve been mugged, beaten and abused in this country,* lots of really shit things have happened to me but I'm not setting people's homes on fire, Rutita. Yes, emotions are running high; my wife shaking with fear last night.


Join the club, add to that sexual assualt, racial abuse etc...it's not a game of top trumps, you are not the only one who suffers,  there is little point though in burying your head in the sand, spouting Daily Fail shit and going on like most of the time we don't just get on with our lives. You don't like the situation, address it intelligently!


----------



## Wraith37 (Aug 9, 2011)

'as the logic & motivations of the riots seem to be derived from the very same logic & motivations of the society that 'produced' them, there doesn't seem to be much there to actually threaten or dent the foundational basis of the system that they are supposedly reacting against. sure we can all go on about how looters are bypassing & causing ruptures to the normal circuits and flows of capital, but that in and off itself doesn't mean there's anything progressive about it - organised crime does the same thing to an extent and no one sees anything liberating or progressive about that'

Exactly - this isn't about _resistance, _it's aspiration to hold the same possessions as the elite.  Old-style leftist thinking is as useless as the hard right in these circumstances.  We need a new meta-analysis, and the variables are too fast and multitudinous to make that plausible...

Things may, or may not, flare up for another night or two.  But the underlying problems will not change, and the pessimist in me wonders if they can.


----------



## Peter Dow (Aug 9, 2011)

Peter Dow said:


>


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:


> *People there know how to behave.* They do not expect a house to be given to them, or a job, or qualifications.


Eva, has someone nicked your log in? I can't even get past your first sentence...ffs!


----------



## past caring (Aug 9, 2011)

Unfortunately, rutita it's times like these that true colours often get revealed.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

Funny how a lot of the internet hardmen's reaction to a suspension of law and order is... more suspension of law and order, only this time in retaliation - see pk et al.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 9, 2011)

It's good to have such wisdom from VP and Bernie on here.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Funny how a lot of the internet hardmen's reaction to a suspension of law and order is... more suspension of law and order, only this time in retaliation - see pk et al.


 
funny how they initially had a wank to the rioters and then done a volte face when they realised the social class and, perhaps, colour make up of the rioters. Now its all 'give the firemen axes'


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 9, 2011)

.......



> On much of the footage of the widespread theft after the riots, looters can be seen brazenly taking the goods they want, some without taking the precaution of covering their face. In one video shot early on Sunday morning in Wood Green, people can be seen leaving H&M with a haul of goods, with others standing around JD Sports apparently waiting for their turn to take goods.
> 
> One north London resident, who wanted to be identified only as Tiel, described a conversation: "I heard two girls arguing about which store to steal from next. 'Let's go Boots?' 'No, Body Shop.' 'Hit Body Shop after it's dead [meaning empty].'" The girl came out of Boots "nonchalantly, as if she'd done her weekly shop at 4:30am", he added. He described others, holding up clothes to themselves in the broken windows of H&M. "They were just so blasé about what they were doing."
> 
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/08/looting-fuelled-by-social-exclusion


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> funny how they initially had a wank to the rioters and then done a volte face when they realised the social class and, perhaps, colour make up of the rioters. Now its all 'give the firemen axes'



That made me go _huh?_ AFAIK if fire crews were indeed attacked and had no chance of escape I doubt any jury in the country would doubt a plea of self-defence if it came to court.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Eva, has someone nicked your log in? I can't even get past your first sentence...ffs!


Both on here and irl, I'm finding that this issue has really polarised people. I'm finding real anger irl too at any kind of suggestion that you have any kind of sympathy for any of the rioters, and not just from the usual suspects.


----------



## ShiftyBagLady (Aug 9, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Eva, has someone nicked your log in? I can't even get past your first sentence...ffs!


I too am astounded at how a previously compassionate and sensible poster can spout such sneering, small minded and largely offensive drivel. I guess I just hadn't noticed this before.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

gavman said:


> erm....why have you overlooked the many confrontations with police?
> 
> wouldn't it be inevitable that if consent were withdrawn from being policed by the met
> that law and order would then break down? and some people would take advantage?
> ...



I see the majority of people involved in the looting just going with the greed. They don't give a fuck about the guy shot.
They're laughing and smashing and grabbing. Not a shred of respect for themselves, never mind anything or anyone else.

This is a natural extrapolation of a generation who know full well the teachers can't do anything when they are at school, and now they are running around thinking the police can't do anything. Tonight - if it kicks off, I hope that for once in their lives they actually experience a direct and painful consequence of their actions.

It will probably do them good, believe it or not. It's gone too far, whole generations lost - and a lot of the reason behind that is the left and liberal policy of not speaking about the elephant in the room, not taking responsibility and initiatives for the countless kids of the "babyfather" generation, and once again refusing to acknowledge that there is a deep problem for fear of being labelled racist. Sure, the socio-economic conditions have their role to play also, but these lootings are a direct result of a generation that has never been told "no". Spoiled and greedy little twats.
Now it's too late for them, and the ones caught can expect serious sentences and also expect to spend their lives in poverty, now unemployable for sure.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> funny how they initially had a wank to the rioters and then done a volte face when they realised the social class and, perhaps, colour make up of the rioters. Now its all 'give the firemen axes'



Who was "having a wank" to the rioters? You, probably, but not me.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

Eva Luna said:
			
		

> They do not expect a house to be given to them, or a job, or qualifications.


Get your head out of your arse please. I am shocked you would say such a stupid thing. Perhaps _they_ don't expect or want for anything because they already have it...they don't go without, are not stigmatised and suffer classism and racism etc...How dare you blame the rest of us from all over London who work hard and give a shit etc, despite the day to day class/race/social injustices we witness and/or experience!

The Eton possee are the untouchables and you have swallowed their shit hook, line and sinker. What we are seeing is the manifestation of shit policy making, the untouchables looking after their own interests and crisis management. Your tone and attitude is terrifying to see actually Eva I have always believed you had much more about you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2011)

pk, these are kids of often 15-16 years old. Their brains have a long way to go to be fully developed. They as people have a long way they can still go. It is nowhere near too late for them yet. To say so is really ignorant.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2011)

> kids of the "babyfather" generation



slip showing


----------



## Spymaster (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> This country is verging on complete social breakdown



Cobblers, Jez.

There are a couple of thousand kids out rioting. They're not even representative of the majority of kids, imo, let alone indicative of societal breakdown. They're spread around and using social networking media to organise, which is stretching police resources and making spectacular headlines.

Great, understand why *some* of these kids are at it and work towards improving their situation in future, but until this episode stops, police need to crack heads and make arrests.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

TruXta said:


> That made me go _huh?_ AFAIK if fire crews were indeed attacked and had no chance of escape I doubt any jury in the country would doubt a plea of self-defence if it came to court.



Why should they escape?? They are needed to extinguish fires.
They should be shooting the cunts attacking those working hard to prevent homes burning, for fucks sake.

It's a fucking gang mentality - so give it to the looters they way they would give it out to their victims.

And you can whine about their fucking human rights as you count the bodybags filled with innocent working class people that emerge from the flats above shops.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> slip showing



What "slip" ??? Fuck off - you know full well what I mean and I'm not swerving away from it at all.
The majority by far involved in the serious violence and looting were Afro-Carribean males.

Are you too fucking scared to accept that, or admit it, in light of overwhelming evidence on TV and internet?

Keep running away from the race issue, no, don't address the facts, see no evil, keep kidding yourself you aren't a racist whilst doing everything you can to obscure the reality from vital matters that need addressing, eh?

Nice one. You're doing the fucking EDL's job for them. Maybe you'd prefer those race-baiting cunts on the streets instead of the cops?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2011)

well thank god the middle aged white man is here to tell the babyfather generation what they need to do


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> What "slip" ??? Fuck off - you know full well what I mean and I'm not swerving away from it at all.
> The majority by far involved in the serious violence and looting were Afro-Carribean males.


 So the main reason they are rioting/looting is because of being the children of absentee fathers?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Why should they escape?? They are needed to extinguish fires.
> They should be shooting the cunts attacking those working hard to prevent homes burning, for fucks sake.
> 
> It's a fucking gang mentality - so give it to the looters they way they would give it out to their victims.
> ...



They can't very well fight fires if they're attacked, can they? Plus, they could easily turn the hoses on potential attackers. Or use their axes, as I already said. Again, your "solution" to a breakdown of order is *more lawlessness*. Well done.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> It's good to have such wisdom from VP and Bernie on here.


yup, much-needed counterpart to the 'shoot the scum' brigade


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2011)

You reckon Diane Abbott's son's out there on the streets of Hackney? After all, afro-Caribbean single mum...


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> well thank god the middle aged white man is here to tell the babyfather generation what they need to do



Well thank God the token communist minority is predictably refusing to address what is obvious to everyone.

What's up? Too frightened of offending people? Too un-PC a concept for you? I've taught these kids, I've worked with them, most will respond if they are treated with respect. To deny there is a disproportionate racial make-up in this shitstorm is not respecting them at all - it's exacerbating the problem.

Go back to saluting pictures of Marx or whatever it is you do, you're clearly unable to speak honestly about this issue.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> So the main reason they are rioting/looting is because of being the children of absentee fathers?



Not the main reason, no. But a pretty significant one. No male role models, nobody but fellow gang members to teach them about responsibility, respect - and where to draw the line.

Do you actually deny this is a significant factor??


----------



## kittyP (Aug 9, 2011)

I can honestly say that from what I saw on the Tv and internet, the rioters were are total mixture of black and white.
I am saying that in what I honestly saw not out of liberalism.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> I see the majority of people involved in the looting just going with the greed. They don't give a fuck about the guy shot.
> They're laughing and smashing and grabbing.....



I doubt they knew about the shooting, they were busy nicking TVs, not watching them.

ETA: Oh, hang on, you mean the original guy, not the one killed last night, as you were.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2011)

kittyP said:


> I can honestly say that from what I saw on the Tv and internet, the rioters were are total mixture of black and white.
> I am saying that in what I honestly saw not out of liberalism.


That's what I've seen too. Probably a fair reflection of the racial mix of the poorest sections of London society, I would have thought.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Well thank God the token communist minority is predictably refusing to address what is obvious to everyone.
> 
> What's up? Too frightened of offending people? Too un-PC a concept for you? I've taught these kids, I've worked with them, most will respond if they are treated with respect. To deny there is a disproportionate racial make-up in this shitstorm is not respecting them at all - it's exacerbating the problem.
> 
> Go back to saluting pictures of Marx or whatever it is you do, you're clearly unable to speak honestly about this issue.



I'm not the one jumping up and down calling for the firemen to use thier axes on the uppity babyfathers now am I?


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

kittyP said:


> I can honestly say that from what I saw on the Tv and internet, the rioters were are total mixture of black and white.
> I am saying that in what I honestly saw not out of liberalism.



A mixture - but a disproportionate one. Majority by far were Afro-Carribean.

This is just Croydon: http://www.flickr.com/photos/metropolitanpolice/sets/72157627267892973/


----------



## Zabo (Aug 9, 2011)

Darcus Howe this morning. He drew a parallel with the London contagion of greed with the events in Syria.

Somebody needs to tell him he's lost the plot.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's what I've seen too. Probably a fair reflection of the racial mix of the poorest sections of London society, I would have thought.



Yes.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm not the one jumping up and down calling for the firemen to use thier axes on the uppity babyfathers now am I?



"uppity"

Now who's using racist terms? Go ahead - call me a racist. It would befit the level of debate you are seemingly capable of here.

Hear no evil, see no evil, typical leftie wank that has helped lead to this shit...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

Zabo said:


> .... a parallel with the London contagion of greed


 It is directly linked to the fallout/failings of capitalism IMO, haves and have nots, money, property and possessions as a mark of status/worth, it's nothing new...everyone likes it when they are doing ok and then get upset when those that can't keep up join in anyway they can. That is what is happening on our streets daily/around the world daily, we are all affected by it. Things have reached boiling point.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> "uppity"
> 
> Now who's using racist terms? Go ahead - call me a racist. It would befit the level of debate you are seemingly capable of here.
> 
> Hear no evil, see no evil, typical leftie wank that has helped lead to this shit...



I have a sneaky feeling that post wasn't 100% in seriousness and might have been a teeny weeny bit of a pisstake


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Hear no evil, see no evil, typical leftie wank that has helped lead to this shit...


Go on...?


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

kittyP said:


> I can honestly say that from what I saw on the Tv and internet, the rioters were are total mixture of black and white.
> I am saying that in what I honestly saw not out of liberalism.



Really? Like 50/50 white/black ratio?

You must be watching different channels to me then. BBC, Sky, Al Jazeera seem to offer a different picture in their videos.

Maybe they're being racist?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 9, 2011)

You need a nap K!


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

Crispy said:


> I have a sneaky feeling that post wasn't 100% in seriousness and might have been a teeny weeny bit of a pisstake



I expect pisstake posts. Anything than confronting the truth. Too painful to talk about rationally I guess.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Really? Like 50/50 white/black ratio?
> 
> You must be watching different channels to me then. BBC, Sky, Al Jazeera seem to offer a different picture in their videos.
> 
> Maybe they're being racist?



They would never ever ever do that would they? Not Sky, surely not?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

kittyP said:


> I can honestly say that from what I saw on the Tv and internet, the rioters were are total mixture of black and white.
> I am saying that in what I honestly saw not out of liberalism.


Do you have a black and white telly?

Can get a flatscreen cheap in tottenham, you know.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Too painful to talk about rationally I guess.


Oh, come on.  There's been plenty of rational discussion.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Go on...?



Badly behaved at school? OK, we'll fund a recording studio for your gangsta rap CD. Or send you all expenses on an adventure holiday...


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Badly behaved at school? OK, we'll fund a recording studio for your gangsta rap CD. Or send you all expenses on an adventure holiday...


And which left wing philosophy backs that?


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

TruXta said:


> They would never ever ever do that would they? Not Sky, surely not?



Yeah so all the cameraphones, even those used by black people, they're all racist too. Show me a clip with a 50/50 mix of looters.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> And which left wing philosophy backs that?



The same one that fostered such daft attitudes at Haringay, Brent, Lambeth, Croydon and other inner London councils.

Bribery to stop kids misbehaving. That'll work. HTH.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Oh, come on. There's been plenty of rational discussion.



About the likely background and history of these kids? There hasn't.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> And which left wing philosophy backs that?



Actually a mate of mine was sent on a sail-boat, a big one, when he was a precocious gangster in Oslo back in the 90s. He turned out pretty good as it happens, but ya know, n=tiny. Wasn't ever rolled out on a big scale, rather some kind of test project that got discontinued. Of course, pk clearly must believe that any investment in this feral youth is totally pointless. Let them all rot in jail, that'll teach them. Or just shoot them first, who cares if they might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time? If you're an inner-city black, male, young person wearing a hoodie you're anti-social scum that has lost your right to life and freedom.


----------



## Flanflinger (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Badly behaved at school? OK, we'll fund a recording studio for your gangsta rap CD. Or send you all expenses on an adventure holiday...


 
That's nearer the truth than some on here would like to admit to.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Yeah so all the cameraphones, even those used by black people, they're all racist too. Show me a clip with a 50/50 mix of looters.


Why are you demanding a 50/50 mix. Is there a 50/50 mix black/white among the poorest people in inner London boroughs?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> The same one that fostered such daft attitudes at Haringay, Brent, Lambeth, Croydon and other inner London councils.
> 
> Bribery to stop kids misbehaving. That'll work. HTH.


Ah, I see. That one. The one you read about in the 80s. The one that doesn't actually exist. A Pretendy Left Wing Philosophy. Political Correctness Gone Mad.

Cheers.

So, force is OK "to protect" the working class today, but only when it suits you. And the Looney Left are to blame.

Got it.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Actually a mate of mine was sent on a sail-boat, a big one, when he was a precocious gangster in Oslo back in the 90s. He turned out pretty good as it happens, but ya know, n=tiny. Wasn't ever rolled out on a big scale, rather some kind of test project that got discontinued. Of course, pk clearly must believe that any investment in this feral youth is totally pointless. Let them all rot in jail, that'll teach them. Or just shoot them first, who cares if they might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time? If you're an inner-city black, male, young person wearing a hoodie you're anti-social scum that has lost your right to life and freedom.



Don't put fucking words into my mouth, you little idiot.

"pk clearly must believe that any investment in this feral youth is totally pointless"

Fuck off. Who do you think was running the music projects for excluded black youths?

Again - don't ever fucking put words into my mouth, just because you haven't a clue.


----------



## DrRingDing (Aug 9, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> You need a nap K!



Opiate based medication would be more appropriate.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

Flanflinger said:


> That's nearer the truth than some on here would like to admit to.



I guess you missed that thing where they closed all the youth centres.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Ah, I see. That one. The one you read about in the 80s. The one that doesn't actually exist. A Pretendy Left Wing Philosophy. Political Correctness Gone Mad.



It "doesn't exist"?

Ah-hahahahahaha!!!! Yeah go on Danny. Keep telling yourself that.


----------



## kittyP (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> A mixture - but a disproportionate one. Majority by far were Afro-Carribean.
> 
> This is just Croydon: http://www.flickr.com/photos/metropolitanpolice/sets/72157627267892973/



A. That is just one set of flicker pics.
B. Half of them were so masked up you couldn't tell.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Don't put fucking words into my mouth, you little idiot.
> 
> "pk clearly must believe that any investment in this feral youth is totally pointless"
> 
> ...



Oh dear, did I upset you? How about you engage with any of the points made instead of foaming at the mouth? Why is the answer to lawlessness state-sanctioned lawlessness? Why should an attack on public order be met with wanna-be Judge Dredd cops with the right to shoot first and ask questions later? What good does revenge do? You're no better than these kids you so clearly fear and loathe. If they're scum so are you.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Why are you demanding a 50/50 mix. Is there a 50/50 mix black/white among the poorest people in inner London boroughs?



Because that's what you and others are claiming - that a proportionate mix of youths were doing the looting.

I didn't see that. I suppose I see the notions of PC bullshit as more harmful than pretending there isn't a serious social and cultural issue that needs addressing here. Maybe I could *gasp* even be wrong. But you could back up the assertions that the looters are an even mix of youths.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> It "doesn't exist"?


Go on, then, what Left Wing philosophy is behind what you're talking about?


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Oh dear, did I upset you? How about you engage with any of the points made instead of foaming at the mouth? Why is the answer to lawlessness state-sanctioned lawlessness? Why should an attack on public order be met with wanna-be Judge Dredd cops with the right to shoot first and ask questions later? What good does revenge do? You're no better than these kids you so clearly fear and loathe. If they're scum so are you.



You're being an idiot, I expected better. Avoid the core issue, why don't you.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I guess you missed that thing where they closed all the youth centres.


That is exactly what happened in Tottenham. In April (approx.) this year, haringey council voted for, and began to implement, a 75% cut in the budget for youth services, leading to the closure of nearly all the youth centres. Plus, there were massive cuts to the leisure services budget - i.e. sports centres etc. We ALL warned them of the mayhem that would ensue, as those facilities were extremely popular.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> You're being an idiot, I expected better. Avoid the core issue, why don't you.



I'm sorry, what issue am I avoiding?


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Go on, then, what Left Wing philosophy is behind what you're talking about?



Any Labour controlled London borough council and their "initiatives".
You might argue the point about how "left" they really are/were - but it's irrelevant here anyway.

Kids - of any racial make up - especially boys, they need to be TOLD what is right or wrong. Or they end up morally fucked. Like these looters are.


----------



## kittyP (Aug 9, 2011)

I was honestly just saying what I saw on the telly.
There may well have been a slightly higher proportion of black people looting due to the demographic in that area but considering that, there was still a high proportion of white people too.
I think that that needs to be said.
You may not be making it a race issue and mearly pointing something but lots of people will use this as a race issue and it isn't.

Also, yes, I agree, there may well be a lot of the rioters that come from families with absentee fathers, pretty non existent parenting too, but I fail to understand what that has to do with what you have been saying.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Why is the answer to lawlessness state-sanctioned lawlessness?



What? Cause and effect love. Look it up.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Any Labour controlled London borough council and their "initiatives".
> You might argue the point about how "left" they really are/were - but it's irrelevant here anyway.


No it very much isn't irrelevant.  If you are referring to what is known as the Multicultural Agenda (albeit in a sensationalist and tabloidy manner)  then that was a set of policies that came from neoliberalism, not from any Left Wing philosophy.  And yes, the Labour Party is a neoliberal party.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Any Labour controlled London borough council and their "initiatives".
> You might argue the point about how "left" they really are/were - but it's irrelevant here anyway.
> 
> Kids - of any racial make up - especially boys, they need to be TOLD what is right or wrong. Or they end up morally fucked. Like these looters are.



Never heard of leading by example? The kids are saying _the cops don't respect us, now we're disrespecting them - the rich steal from us, now we're stealing from them_. Rightly or wrongly they are acting on what they see happening to themselves and their communities. They know what right and wrong is supposed to look like. Problem is reality doesn't tally with the missives from teachers, ministers, plod or politicians. Why do as we say when we don't do what we say?


----------



## kittyP (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Any Labour controlled London borough council and their "initiatives".
> You might argue the point about how "left" they really are/were - but it's irrelevant here anyway.
> 
> Kids - of any racial make up - especially boys, they need to be TOLD what is right or wrong. Or they end up morally fucked. Like these looters are.



More than just told.
They need to experience what is right and wrong from birth.
They need to be shown a world where it is worth their while acting in a certain way.

Just telling people to do something doesn't get you anywhere.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> What? Cause and effect love. Look it up.



You're not making sense any more. You've effectively given up arguing your point. All you're left with is assertions based on prejudice. At least I've got your number. Enjoy the hatred.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

kittyP said:


> there may well be a lot of the rioters that come from families with absentee fathers, pretty non existent parenting too, but I fail to understand what that has to do with what you have been saying.



I'd have thought that was pretty obvious. It was others who jumped upon it as evidence for supposed racism.
There are social and yes racial issues that mean kids as young as 11 are running around at 3am looting Currys.
Lack of a father figure means they gravitate instead toward gang elders. This is natural.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

TruXta said:


> You're not making sense any more. You've effectively given up arguing your point. All you're left with is assertions based on prejudice. At least I've got your number. Enjoy the hatred.



Prejudice? Fuck off, you really are an idiot. I've given up arguing with you, there's a difference.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> The same one that fostered such daft attitudes at Haringay, Brent, Lambeth, Croydon and other inner London councils.
> 
> Bribery to stop kids misbehaving. That'll work. HTH.



It's not bribery, it's an attempt to engage them, to show them some positive regard, to try and reach them and address existing or potential issues...Now if you want to talk about why this approach doesn't go far enough I will engage with you, I am not about putting a plaster on a broken leg ffs.

Crisis management never works long term, which is why taking axes to them now or shooting them will not work. You think these kids are angry? Hurt them in the way you are suggesting and I guarantee the majority of us who have a clue will kick off too. I absolutely do not condone what they are doing, I will not condone what you are suggesting either.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 9, 2011)

What, exactly do you mean by 'racial issues' - be as precise as possible


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> That is exactly what happened in Tottenham. In April (approx.) this year, haringey council voted for, and began to implement, a 75% cut in the budget for youth services, leading to the closure of nearly all the youth centres. Plus, there were massive cuts to the leisure services budget - i.e. sports centres etc. We ALL warned them of the mayhem that would ensue, as those facilities were extremely popular.


Extending this thought (of due warning having been given), fact is that lots of people predicted these nationwide riots.  The politicos are taking the stance that they have all come from left field.  Truth is, they were being widely predicted as a direct consequence of the Tory agenda right here on this very message board, let alone elsewhere.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Prejudice? Fuck off, you really are an idiot. I've given up arguing with you, there's a difference.



You never even tried. Or if you did it was so feeble as to escape my notice.


----------



## kittyP (Aug 9, 2011)

Crispy said:


> What, exactly do you mean by 'racial issues' - be as precise as possible


Was that to me?


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

TruXta said:


> The kids are saying _the cops don't respect us, now we're disrespecting them - the rich steal from us, now we're stealing from them_.



Except they aren't. They're robbing from single parent families above shops, they're mugging kids in the street.
Newsflash - The rich don't live in one-bedroom flats above shops in Lewisham.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Extending this thought (of due warning having been given), fact is that lots of people predicted these nationwide riots. The politicos are taking the stance that they have all come from left field. Truth is, they were being widely predicted as a direct consequence of the Tory agenda right here on this very message board, let alone elsewhere.



Summer of Rage was supposed to be last year wasn't it?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

Crispy said:


> What, exactly do you mean by 'racial issues' - be as precise as possible


Quite.  pk, you said there were social issues AND racial issues.  What are the "racial issues" that are distinct from the social issues?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 9, 2011)

kittyP said:


> Was that to me?


No. PK used the term


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Summer of Rage was supposed to be last year wasn't it?


Even Cassandra occasionally got the time wrong.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

Crispy said:


> What, exactly do you mean by 'racial issues' - be as precise as possible



Lack of male role models - huge problems in the black communities with massive lack of fatherfigures, absentee fathers.

This is echoed both by social services and the communities themselves. Maybe after this some people might have the bollocks to address them.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 9, 2011)

kittyP said:


> More than just told.
> They need to experience what is right and wrong from birth.
> They need to be shown a world where it is worth their while acting in a certain way.
> 
> Just telling people to do something doesn't get you anywhere.


Yep. Quite right.

pk, what is it you're saying here exactly? Maybe you're coming across not as intended, but you sound like you'll be calling for borstal or 'the short sharp shock' next, ie approaches that have been proved to be ineffective.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Except they aren't. They're robbing from single parent families above shops, they're mugging kids in the street.
> Newsflash - The rich don't live in one-bedroom flats above shops in Lewisham.



They're doing that too. That said I'm gonna hazard a guess and say that the majority of shops and businesses hit so far belong to chains and corporations.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Lack of male role models - huge problems in the black communities with massive lack of fatherfigures, absentee fathers.
> 
> This is echoed both by social services and the communities themselves. Maybe after this some people might have the bollocks to address them.


Why is that a racial issue rather than a social issue?


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. Quite right.
> 
> pk, what is it you're saying here exactly? Maybe you're coming across not as intended, but you sound like you'll be calling for borstal or 'the short sharp shock' next, ie approaches that have been proved to be ineffective.



Actually no - when I said kids need to be told, they need to be given firm parameters of acceptable behaviour. They do get this from the gangs. They will respect the gang codes, because of the violent consequences of what happens when they don't.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Why is that a racial issue rather than a social issue?



Because they're black duh!


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Why is that a racial issue rather than a social issue?



It's an issue made worse by those who are too afraid to address it for fear of being labelled racist. Is what I meant.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Why is that a racial issue rather than a social issue?



Quite. This probelm is not exclusively a black one.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Lack of male role models - huge problems in the black communities with massive lack of fatherfigures, absentee fathers.
> 
> This is echoed both by social services and the communities themselves. Maybe after this some people might have the bollocks to address them.



You continue to spout that this is the reason as if it  is the only issue at play here. Many majority White communities around the country have high unemployment, crime, etc...is that because many of them are fatherless too?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Quite. This probelm is not exclusively a black one.



Socioeconomic exclusion is more often than not colour-blind.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Extending this thought (of due warning having been given), fact is that lots of people predicted these nationwide riots. The politicos are taking the stance that they have all come from left field. Truth is, they were being widely predicted as a direct consequence of the Tory agenda right here on this very message board, let alone elsewhere.


absolutely and tragically right.
i'm quite astonished at those - here and elsewhere - who can't see the social and economic causal factors that led to these riots. Give people SOMETHING to gain from playing nice by the system, and they will possibly be good citizens. gtive them diddly, treat them like shit, teach them to hate the system - and they riot.
It really is that simple.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> You continue to spout that this is the reason as if it is the only issue at play here. Many majority White communities around the country have high unemployment, crime, etc...is that because many of them are fatherless too?



It is a significant factor - yes. In my opinion. Which I'm prepared to accept could be flawed if you would provide some form of tangiable proof to the contrary.

The major theme to all these is lack of fear. They have no fear because they have likely never been held to account for wrongdoing through their school and home life.

Why else are kids of 11 running around Clapham at 2am? Where are the parents then??


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 9, 2011)

Oh I see we've done the "all the fault of lone mums" one....


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Summer of Rage was supposed to be last year wasn't it?


well, going by the past form of riots and tory govts, they're *still* 1 year ahead of schedule!


----------



## kittyP (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Actually no - when I said kids need to be told, they need to be given firm parameters of acceptable behaviour. They do get this from the gangs. They will respect the gang codes, because of the violent consequences of what happens when they don't.



I actually agree with this.

I also think that it still applies to what I said before though

They need to be show a world where it is worth their while acting in a socially appropriate way.
All kids will test and break boundaries from time to time, no matter how firm.
It's all part of growing up.
Its what happens when they do test/break them.
Is it worth them learning the lesson we want them to learn?
Currently, in this state of affairs, for some, no its not worth it.


----------



## past caring (Aug 9, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> *pk, these are kids of often 15-16 years old. Their brains have a long way to go to be fully developed.* They as people have a long way they can still go. It is nowhere near too late for them yet. To say so is really ignorant.



So does pk's, tbf.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 9, 2011)

BBC Report started with a v/o on some riot footage like this...



> This is what happens when people stop fearing the police



Which sort of begs the question, why should we all fear the police?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

I'm from a single parent family, and grew up in moderately deprived circs. How come I've never rioted?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> It is a significant factor - yes. In my opinion. Which I'm prepared to accept could be flawed if you would provide some form of tangiable proof to the contrary.



It's a factor. I ask you what in you opinion leads to the break down of family units, poor sexual/ academic education, lack of employment opportunities, social exclusion, anti-establishment attitudes and stigma?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Extending this thought (of due warning having been given), fact is that lots of people predicted these nationwide riots. The politicos are taking the stance that they have all come from left field. Truth is, they were being widely predicted as a direct consequence of the Tory agenda right here on this very message board, let alone elsewhere.




And by Nick Clegg.  He said if the Tory agenda went ahead, riots would ensue.  Yet, he carried on and enthusiastically implemented that agenda.  He knew what would happen, discussed what would happen, but did it anyway.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Oh I see we've done the "all the fault of lone mums" one....



No we haven't at all. Nobody has said that. I'm sure we'll get a good dose of your bleeding heart "life is so hard for me" bullshit now though.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 9, 2011)

Gangs seem to be a primarily London problem, not that other big cities don't have them, but not on the same scale. It's a no brainer given how big a gap there is between rich and poor there, that doesn't exist on quite the same scale somewhere like  Leeds.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> No we haven't at all. Nobody has said that. I'm sure we'll get a good dose of your bleeding heart "life is so hard for me" bullshit now though.


fuck off


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> absolutely and tragically right.
> i'm quite astonished at those - here and elsewhere - who can't see the social and economic causal factors that led to these riots. Give people SOMETHING to gain from playing nice by the system, and they will possibly be good citizens. gtive them diddly, treat them like shit, teach them to hate the system - and they riot.
> It really is that simple.


Pickles has just ignored the question about socio-economic factors on BBC News. Someone is in denial.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

kittyP said:


> I actually agree with this.
> 
> I also think that it still applies to what I said before though
> 
> ...



Nothing I disagree with there.

Now that we have Past It and The World's Most Hard Done-By Single Mum both posting fuck all of any relevance, I'll leave this debate until they get bored of failing to make a point in the context of all this.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> And by Nick Clegg. He said if the Tory agenda went ahead, riots would ensue. Yet, he carried on and enthusiastically implemented that agenda. He knew what would happen, discussed what would happen, but did it anyway.



I'd forgotten about that.  His betrayal of his own promises is really quite astonishing.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> fuck off


Likes.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I'm from a single parent family, and grew up in moderately deprived circs. How come I've never rioted?



Because you went to a posh school and were given strict boundaries of behaviour.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Quite. This probelm is not exclusively a black one.



Nobody said it was exclusively a black problem, far from it. Neither did anyone say these looters were exclusively black.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I'm from a single parent family, and grew up in moderately deprived circs. How come I've never rioted?


You're a total wuss?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> Pickles has just ignored the question about socio-economic factors on BBC News. Someone is in denial.


I think that's just cynical duplicity on his part - he KNOWS - deep down - what's what, but can't afford to admit it.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Because they're black duh!



Again, just fuck off.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

PK, you seemed to be implying that the looters were disproportionately black.  Were you in fact not implying that at all?


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I think that's just cynical duplicity on his part - he KNOWS - deep down - what's what, but can't afford to admit it.



He's not alone there.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Because you went to a posh school and were given strict boundaries of behaviour.


that helped, yes, but it was also because I was given opportunities - in education, in the world of work, enough in short to make me feel I had a stake in my society


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I think that's just cynical duplicity on his part - he KNOWS - deep down - what's what, but can't afford to admit it.


Yep.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> You're a total wuss?


grrr....


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> PK, you seemed to be implying that the looters were disproportionately black. Were you in fact not implying that at all?



Disproportionately, yes, from the video footage I've seen from Hackney, Lewisham, Croydon.

Exclusively, no, of course not.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> that helped, yes, but it was also because I was given opportunities - in education, in the world of work, enough in short to make me feel I had a stake in my society


AND you are a wuss?


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> that helped, yes, but it was also because I was given opportunities - in education, in the world of work, enough in short to make me feel I had a stake in my society



Opportunities you would not have been given had you rejected the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Disproportionately, yes, from the video footage I've seen from Hackney, Lewisham, Croydon.
> 
> Exclusively, no, of course not.


In other words, more than you'd expect given the communities they came from?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Opportunities you would not have been given had you rejected the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.


So those opportunities were just around the corner for these rioting 16 year-olds?  Life has been one long series of opportunity-denial for them so far but things were JUST about to change?  Silly sausages, they should have known.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2011/aug/09/boris-johnson-heckled-riot-clapham-junction-video

Another reason why this shit happens. Priviledged Eton Boy Politicians not having a bloody clue!


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> In other words, more than you'd expect given the communities they came from?



In Clapham and Croydon - yes. Especially Croydon. I'd expect to see a 50/50 mix, as is the demographic.
Also a potential factor are the witness reports that claim much of the serious looting was carried out by young men from miles away from the targeted areas.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> So those opportunities were just around the corner for these rioting 16 year-olds? Life has been one long series of opportunity-denial for them so far but things were JUST about to change? Silly sausages, they should have known.



You don't seem willing to take on the idea of the numerous young black men who are from impoverished single parent families that do very well at studies and don't loot the local Foot Locker.

Which is odd.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> In Clapham and Croydon - yes. Especially Croydon. I'd expect to see a 50/50 mix, as is the demographic.
> Also a potential factor are the witness reports that claim much of the serious looting was carried out by young men from miles away from the targeted areas.


Given that reports suggest, and you yourself go on to say, the looters probably didn't come from Croydon, what are you suggesting?  That when they set off, they should have made sure there was the equivalent mix to that of the area they were going to?

I asked about the communities they _came from_, not the ones they went to.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> You don't seem willing to take on the idea of the numerous young black men who are from impoverished single parent families that do very well at studies and don't loot the local Foot Locker.
> .


This doesn't make sense


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> You don't seem willing to take on the idea of the numerous young black men who are from impoverished single parent families that do very well at studies and don't loot the local Foot Locker.
> 
> Which is odd.



People don't riot _because_ they're disenfranchised, it's being disenfranchised that makes it more likely they will.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> This doesn't make sense



It does. There are plenty of young black men who take full advantage of educational opportunities, Kabbes seemed to be dismissing them.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> You don't seem willing to take on the idea of the numerous young black men who are from impoverished single parent families that do very well at studies and don't loot the local Foot Locker.
> 
> Which is odd.


People will react to being kicked in different ways.  Just because some move out of the way or invest in shinpads, you can't express shock at the ones who kick back.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> People aren't rioting _because_ they're disenfranchised, it's that being disenfranchised makes it more likely that you will.


Exactly.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> People aren't rioting _because_ they're disenfranchised, it's that being disenfranchised makes it more likely that you will.



Those looters probably make more money from dealing and thieving than the average single mum forced to leave her flat because the shop below is burning.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> People will react to being kicked in different ways. Just because some move out of the way or invest in shinpads, you can't express shock at the ones who kick back.



This applies to the shop owners and the cops then. Glad we agree.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Those looters probably make more money from dealing and thieving than the average single mum forced to leave her flat because the shop below is burning.


 
Oh pk , do behave.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Those looters probably make more money from dealing and thieving than the average single mum forced to leave her flat because the shop below is burning.


Well THAT was a non-sequitur.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> This applies to the shop owners and the cops then. Glad we agree.


Yes it does.  Such is the nature of a break-down in society.  The disenfranchised will react in a variety of ways, including with violence.  And those being affected by the reactions of the disenfranchised will also react to this in a variety of ways, feeding the cycle of violence.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Those looters probably make more money from dealing and thieving than the average single mum forced to leave her flat because the shop below is burning.



Yeah, they're cunts. So what? The question is how you prevent the next generation being cunts too (excuse the French).


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Nobody said it was exclusively a black problem, far from it. Neither did anyone say these looters were exclusively black.



Yes you did. Well inferred it anyway.



> A mixture - but a disproportionate one. *Majority by far were Afro-Carribean*.


----------



## treelover (Aug 9, 2011)

I want the bill to go in hard against the organised criminal gangs, the other looters and opportunists are more redeemable..


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Opportunities you would not have been given had you rejected the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.


Opportunities that very few kids on the estates in Tottenham and Brixton have ever had (for reasons of shit schooling, environment and economic disadvantage), or are ever likely to get, even if their behaviour is exemplary


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> that helped, yes, but it was also because I was given opportunities - in education, in the world of work, enough in short to make me feel I had a stake in my society



Who gave you those?


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Opportunities that very few kids on the estates in Tottenham and Brixton have ever had (for reasons of shit schooling, environment and economic disadvantage), or are ever likely to get, even if their behaviour is exemplary



Yep --- that's the crux.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Who gave you those?


srs?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Socioeconomic exclusion is more often than not colour-blind.



Excuse me?

I get that you're trying really hard to be PC... but don't let that make you erase hundreds of years of ethnic minority struggles.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 9, 2011)

treelover said:


> I want the bill to go in hard against the organised criminal gangs, the other looters and opportunists are more redeemable..



You've lost it you daft cunt, make sure you're watching any action in your area - ready to grass people up to the police.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Excuse me?
> 
> I get that you're trying really hard to be PC... but don't let that make you erase hundreds of years of ethnic minority struggles.



Whoosh!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> It does. There are plenty of young black men who take full advantage of educational opportunities, Kabbes seemed to be dismissing them.



I see it differently, I think that you banging on about them being disportionally Black and fatherless, infers the problem is because they are Black and fatherless alone. You have not addressed the reasons why many Black young people are living in poor communities in London,  which are badly resourced with little opportunity, this is nothing new, you know the history of London right? Neither have you commented on the majority of young Black people in this city who were not out looting/rioting.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 9, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Whoosh!



Over my head? Really?

How so?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Over my head? Really?
> 
> How so?



Where did I "erase centuries" of racial and ethnic discrimination?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I see it differently, I think that you banging on about them being disportionally Black and fatherless, infers the problem is because they are Black and fatherless alone. You have not addressed the reasons why many Black young people are living in poor communities in London, which are badly resourced with little opportunity, this is nothing new, you know the history of London right? Neither have you commented on the majority of young Black people in this city who were not out looting/rioting.



He is also making the mistake of not realising that widespread father-absenteeism is itself a symptom of the true underlying problems.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> He is also making the mistake of not realising that widespread father-absenteeism is itself a symptom of the true underlying problems.



I know. Which is why when he posted this:



> Bribery to stop kids misbehaving. That'll work. HTH.



I posted this:



> It's not bribery, it's an attempt to engage them, to show them some positive regard, to try and reach them and address existing or potential issues...Now if you want to talk about why this approach doesn't go far enough I will engage with you, I am not about putting a plaster on a broken leg ffs.
> 
> Crisis management never works long term, which is why taking axes to them now or shooting them will not work. You think these kids are angry? Hurt them in the way you are suggesting and I guarantee the majority of us who have a clue will kick off too. I absolutely do not condone what they are doing, I will not condone what you are suggesting either.



...and this:



> I see it differently, I think that you banging on about them being disportionally Black and fatherless, infers the problem is because they are Black and fatherless alone. You have not addressed the reasons why many Black young people are living in poor communities in London, which are badly resourced with little opportunity, this is nothing new, you know the history of London right? Neither have you commented on the majority of young Black people in this city who were not out looting/rioting.



Which he has ignored.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Who gave you those?


The society that was far more solicitous of the masses needs, rather than the wealthiest's greed.
I was the last student year to get full grant (1984): I won a state-paid 'poor brat' scholarship to an academically-brilliant public school, and I grew up in a relatively middle-class environment (namely, St Albans, although me mum was a single parent and a modestly-salaried secretary).
The point being that no w/c kid on a council estate in brixton or tottenham is gonna get within a country mile of any of those things


----------



## past caring (Aug 9, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Which he has ignored.



You'll tend to find that's the MO - far easier to wibble on about some wank fantasy of "summary justice".


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 9, 2011)

1%er said:


> BBC world news reports politicians saying "It is opportunist criminal action", is that the case or are there other reasons for this unrest.


Difficult question to answer, and I suspect there will be elements of truth, to some extent, in all the explanations currently being branded about.

One thing for sure is that, just like the Oslo bombings, those of an ideological persuasion will attempt to use this to justify any position they want, which may or may not cover the actual reasons behind these riots, but I don't think any will completely explain it because those of an ideological persuasion don't want to admit anything that goes against their ideology. Those on the right will argue that this is proof these people can never be helped and are to be dismissed simply as criminals. Those on the far right will draw some kind of racial/cultural analysis of events. Those on the left will place all the blame on policing and socio-economic factors. Excluding the far right stuff, I think the truth is a mixture of all these elements.

Probably the main factor for me is that as the rioters seem to be overwhelmingly of the younger generation, simply being young dumb and full of cum will explain many of the actions. It's an exciting thing to do when there aren't that many exciting things to do. You get that sense of comradery that youths are attracted to (eg football hooligans) and the buzz. I've had a belief for sometime that there needs to be some kind of 'national service' for youths, but not of the military kind. Think TA without the guns. Maybe this could be done over the summer holidays with camping trips/out door pursuits and when they are older perhaps some kind of reservist 'rescue service' (for flood disasters or cleaning up after riots  etc). But while this might be my main explanation, it's not the only explanation.

Some people blame their social background as the cause, but the fact is, not everyone who is poor does badly at school, not everyone who is poor commits crime. Something has gone terribly wrong with some of these people that have completely sucked out the humanity in them. Maybe that's their parents to blame who perhaps just don't care about anything? Maybe it's peer pressure? Certainly these riots have nothing to do with the shooting of Mark Duggan, it really is being used as an excuse by criminal elements across the country to settle scores, thieve other peoples' property for themselves and commit all the other crimes they want to _because they currently think they can get away with it._ We have a criminal class in this country (as all countries do, especially capitalist countries) that simply have no interest in "opportunities", the lack of which often gets cited as a reason why young people get into crime, because they can make as much money/etc through crime with not as much effort as having to perform well at school then get experience in the job market.

But the above is just one reason. What created that criminal class/culture in the first place? It has to be the society we live in. I don't think anybody here needs telling how the capitalist system requires a majority of people in the working class to be exploited for their labour in order for the profit system to work, but the economic system we operate will also not allow those profits to be diverted towards ensuring that everyone actually has a job, even if it is in that exploited class. Somebody mentioned on another thread these are the children of Thatcher - that's right. We have had maybe two generations now that have grown up on benefits and don't know anything else after the cuts in the 80s and the recession of the 90s. Now we are facing more cuts thanks to the antics of the banks and the capitalist system in general - this will simply make a bad situation worse because we are still feeling the effects of Thatcher today. My one hope that we take out of these events is to see what devastation our economic policies are having on our society and that things need to change. The problem is, that can help future generations but what about these people who are out on the streets making a living out of crime today? They are not calling for change, they are not political activists, they are committing crime for their own personal gain. Unfortunately I do think many of these people are beyond help and if they resort to this level of crime then they need to be dealt with by the police and I don't think those on the left should take the side of criminals over the police because of their ideological views.

And that brings me onto the final point on whether the police actions provoked these riots. Certainly those on the streets despise the police, but is that because of police actions or because the police's job is to arrest criminals? People say the police are racist and disproportionately target ethnic minorities, but is that due to racism or because crime is more prevalent in ethnic minority communities? Operation Trident specifically targets gun crime in the black community - is that racist or is there genuinely a bigger problem with guns in the black community than other communities? Ethnic minorities are over represented in prisons - is that because the courts are racist or because ethnic minorities are more likely to commit crime? I've had these arguments on here before, but nobody seems to question that people from a poorer background are more likely to commit crime, and that ethnic minorities are more likely to be from a poorer background, so does the state disproportionately target ethnic minorities because it is inherently racist, or do they simply target criminals regardless of race?

Everything that I've written above leads me to believe that these riots will spread like wild fire throughout the country because these issues are present in pretty much every community in the country. The criminal elements around the country are all seeing this as an excuse to commit as much crime as they can because they see how thinly the police are stretched and they are not seeing people kettled, contained and snatched off the streets and thrown into jail. It is opportunist as MPs etc have said, and this needs to be dealt with by a very string police response. But for the future, we need to address the problems in our society that create these people in the first place.

(I've been thinking about this for a few days, btw!)


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Yes you did. Well inferred it anyway.





Streathamite said:


> Opportunities that very few kids on the estates in Tottenham and Brixton have ever had (for reasons of shit schooling, environment and economic disadvantage), or are ever likely to get, even if their behaviour is exemplary



Sorry but that is utter bullshit. You know it is too.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Sorry but that is utter bullshit. You know it is too.



Prove us wrong. You can't. You are denying the experiences of others, including my own. You have also ignored my posts which outline what IMO the issues are here. Fuck you then.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Sorry but that is utter bullshit. You know it is too.



Oh pk !


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Given that reports suggest, and you yourself go on to say, the looters probably didn't come from Croydon, what are you suggesting? That when they set off, they should have made sure there was the equivalent mix to that of the area they were going to?
> 
> I asked about the communities they _came from_, not the ones they went to.


Come on PK, tell us more about this disproportionate number of black looters.  Disproportionate for Croydon, you say, yet you also say they weren't from Croydon.  So, what are you basing these proportions on?


----------



## immigrantx (Aug 9, 2011)

Some facts about some looters. Don't quite fit with some assumptions in this thread.



> 32 people have appeared in court charged with offences such as burglary and criminal damage during the previous riots.
> 
> Among them were a graphic designer, college students, a youth worker, a university graduate and a man signed up to join the army. Some gave non-London addresses. Eighteen were remanded in custody.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14460554


----------



## immigrantx (Aug 9, 2011)

Reason for day 2 and day3 of looting is:

1. people saw / heard about other kids smashing shop windows and grabbing stuff
2. people saw / heard about police standing across the street taking no action to stop them
3. they wanted some of what their peers got

Was there really a previous golden age when there were not a fairly large minority who would not have scruples about getting some stuff?

Whose fault is it ? The police obviously. Apart from sparking it off on day 1.
Then appearing to allow the looting.

Their strategy to video offenses and then pick up perps later without putting themselves at risk is understandable and  has some logic but doesn't work because it appears they got away with it (as many did) and draws the next group in.
This is a wrong strategy, the overall cause and makes it all the police's fault IMO.
Just don't understand why no one spouting on tv wants to say that.


----------



## trevhagl (Aug 9, 2011)

Geri said:


> I think there are different reasons for different people.


indeed

some are horrible little cunts
others (and including the above) are from families that society has completely abondoned
opportunists looking to get some free stuff
nothing for the youth to do
no hope for the future, worse job situation for decades


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 9, 2011)

it's not really advisable, desirable or practical to ID and prosecute EVERYONE caught looting on CCTV. Theresa May must know this, yet she promised to bring everyone to justice.


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> It does. There are plenty of young black men who take full advantage of educational opportunities, Kabbes seemed to be dismissing them.



People refuse to behave according to fatuous labels. Shock Horror Scandal.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 9, 2011)

immigrantx said:


> Whose fault is it ? The police obviously. Apart from sparking it off on day 1.
> Then appearing to allow the looting.


I got the impression that the police were either affected by the criticism they faced after the student protests or they were confusing these riots with the student protests. The tactic seemed to be stand off and film the rioters, then go and arrest them later on in the week (as they have just started to do) but what they needed to do was snatch these people off the streets and put them in the back of a van. People around the country are seeing these events on TV and seeing police simply watch them taking things out of shops. Now I know that sooner or later many will be brought to justice, but it's given out completely the wrong idea. Instead of lining one end of a street watching rioters, then should have lined _all _entrances to the streets and kettled them while individuals were picked off, photographed and sent straight to court/jail. I just saw on the news that simply cheering or egging on those involved in the disorder is enough evidence to find somebody guilty, so as soon as that camera has swept across the crowd a few times that's all they need before they move in.

If word had got out that rioters were being arrested en masse and fast tracked to jail, we might have calm now. Instead the word that got out is that the police will simply watch you steal TVs and this is why it is now spreading across the country...


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 9, 2011)

treelover said:


> I want the bill to go in hard against the organised criminal gangs, the other looters and opportunists are more redeemable..



Unfortunately there have been no calls to sic the TSG on News International and the Houses of Parliament, so you may be out of luck.


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 9, 2011)

It isn't even vaguely a racial issue. It's a class and age issue.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 9, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> It isn't even vaguely a racial issue. It's a class and age issue.


Wouldn't you say the class system discriminates against ethnic minorities tho?


----------



## Greebo (Aug 9, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> It isn't even vaguely a racial issue. It's a class and age issue.


Agreed - most of the yoots I saw & heard hanging around and talking about what they'd done and/or were going to do were white, poor, and between 13 and 25.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Wouldn't you say the class system discriminates against ethnic minorities tho?



That would include many working class White young people too, so yes it does, of course.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Sorry but that is utter bullshit. You know it is too.


please prove it to be wrong then, because i know that area as well as my own garden, and i, and every one of my old HAPS comrades, and just about everyone i know who knows anything about Torttenham believes it to be true. i'm *not* saying it's impossible to come from this area and thrive (many do), but if you are young and from a poor background (and espesh if you are black) it is so very, very much harder, and that in turn fosters a culture of failure, delinquency and non-expectation.
Tottenham is London's poorest area (and one of the worst in the whole country), and It really _isn't_ that contentious to say that if you are right at the bottom of the social pile, from day one, it is so very, very much harder to succeed - or get anything - and so much easier to reject playing the game, and going with the gangs. Shit schools, shit environment, poverty's problems, few and poor opportunities, no social support, nothing for kids to do, culture of failure, police harassment = riots and crime.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 9, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> That would include many working class White young people too, so yes it does, of course.


I see your point, but I was making a slightly different point in that ethnic minorities are _disproportionally _discriminated against by the class system


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> I expect pisstake posts. Anything than confronting the truth. Too painful to talk about rationally I guess.



Well, if they're replying to a lot of the shit you've written in the last couple of days, there's not a lot that's rational enough to respond to, to be frank. All you've done is posit your usual "strong-man" solutions, and then berate anyone who contradicts you, chucking in the occasional post about how you're a fearless truth-speaker along the way.

It gets a bit tired and formulaic, to be fair.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Badly behaved at school? OK, we'll fund a recording studio for your gangsta rap CD. Or send you all expenses on an adventure holiday...



Fucking hell, now he's onto Daily Mail-isms!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> The same one that fostered such daft attitudes at Haringay, Brent, Lambeth, Croydon and other inner London councils.
> 
> Bribery to stop kids misbehaving. That'll work. HTH.



Come on, say "loony left"! You know you won't cum till you do!


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 9, 2011)

Told is not enough. They also have to see an example of people doing things right and getting rewarded for it. At present it doesn't matter what you tell them about right and wrong. What they see is that if you have the power you can do what the fuck you like and not have to face the consequences. So some of them are looking at the number of police there are and (quite logically) deciding that if they want they can gang together and have sufficient power to do what the fuck they like too.

What they then see is the same greedy irresponsible bastards that set the bad example trying to take the moral high ground on TV, radio etc. What we have at the moment is two sets of people facing off and refusing to accept the law applies to them. The trouble is that there are many more disaffected young people in London than there are police.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

Only in the UK can scrotes in £100 trainers use £300 Blackberry phones to arrange looting sprees and claim it's because they are poor.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Go on, then, what Left Wing philosophy is behind what you're talking about?



You know, the one he's obviously read Melanie Philips/Peter Hitchens/some other dreary rightwing cunt mythologising about.


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Lack of male role models - huge problems in the black communities with massive lack of fatherfigures, absentee fathers.
> 
> This is echoed both by social services and the communities themselves. Maybe after this some people might have the bollocks to address them.



Not a chance in hell. That would require actually spending time effort and money on solving problems. Whereas calling for riot police, more arrests, and ever harsher sentencing for anyone found to be overly working class and criminal, is easy and doesn't require a thinking brain.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Come on, say "loony left"! You know you won't cum till you do!



Another one who doesn't believe such things existed. Yep, it's all a myth, the Left really are on top of this.

Yeah right.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Not a chance in hell. That would require actually spending time effort and money on solving problems. Whereas calling for riot police, more arrests, and ever harsher sentencing for anyone found to be overly working class and criminal, is easy and doesn't require a thinking brain.



"working class" LOL!!

Never done a days work, any of them.


----------



## discokermit (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> "working class" LOL!!
> 
> Never done a days work, any of them.


you do know alf garnett was a parody, don't you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Only in the UK can scrotes in £100 trainers use £300 Blackberry phones to arrange looting sprees and claim it's because they are poor.



Hmm, so they were all using Bolds rather then Curves or Torches, then? You've either got the eyesight of an eagle, or you're indulging in your usual brand of hyperbole, old son.


----------



## claphamboy (Aug 9, 2011)

kittyP said:


> A. That is just one set of flicker pics.
> B. Half of them were so masked up you couldn't tell.



Don't let facts get in the way.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Told is not enough. They also have to see an example of people doing things right and getting rewarded for it. At present it doesn't matter what you tell them about right and wrong. What they see is that if you have the power you can do what the fuck you like and not have to face the consequences. So some of them are looking at the number of police there are and (quite logically) deciding that if they want they can gang together and have sufficient power to do what the fuck they like too.
> 
> What they then see is the same greedy irresponsible bastards that set the bad example trying to take the moral high ground on TV, radio etc. What we have at the moment is two sets of people facing off and refusing to accept the law applies to them. The trouble is that there are many more disaffected young people in London than there are police.



So what's your solution? Right now? Send the cops home? Let the looters take what they want?


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

discokermit said:


> you do know alf garnett was a parody, don't you?



I know the cunts looting all night weren't waking early to do a day job.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> So what's your solution? Right now? Send the cops home? Let the looters take what they want?


Why does the discussion have to be limited to what to do right now?


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Why does the discussion have to be limited to what to do right now?



Ooooh, let me think - might be that thousands of armed looters all over the country are currently waiting for nightfall?


----------



## discokermit (Aug 9, 2011)

f


pk said:


> I know the cunts looting all night weren't waking early to do a day job.


at fifty odd applicants for each job vacancy, is that surprising? does your brain hurt when you try to think?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Ooooh, let me think - might be that thousands of armed looters all over the country are currently waiting for nightfall?


Wouldn't it be a good idea to ensure that when this passes, it doesn't happen again?


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Hmm, so they were all using Bolds rather then Curves or Torches, then? You've either got the eyesight of an eagle, or you're indulging in your usual brand of hyperbole, old son.



So how much are the Curves or Torches costing then? Do tell.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Wouldn't it be a good idea to ensure that when this passes, it doesn't happen again?



Do you know it took 10,000 burned out cars and three weeks for similar riots in Paris 2005 to "pass"?


----------



## magneze (Aug 9, 2011)

I posted this on the general london riot thread, but it's probably most relevant to this one.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Do you know it took 10,000 burned out cars and three weeks for similar riots in Paris 2005 to "pass"?


You think you can speed up the process at this point?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> So how much are the Curves or Torches costing then? Do tell.



A Curve PAYG is about 120 quid on T-mobile. Which likely means they're free on even quite short contracts.


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 9, 2011)

agricola said:


> I dont think that "the country" is, but I agree that a heavy crack down would be a disaster.  The problem is that there are increasingly few options left, unless this stops soon.



There are no options left in the short term. That's because all the solutions are to the long term problems and not the short term ones. All you can do with policing OF ANY KIND is keep a lid on things.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

discokermit said:


> f
> 
> at fifty odd applicants for each job vacancy, is that surprising? does your brain hurt when you try to think?



Who would want to employ a fuckwit looter who never amounted to fuck all and would probably steal your shit as soon as your back was turned?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Who would want to employ a fuckwit looter who never amounted to fuck all and would probably steal your shit as soon as your back was turned?



 I think you got your chronology back to front.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Who would want to employ a fuckwit looter who never amounted to fuck all and would probably steal your shit as soon as your back was turned?


what are going to do with them then?


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> You think you can speed up the process at this point?



Present police tactics of "watch them walk off with the 50 inch TVs" are clearly flawed.

I hear from several sources that many residents in places like Addiscombe are out in the streets, tooled up, waiting for the looters to show up.

Southall's Asian community are doing the same.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> what are going to do with them then?



Military service. They can do peacekeeping missions in REALLY poor places, learn about the value of trusting and depending on their fellow man, learn a trade, perhaps become respected and employable. Otherwise they are lost, doomed to repeat the mistakes of their fuckwit parents who let them run around Clapham at 2am aged 11.

Some form of boot camp process, as ugly as it sounds, would force them to explore their dependencies on shitty gangs to feel safe/empowered.

Ever seen Brat Camp? It works, you know. In matter of weeks.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Military service. They can do peacekeeping missions in REALLY poor places, learn about the value of trusting and depending on their fellow man, learn a trade, perhaps become respected and employable. Otherwise they are lost, doomed to repeat the mistakes of their fuckwit parents who let them run around Clapham at 2am aged 11.



I bet you always did exactly what people told you to do when you where 11.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> It does. There are plenty of young black men who take full advantage of educational opportunities, Kabbes seemed to be dismissing them.


just about every black person I know who has got anywhere has come from a pretty m/c background, though


----------



## past caring (Aug 9, 2011)

pk = Paul Kersey?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2011)

ever seen 'scum'? thats your short sharp shock system PK- no doubt theres one particular scene from that film you'd enjoy seeing as a reality


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

PK is right, however, that thye absentfather/babyfather problem is huge in the black community, and needs addressing urgently


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Military service. They can do peacekeeping missions in REALLY poor places, learn about the value of trusting and depending on their fellow man, learn a trade, perhaps become respected and employable. Otherwise they are lost, doomed to repeat the mistakes of their fuckwit parents who let them run around Clapham at 2am aged 11.
> 
> Some form of boot camp process, as ugly as it sounds, would force them to explore their dependencies on shitty gangs to feel safe/empowered.
> 
> Ever seen Brat Camp? It works, you know. In matter of weeks.


you're like a cartoon, pk. is there anything human left in there?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> PK is right, however, that thye absentfather/babyfather problem is huge in the black community, and needs addressing urgently



I think you need to get some statistics that evidence the issue of absentee fathers in the White families too. I would like to see them and compare them, portionately.

Also, how you think it should be addressed?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> absolutely and tragically right.
> i'm quite astonished at those - here and elsewhere - who can't see the social and economic causal factors that led to these riots. Give people SOMETHING to gain from playing nice by the system, and they will possibly be good citizens. gtive them diddly, treat them like shit, teach them to hate the system - and they riot.
> It really is that simple.



Why are you expecting people to see something that they don't want to see, and which will cause cognitive dissonance if and when they do acknowledge it?


----------



## Greebo (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Military service.<snip>


Valid as your proposed solution might be - a lot of ex squaddies end up with longlasting severe mental illness, alcohol addiction and homeless.  In addition to which, you risk making somebody with a grudge more capable of organising, more able to use weapons (not to mention setting explosives), and fitter, therefore more able to avoid being caught.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I think you need to get some statistics that evidence the issue of absentee fathers in the White families too. I would like to see them and compare them, portionately.



I just had a look on ONS and couldnt' find anything which broke family/household type or size by ethnicity or even class.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2011)

I'm also not certain we can place much validity in the idea that being raised by a single mum is a major factor in joining a gang or going out on the loot. I know it sounds like 'common sense' but to me it smacks of daily mailish diefication of the supposedly traditional family unit.

unless we are to take it that all women are incapable of raising good kids without a Man


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 9, 2011)

These are the insights of one of my "friends" on facebook:



> notice that the yobs didnt smash up the job centre, wouldnt want to not sign on and get their benefits money eh !! these riots were predicted a few years ago when the government went soft, when are they going to learn that u cant please everyone all the time, and when u dont please the people that were born in this country and treat them like 2nd class citizens compared to the person thats just stepped off the boat who gets a house, benefits, new cars etc then what do u expect!!! ANARCHY !!!



to which someone responded:



> Bring in the bloody army.



To which he replied:



> should of done that in the beginning, but as usual this government wouldnt want to breach the human rights of the protestors, its a world gone mad, any other country would of put a stop to it there and then, but typically this country acts like a wet blanket and cant deal with it. U did the right thing cousin, u got the hell out of here !!!



Wot a retard. Sounds like he's trying to win a game of daily mail bingo.


----------



## acab (Aug 9, 2011)

Its ironic most media are saying it's distubances across the UK. From what I can see it's only kicking off in England, yet when it kicks off in Northern Ireland it's Northern Ireland not the UK


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 9, 2011)

why is he your friend? defriend the cunt


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

So why are these people attached to your personal life?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm also not certain we can place much validity in the idea that being raised by a single mum is a major factor in joining a gang or going out on the loot. I know it sounds like 'common sense' but to me it smacks of daily mailish diefication of the supposedly traditional family unit.
> 
> unless we are to take it that all women are incapable of raising good kids without a Man



Mum or Dad makes no difference, I think the point is that overall number of carers is correlated with criminal behaviour. Supposedly.


----------



## madzone (Aug 9, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> These are the insights of one of my "friends" on facebook:
> 
> to which someone responded:
> 
> ...



I had to defrend someone for chucking around a load of shit about 'chavs'. I've also had major spats with friends of friends about PC gone mad. There's a lot of tossers out there today


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 9, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> why is he your friend? defriend the cunt


Cos he's got shit I don't got and can only get thru him. I am tempted to call him out on it tho, but then again, these people are too stupid to really bother with. I'm more confortable mocking them behind their backs.


----------



## D (Aug 9, 2011)

Hey - Not sure I have much to add (I'm just trying to figure out what's ACTUALLY going on), but just want to say I'm thinking of all of you! Hard to get a sense over on this side of the pond of how widespread the violence is...But it sounds like a terrible, scary mess.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 9, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Cos he's got shit I don't got and can only get thru him. I am temped to call him out on it tho, but then again, these people are too stupid to really bother with. I'm more confortable mocking them behind their backs.


ha, you friended your drug dealer on facebook. you div!


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 9, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> ha, you friended your drug dealer on facebook. you div!


not drugs. not even anything illegal.


----------



## Orang Utan (Aug 9, 2011)




----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 9, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm also not certain we can place much validity in the idea that being raised by a single mum is a major factor in joining a gang or going out on the loot. I know it sounds like 'common sense' but to me it smacks of daily mailish diefication of the supposedly traditional family unit.
> 
> unless we are to take it that all women are incapable of raising good kids without a Man



The myth of the ideal nuclear family again. Damn right. The problem isn't that kids grow up without fathers. The problem is that kids grow up without any good adult role models. They grow up separated from what should be their extended family in communities where the old and the young are ghettoised as problems to be dealt with and not as a resource to be treasured.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Cos he's got shit I don't got and can only get thru him. I am tempted to call him out on it tho, but then again, these people are too stupid to really bother with. I'm more confortable mocking them behind their backs.


We will all ultimately be judged by the company we choose to keep.

So I'm fucked then, hanging out with you cunts.


----------



## newme (Aug 9, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> not drugs. not even anything illegal.



Cheese? Cos they have that in supermarkets now.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 9, 2011)

He's a self facilitating media node.


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 9, 2011)

There is no solution right now. It's already too late. It'll kick off around the country for the next few days until da yoof all have the latest mobile phone, new pairs of the trendiest trainers, and a massive plasma TV, or until it starts raining heavily. Then nothing at all will be done to deal with the long term problems and it will all kick off again some time next summer.

A start would be somebody in authority prepared to accept that mistakes have been made. Somebody giving an example of taking responsibility in an honest straightforward manner. Which won't happen because there are no honest and responsible people in positions of authority. So the example will be that if you bluster and rant enough you can blame anything on somebody else and get away with pretty much anything. Eventually it will all die down because looting and burning is hard bloody work compared to fiddling parliamentary expenses or selling info to the gutter press, but the example is not going to be forgotten.

However there isn't a quick and simple answer because there simply aren't enough police officers and soldiers to control the entire country when there are literally millions of people ceasing to give a toss.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Another one who doesn't believe such things existed. Yep, it's all a myth, the Left really are on top of this.
> 
> Yeah right.



Actually, I was living in inner London (about a mile south of Lambeth town hall as it goes) during the height of that, between '82 and '86, and I haven't claimed it was a myth, so don't put words in my mouth, there's a good chap. You don't like it when it's done to you.

What I remember (and I was in the business myself at the time) was media reportage about initiatives that bore barely a resemblance to the actuality of hat was going on "on the ground". "Kids being given cars" was actually kids being allowed to drive cars they'd fixed up; "kids being taken on safari to Africa" was a couple of kids in Brent who were doing community service and won a borough-wide competion where the prize was a three-week safari in Kenya. And on and fucking on.

I'm not saying that the councils were shining lights of virtue, but an awful lot of stuff attributed to them by the red-tops and (especially) the London Evening Standard was complete and utter bullshit written to house-style for the edification of the owner and/or the editor, because they hated the GLC (which funded many "controversial" initiatives like women-only swimming sessions) and any of the boroughs with overtly left-wing councils. Lambeth council got the fuck monstered out of it, but Linda Bellos and her direct successors did a hell of a lot more good than the cynical neo-liberal cunts who followed them, and who have provably wasted a hell of a lot more money and time on spurious projects.


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 9, 2011)

Also it isn't necessary for it to be impossible to thrive if you are a working class kid in Tottenham (or Brixton) in order for it to be a massive problem. The belief that it's the case is more than enough. That belief is there.


----------



## weepiper (Aug 9, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I'm also not certain we can place much validity in the idea that being raised by a single mum is a major factor in joining a gang or going out on the loot. I know it sounds like 'common sense' but to me it smacks of daily mailish diefication of the supposedly traditional family unit.
> 
> unless we are to take it that all women are incapable of raising good kids without a Man



I fucking love you Dotty.


----------



## discokermit (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Military service. They can do peacekeeping missions in REALLY poor places, learn about the value of trusting and depending on their fellow man, learn a trade, perhaps become respected and employable. Otherwise they are lost, doomed to repeat the mistakes of their fuckwit parents who let them run around Clapham at 2am aged 11.
> 
> Some form of boot camp process, as ugly as it sounds, would force them to explore their dependencies on shitty gangs to feel safe/empowered.
> 
> Ever seen Brat Camp? It works, you know. In matter of weeks.


i bet the majority of rioters in notting hill in '58 had done national service.


----------



## flutterbye (Aug 9, 2011)

belboid said:


> Lots of things.
> 
> Having had their communities shat upon for decades, massive inequalites of wealth, power, opportunities. Take away the EMA, close all the youth centres, no job opportunities.  Why not riot?



This is my take, the condescending default violent police approach that has accelerated is also to blame here, but these people have realised they can take the streets and own the police, yes there is a criminal element to this, people on the rob, but the underlying issues are political. Conservative policies are not the answer.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 9, 2011)

acab said:


> Its ironic most media are saying it's distubances across the UK. From what I can see it's only kicking off in England, yet when it kicks off in Northern Ireland it's Northern Ireland not the UK


It's a bit like the conversation between parents or pet owners (of the same child or animal).  If he/she's done something good he/she's mine, but if they've done something bad then _you_ get all the credit.

Okay, not so much that as the England-centric media using "the UK" and "Britain" as syonyms for "England".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> So how much are the Curves or Torches costing then? Do tell.



A third to a half of what you were claiming, and on a contract, fuck-all if you can scrape together £15 a month.

Come on, try harder, put some effort into it, you're phoning your fucking performance in!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Do you know it took 10,000 burned out cars and three weeks for similar riots in Paris 2005 to "pass"?



Yes, but do *you* know WHY that was the case?

Here's a clue - totally different circumstances, totally different policies.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> A third to a half of what you were claiming, and on a contract, fuck-all if you can scrape together £15 a week.
> 
> Come on, try harder, put some effort into it, you're phoning your fucking performance in!


£15 a week?!  Or should that be a month?


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 9, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> There is no solution right now. It's already too late. It'll kick off around the country for the next few days until da yoof all have the latest mobile phone, new pairs of the trendiest trainers, and a massive plasma TV, *or until it starts raining heavily*. Then nothing at all will be done to deal with the long term problems and it will all kick off again some time next summer.



Looks like the Mancs have been getting in their shenanigans just ahead of the incoming rain ..... some heavy shit forecast for the next coupla days up North, and that's just from the Met Office


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 9, 2011)

Tomorrow the police need to take the media cameras to every single door they put through when making arrests because so far all we've seen on TV is the police watching people taking whatever they want out of shop windows. This is why the riots are spreading _because people think they can get away with it. _As soon as people cotton on that they face a good chance of getting caught, and the severe sentences that will be handed out, I'm convinced we will see calm again. However, I think these events are a little bit too profitable for the media to act responsibly. If this doesn't work the police need to block every entrance to riot locations and move in en masse and arrest every single person present - let those pictures roll on the TV all day and people might get the message that they will face consequences.

(I know the police tactic is to film people then arrest later, and that might be good retrospectively, but to send out a strong message to prevent further spreading of the riots people need to be damned well sure that they are going to jail for a long time)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

Orang Utan said:


> why is he your friend? defenestrate the cunt



corrected for you.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

Police appear to be sulking because they can't get guarantees of immunity from prosecution should they commit violent crimes while suppressing rioters (see quotes from senior officers blog posted elsewhere, can't recall which thread offhand)

ETA here we go:



> The anonymous serving senior police officer writes: "Many people are becoming very angry that we refuse to move our lines and baton charge the rioters.
> 
> "I have run around... trying to understand why we are being ordered to stay static; the only explanation I can find is that Gold Command are concerned about the sensitivity of the target group."
> 
> The Inspector said officers attending a briefing had _*asked for guarantees that individual officers would not be suspended or prosecuted*_ if they used force and a rioter was seriously injured: "This was not forthcoming".


 (my emphasis)

http://www.channel4.com/news/riot-police-want-better-laws-and-leadership


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> £15 a week?! Or should that be a month?



You're absolutely right, Kabmeister.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

Personally, I get my Blackberry for nothing and my minutes for free.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> PK is right, however, that thye absentfather/babyfather problem is huge in the black community, and needs addressing urgently



Wow - the first person to accept this as truth!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Personally, I get my Blackberry for nothing and my minutes for free.



We don't all have information we can blackmail the MD of Vodafone with.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> We don't all have information we can blackmail the MD of Vodafone with.


Then you want to try dressing in fishnets more.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 9, 2011)

Seeing madness on Twatter. Libertarians (!) calling for the army, petition going up to take benefits off rioters - like that'll help. Joey Barton calling for the birch to be brought back.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> . If this doesn't work the police need to block every entrance to riot locations and move in en masse and arrest every single person present - let those pictures roll on the TV all day and people might get the message that they will face consequences.


only one problem; these riots are apparently already stretching the courts and jail space to breaking point. where do you put the hundreds of people nicked in this fashion? And what if such a crackdown provokes further kickings-off? it can't be denied that anger at the police is at least one of the causal factors here, whatever the other ones may be.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Personally, I get my Blackberry for nothing and my minutes for free.



thats the way you do it


----------



## TruXta (Aug 9, 2011)

MTV?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Seeing madness on Twatter. Libertarians (!) calling for the army, petition going up to take benefits off rioters - like that'll help. Joey Barton calling for the birch to be brought back.


 
I love it when those misty eyed for the return of draconian law enforcement start on. When those laws were in place and the mob rose, the wealthy and the nobles had to flee london for their own safety.


----------



## mottom (Aug 9, 2011)

I wrote some new words to Nena's 99 red balloons (1984 song) about 6 weeks ago: It explains what I think the reason is – ie most young do not give a **** as they feel used and their future and interests ignored

Now One hundred thousand  NEETS,
sitting on their hands, their feets
kicking cans right down your street
while 99 red balloons go by

One hundred thousand millionaires
watch their kids build bulls and bears.
But you should see their frighted stares
while 99 red balloons go by

I went up to Wood Green via the closed down tottenham, a teen on the bus was talking to her boy friend ''don't go to tottenham it's all done in now - it's not worth it - and i've just seen all the Wood Green shops being closed up, so don't going there' I gave her a stare – though she might have been persuading him to stay at home?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why are you expecting people to see something that they don't want to see, and which will cause cognitive dissonance if and when they do acknowledge it?


because the insane optimist in me hopes that most people have logical, rational thought processes, and can put 2 and 2 together, I guess.
Looks like such hope was misplaced


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I think you need to get some statistics that evidence the issue of absentee fathers in the White families too. I would like to see them and compare them, portionately.


yes, fair point, so would I, especially from the POV of London's poor



> Also, how you think it should be addressed?


education and more education, but beyond that I really don't know.


----------



## pk (Aug 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Personally, I get my Blackberry for nothing and my minutes for free.



Still doesn't mean the handset itself is worth any less in retail value.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 9, 2011)

pk said:


> Still doesn't mean the handset itself is worth any less in retail value.


It is after I've been using it.


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2011)

thanks for providing us all with something to have a good laugh at in these troublesome times, pk, hilarious commentary.  not very original, but still well worth repeating


----------



## newme (Aug 9, 2011)

kabbes said:


> It is after I've been using it.



Is this something to do with the fishnets?


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> only one problem; these riots are apparently already stretching the courts and jail space to breaking point. where do you put the hundreds of people nicked in this fashion.


Well first of all I'd get the courts working 24/7 like the police are having to (assuming they are not already), and secondly I'd have some temporary cells created. Maybe getting the courts working all night would negate the need for extra space in police stations?



> And what if such a crackdown provokes further kickings-off? it can't be denied that anger at the police is at least one of the causal factors here, whatever the other ones may be.


Do you believe that? It certainly a possibility but I don't think that would happen at all. I think the rioters are completely surprised that they haven't had battons round their heads and have been "allowed" to act with impunity. If these people were on the streets making a political statement, I'd agree with your sentiments, but these people are on the streets to commit crime, to steal, to assault, to rob. Nobody is going to batter an eyelid when they end up in jail because everyone, including themselves, know that's what they deserve


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 9, 2011)

*BREAKING: Morrissey says that the London riots are nothing compared to the daily persecution that cabbages face from the coleslaw industry*


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> *BREAKING: Morrissey says that the London riots are nothing compared to the daily persecution that cabbages face from the coleslaw industry*



That's oddly plausible ...


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Do you believe that? It certainly a possibility but I don't think that would happen at all. I think the rioters are completely surprised that they haven't had battons round their heads and have been "allowed" to act with impunity. If these people were on the streets making a political statement, I'd agree with your sentiments, but these people are on the streets to commit crime, to steal, to assault, to rob. Nobody is going to batter an eyelid when they end up in jail because everyone, including themselves, know that's what they deserve


If these riots were _only_ about the optimistic criminality of teenage scumbags, i'd agree, but I don't think they are. I think the anger of underclass youth at getting a shitty deal from society, whilst others (meejah, MPs, the wealthy) take the piss, and certainly anger at police harassment is also in there.
these riots certainly have a connection to deprivation; or else why were London's two poorest areas (Tottenham & Brixton) the first to go up?
basically, there's an element of fighting back in there, albeit an unfocussed, unideological one.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 9, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Come on PK, tell us more about this disproportionate number of black looters. Disproportionate for Croydon, you say, yet you also say they weren't from Croydon. So, what are you basing these proportions on?


And again, any response, PK?  In Post #633, you said the looters were disproportionately black.  Tell us what you base that on.


----------



## Balbi (Aug 9, 2011)

GMP Officer "There is no reason for this to happen, there is no injustice, there is no protest..."


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> If these riots were _only_ about the optimistic criminality of teenage scumbags, i'd agree, but I don't think they are. I think the anger of underclass youth at getting a shitty deal from society, whilst others (meejah, MPs, the wealthy) take the piss, and certainly anger at police harassment is also in there.
> these riots certainly have a connection to deprivation; or else why were London's two poorest areas (Tottenham & Brixton) the first to go up?
> basically, there's an element of fighting back in there, albeit an unfocussed, unideological one.


Criminals have no right to be pissed off at police harassment!!!

Look, I've said in my first post on this thread that I understand _why _people get involved in crime due to their economic background, but there is nothing political about these riots (certainly outside of Tottenham). As far as the rioters are concerned, especially those out across the country in so called copy cat riots, they are there to either have fun and excitement or to steal. Me and you might be high and mighty enough to offer a theoretical political explanation as to why these people are in the situation they are in, but that is not what they are on the streets for...


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> If these riots were _only_ about the optimistic criminality of teenage scumbags, i'd agree, but I don't think they are. I think the anger of underclass youth at getting a shitty deal from society, whilst others (meejah, MPs, the wealthy) take the piss, and certainly anger at police harassment is also in there.
> these riots certainly have a connection to deprivation; or else why were London's two poorest areas (Tottenham & Brixton) the first to go up?
> basically, there's an element of fighting back in there, albeit an unfocussed, unideological one.


i don't think brixton's one of london's two poorest areas. surely much of tower hamlets is poorer than brixton, and newham's poorer too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Seeing madness on Twatter. Libertarians (!) calling for the army, petition going up to take benefits off rioters - like that'll help. Joey Barton calling for the birch to be brought back.



Like Barton's back wouldn't be a mass of scars if we still had the birch!!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

newme said:


> Is this something to do with the fishnets?



And the lard.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 9, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Criminals have no right to be pissed off at police harassment!!!


Huh? So EVERY young black in Tottenham is a criminal? riiight.
police harassment of youth is a known thing that's been happening for a long time, espesh in places like Brixton and Tottenham.



> Look, I've said in my first post on this thread that I understand _why _people get involved in crime due to their economic background, but there is nothing political about these riots (certainly outside of Tottenham). As far as the rioters are concerned, especially those out across the country in so called copy cat riots, they are there to either have fun and excitement or to steal. Me and you might be high and mighty enough to offer a theoretical political explanation as to why these people are in the situation they are in, but that is not what they are on the streets for...


a) it's no "high and mighty" - it doesn't have to be, reasons and motivations don't have to be sophisticated to simply exist - but they are also doing it to say 'fuck you' to a society that offers them nothing, that sells them a consumerist dream whilst making sure they'll always have the shitty end of the stick.
b) EVERYTHING is political, and that is the 'political' element of that. I genuinely don't think you can separate that deprivation, and lack of opportunities (youth unemployment has soared) from this riot, simply because rage and a type of empowerment are part of the mix - along with the fun and stealing. It's virtually impossible to separate the two, amongst resentful and alienated youth


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 9, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> *BREAKING: Morrissey says that the London riots are nothing compared to the daily persecution that cabbages face from the coleslaw industry*



Is it really so strange?


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2011)

fucking hell, anyone watching Michael Gove just now would be tempted to go out and riot on general principle.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 9, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Huh? So EVERY young black in Tottenham is a criminal? riiight.
> police harassment of youth is a known thing that's been happening for a long time, espesh in places like Brixton and Tottenham.


Was every young black person from Tottenham out on the streets? My comment was directed at those on the streets...



> a) it's no "high and mighty" - it doesn't have to be, reasons and motivations don't have to be sophisticated to simply exist - but they are also doing it to say 'fuck you' to a society that offers them nothing, that sells them a consumerist dream whilst making sure they'll always have the shitty end of the stick.


In my original post I said that those of an ideological persuasion would use these events for their own agendas. This is what you appear to be doing here by putting words into the mouths of rioters to portray them as making a political stand. Stealing TVs and setting peoples' houses on fire is not, imo of course, taking a political stand.



> b) EVERYTHING is political, and that is the 'political' element of that. I genuinely don't think you can separate that deprivation, and lack of opportunities (youth unemployment has soared) from this riot, simply because rage and a type of empowerment are part of the mix - along with the fun and stealing. It's virtually impossible to separate the two, amongst resentful and alienated youth


Everything is political, but is everything _intended _to be political? That's my point. I have said in my original post, and again in reply to you, that I understand the reasons why people find themselves in the situation they are in. I am not separating the deprivation and the economic system that has created these people, I just don't think that these events are a political protest, as much as you would _like_ them to be.

I think we're going to just go round in circles with little bits of debate here and there but I gave my overall opinion in my original post so all I will do is direct you there and if you still don't agree then maybe we can take it from there:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/is-there-a-reason-for-the-riots.278935/page-23#post-10359020


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 9, 2011)

belboid said:


> fucking hell, anyone watching Michael Gove just now would be tempted to go out and riot on general principle.



I can only imagine. That fucking ghoul faced wanker is an embarrassment. An embarrassment. Neo-liberal capitalist society seems to increasingly vomit up such useless pigs as "leaders". Hopefully the 100% justified anger and utter hatred that is fueling the current wave of nihilistic violence will at a later stage be refocused on the rich parasites and their vermin political representatives like Gove. We can only hope.


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2011)

He lost it as he managed to let Harriet Harman - _Harriet Harman_ - rip him apart. Demanding she condemn the rioters seventeen times, whilst standing on her head and singing The Internationale or it didn't count.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 9, 2011)

I agree with the implication of your post: his throat should be slit.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 9, 2011)

belboid said:


> He lost it as he managed to let Harriet Harman - _Harriet Harman_ - rip him apart. Demanding she condemn the rioters seventeen times, whilst standing on her head and singing The Internationale or it didn't count.


 
oh christ the 'do you condemn the violence?' x 1000million

I wish just once someone would say 'no, i laughed'


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

belboid said:


> fucking hell, anyone watching Michael Gove just now would be tempted to go out and riot on general principle.



Is this the interview in question?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 9, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> oh christ the 'do you condemn the violence?' x 1000million
> 
> I wish just once someone would say 'no, i laughed'



Innit tho but.

Anybody who "condemns" anything is a useless lickspittle piece of shit.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 9, 2011)

Oh and by the way, Gove has been well dirty with Murdoch ...


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 9, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Is this the interview in question?




His mates loot entire economies. Petty looters are small fry.


----------



## belboid (Aug 9, 2011)

just now on Newsnight, not that one, tho I'm sure it's just as vile I couldn't bear to watch him again


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 9, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> His mates loot entire economies. Petty looters are small fry.



Sod him, he is part of the problem:



> Michael Gove, the shadow education secretary, spent more than £7,000 in five months furnishing a London property in 2006 before “flipping” his second home designation to a new property he bought in Surrey. He then claimed more than £13,000 in stamp duty and other fees from his Parliamentary expenses for this property. Mr Gove’s behaviour surprised colleagues because the former journalist was only elected in 2005 and is close to Mr Cameron.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...drawn-into-expenses-scandal-MPs-expenses.html


----------



## kabbes (Aug 10, 2011)

CyberRose, Streathamite said nothing about intentions, political or otherwise.  He never called it a "political protest" either.

That doesn't change the fact that if young people having no stake in society to such an extent that they go looting and rioting isn't political then nothing is political.  Riots are as political as you get.  And that's got nothing to do with intentions.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 10, 2011)

LOL Michael Gove. The same Michael Gove caught looting from the public purse in relation to furnishings from John Lewis and flipping his first/second homes: Slight credibility gap, Mr Gove.

Should be offering advice to looters on how to do it properly.


----------



## flutterbye (Aug 10, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Huh? So EVERY young black in Tottenham is a criminal? riiight.
> police harassment of youth is a known thing that's been happening for a long time, espesh in places like Brixton and Tottenham.



_Today, after 30 years, black and Asian youths, according to a study last year from the Ministry of Justice, are still 30 times more likely to be stopped in the street than their white counterparts._
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0407/1224294096649.html


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 10, 2011)

Who are the rioters?



> Jay Kast, 24, a youth worker from East Ham who has witnessed rioting across London over the last three nights, said he was concerned that black community leaders were wrongly identifying a problem "within".
> 
> "I've seen Turkish boys, I've seen Asian boys, I've seen grown white men," he said. "They're all out there taking part." He recognised an element of opportunism in the mass looting but said an underlying cause was that many young people felt "trapped in the system". "They're disconnected from the community and they just don't care," he said.
> In some senses the rioting has been unifying a cross-section of deprived young men who identify with each other, he added.
> ...


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

Tell me again how socio economic conditions are colourblind?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2011)

flutterbye said:


> _Today, after 30 years, black and Asian youths, according to a study last year from the Ministry of Justice, are still 30 times more likely to be stopped in the street than their white counterparts._
> http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0407/1224294096649.html


[pedant]if the report's from last year then 'today, after 30 years...' is wrong[/pedant]

it's probably worse now.


----------



## Termite Man (Aug 10, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> Who are the rioters?


 
That sort of reminds me of


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

A Michael Jackson video?


----------



## newme (Aug 10, 2011)

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/policing-seems-to-work-201108104177/


----------



## Termite Man (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> A Michael Jackson video?


 


no it's a film

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080120/


----------



## dylans (Aug 10, 2011)

This was posted on CIF last night. i thought it was interesting not only for what he said but because of who the poster was. I think he is right




> As a retired Greater Manchester Police officer I was aghast at the damage to my beloved city. My first reaction was to grab my old truncheon and drive into the city centre to whack some of the buggers.





> What do these gang members,thugs, feral youths want?.
> Perhaps they want the good life as exemplified by our Old Etonian, Bullingdon club members who now control the country. ( we are all in this together!!). They could perhaps aspire to win the lottery- 160 million at the latest. Perhaps they could join a boy/girl band and win a talent contest on Saturday prime time TV. Perhaps even become a semi literate, foul mouthed football player and pull in 150K per week.. What they cannot get is a decent job.There is something rotten at the hearth of british society and it needs sorting.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

Termite Man said:


> no it's a film
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080120/



I know. Was taking the piss.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 10, 2011)

The Psychology of Looting - Grundian



> [The riots] didn't seem to be politically motivated, nor did they have any sense of community or social solidarity. This was inarguable. As one brave woman in Hackney put it: "We're not all gathering together for a cause, we're running down Foot Locker."
> 
> ...
> 
> how can you cease to believe in law and order, a moral universe, co-operation, the purpose of existence, and yet still believe in sportswear? How can you despise culture but still want the flatscreen TV from the bookies? Alex Hiller, a marketing and consumer expert at Nottingham Business School, points out that there is no conflict between anomie and consumption: "If you look at Baudrillard and other people writing in sociology about consumption, it's a falsification of social life. Adverts promote a fantasy land. Consumerism relies upon people feeling disconnected from the world."


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

dylans said:


> This was posted on CIF last night. i thought it was interesting not only for what he said but because of who the poster was. I think he is right



Those are the words of a very old, very out of touch man.

He is talking about his own aspirations and assuming that is what everyone wants.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> PK, you seemed to be implying that the looters were disproportionately black. Were you in fact not implying that at all?





pk said:


> Disproportionately, yes, from the video footage I've seen from Hackney, Lewisham, Croydon.
> 
> Exclusively, no, of course not.





danny la rouge said:


> In other words, more than you'd expect given the communities they came from?





pk said:


> In Clapham and Croydon - yes. Especially Croydon. I'd expect to see a 50/50 mix, as is the demographic.
> Also a potential factor are the witness reports that claim much of the serious looting was carried out by young men from miles away from the targeted areas.





danny la rouge said:


> Given that reports suggest, and you yourself go on to say, the looters probably didn't come from Croydon, what are you suggesting? That when they set off, they should have made sure there was the equivalent mix to that of the area they were going to?
> 
> I asked about the communities they _came from_, not the ones they went to.





danny la rouge said:


> Come on PK, tell us more about this disproportionate number of black looters. Disproportionate for Croydon, you say, yet you also say they weren't from Croydon. So, what are you basing these proportions on?





danny la rouge said:


> And again, any response, PK? In Post #633, you said the looters were disproportionately black. Tell us what you base that on.


OK, having had the chance to view media reports, any evidence for your claim that the rioters/looters were disproportionately black? (Not that more of them were black than was the norm for the areas they looted in, but that more of them were black than was the norm for the areas they came from).

Or do we just put it down to yet another of your Daily Mail-inspired assumptions?


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Those are the words of a very old, very out of touch man.
> 
> He is talking about his own aspirations and assuming that is what everyone wants.



Really? I think he's talking about a culture in which there's a growing gap between aspiration as exemplified by life changing talent contests and the lives of overpaid footballers, winning the lottery and being born rich, all of which give the impression that you can get loads of money for not very much effort, and the reality in which young people can't even get a job that buys them the basics of life. In what way is that out of touch?


----------



## pk (Aug 10, 2011)

FFS this looting was the steaming/looting technique seen from Westfield to Bond Street, your determination to avoid the issue is doing the black community a great disservice. Carry on playing the shocked and offended white intellectual though, it is amusing.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 10, 2011)

You seem determined to make this a racial issue, pk, but you've conspicuously avoided questions about how you've come to the dubious conclusion that this is disproportionately a matter of young black folk.


----------



## revol68 (Aug 10, 2011)

what's the black community got to do with it, was it only black people looting, didn't seem that way?

Oh right, you are just using black as a kind of handy short hand for criminal, mugger and so on, cos like that's what they're like isn't it, impulsive beasts eh pk?

You prick!


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

Red Cat said:


> Really? I think he's talking about a culture in which there's a growing gap between aspiration as exemplified by life changing talent contests and the lives of overpaid footballers, winning the lottery and being born rich, all of which give the impression that you can get loads of money for not very much effort, and the reality in which young people can't even get a job that buys them the basics of life. In what way is that out of touch?



Because it assumes that these people are stupid... aspiring to things they cannot have.

That isn't the case. They are not stupid. They know you have to born white and rich to have a decent chance. They know you have to be supremely talented to make it as a footballer or singer. They understand that these things are not in their realm.


----------



## Garek (Aug 10, 2011)

What is the 'black community'?


----------



## pk (Aug 10, 2011)

revol68 said:


> what's the black community got to do with it



Spoken like a true anarchist. Utterly out of touch with what's happening. Go join in the looting revol, I hope there's a bat with your name on it. Sincerely.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 10, 2011)

You gonna answer danny's questions then pk? No? Thought not.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

So how are socio-economic conditions colourblind again?

So black people aren't disproportionately poor in this country and prejudiced against?


----------



## pk (Aug 10, 2011)

TruXta said:


> You seem determined to make this a racial issue, pk, but you've conspicuously avoided questions about how you've come to the dubious conclusion that this is disproportionately a matter of young black folk.



From video and photos in the media/internet. From the pics of looters posing with their stolen goods.

You can play the colourblind do-gooder all you like, but unless you acknowledge a few uncomfortable truths you may as well just hand the initiative to wankers like the EDL. No, I never said it was ALL black kids, but in Croydon there was little evidence of Pakistani or Asian kids hoofing windows and running off with TV screens. But hey, what would I know about the ethnic make-up of a town I visit every day? Why should anyone look at the issue of gang culture that destroys the lives of many young black men and address it with any honesty? No, let's look to the left to brush all that shit under the carpet and pretend everyone but them are just racists. How "wadical"!


----------



## mauvais (Aug 10, 2011)

A mate asked me a good question: supposing you think it's just selfish criminality rather than any kind of (even inadvertent) political expression, what would the latter look like? What would have to be different to gain legitimacy?

I don't know what I think about the riots to be honest - I was hoping Urban would tell me.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 10, 2011)

"inadvertent political expression" could cover just about anything tbf. I buy a pre-made sandwich for lunch: I am inadvertently expressing my support for battery-farmed chicken and poverty-waged sandwich packers.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> So how are socio-economic conditions colourblind again?
> 
> So black people aren't disproportionately poor in this country and prejudiced against?



I said "more often than not colour-blind". Why do Indians get employed at the same rate as white Europeans, while their Pakistani and Bangladeshi neighbours have one of the highest rates of poverty and unemployment? Lots of groups are discriminated against, not just the black. Why do women still earn 20% less than their male counterparts?

Quote from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:



> The research highlights the differences between minority ethnic groups with 65% of Bangladeshis living in poverty compared to 55% of Pakistanis, 45% of Black Africans and 30% of Indians and Black Caribbeans. Over half of Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Black African children in the UK are growing up in poverty with a staggering 70% of Bangladeshi children growing up poor.



See what I'm getting at Kizmet?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> From video and photos in the media/internet. From the pics of looters posing with their stolen goods.
> 
> You can play the colourblind do-gooder all you like, but unless you acknowledge a few uncomfortable truths you may as well just hand the initiative to wankers like the EDL. No, I never said it was ALL black kids, but in Croydon there was little evidence of Pakistani or Asian kids hoofing windows and running off with TV screens. But hey, what would I know about the ethnic make-up of a town I visit every day? Why should anyone look at the issue of gang culture that destroys the lives of many young black men and address it with any honesty? No, let's look to the left to brush all that shit under the carpet and pretend everyone but them are just racists. How "wadical"!



In other words, you see exactly what you want to see. Well done. And you're still evading that thing where you claimed the looters had a disproportionate amount of black people among them.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

No, not really. I don't see how that is colourblind.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 10, 2011)

Crispy said:


> "inadvertent political expression" could cover just about anything tbf. I buy a pre-made sandwich for lunch: I am inadvertently expressing my support for battery-farmed chicken and poverty-waged sandwich packers.


I think you know what I mean; driven to that kind of behaviour by lack of opportunity, for instance, wouldn't necessarily be a conscious protest against unemployment but could/would still be an expression of disenfranchisement; rather than (for example) comfortably off youth doing it out of sheer boredom or because the opportunity is there. What would the visible difference be?


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 10, 2011)

These people are not great political theorists but - when their EMA has been cut, Uni education privatised, services to their grandparents cut, NHS reduced despite election promises, etc, etc - they look at (some of) PMs expenses, at bankers bonuses, at corporate tax aviodance, at  the wars, at Trident   - and they know they've been had. We all know we've been had. The difference is the kids have absolutely nothing to lose.

One thing Tories have always done and will always do - politically, in business, in life -  is push as far as they can then, when they're called on it, rein back the min they can get away with. But they'll push and push first.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> No, not really. I don't see how that is colourblind.



Dude. You were going on about how the blacks have it so bad. I was showing you that Asians often have it worse. Unless Asians are now classified as black... well.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Because it assumes that these people are stupid... aspiring to things they cannot have.
> 
> That isn't the case. They are not stupid. They know you have to born white and rich to have a decent chance. They know you have to be supremely talented to make it as a footballer or singer. They understand that these things are not in their realm.



I don't think it does assume stupidity. We all fantasise, otherwise advertising wouldn't work. Children and teenagers especially so. And a belief/hope/delusion that material goods will meet complex psychological, emotional and social needs is hardly confined to alienated youth - in fact, capitalism expands its markets on precisely such things.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> From video and photos in the media/internet. From the pics of looters posing with their stolen goods.
> 
> You can play the colourblind do-gooder all you like, but unless you acknowledge a few uncomfortable truths you may as well just hand the initiative to wankers like the EDL. No, I never said it was ALL black kids, but in Croydon there was little evidence of Pakistani or Asian kids hoofing windows and running off with TV screens. But hey, what would I know about the ethnic make-up of a town I visit every day? Why should anyone look at the issue of gang culture that destroys the lives of many young black men and address it with any honesty? No, let's look to the left to brush all that shit under the carpet and pretend everyone but them are just racists. How "wadical"!


You truly are a fearless exploder of political correctness, aren't you?  You say the "determination to avoid the issue is doing the black community a great disservice".  What issue is being avoided?  That many of the looters were black?  Who says they weren't?  Nobody.  You, however, said that they were _disproportionately black_.  More than would be the norm for the communities they come from.  Do you still say that?  Based on what?  Some videos you saw.  Did you do a statistical analysis? And if so, what was your point of comparison?

 "in Croydon there was little evidence of Pakistani or Asian kids [etc]"  You've already said the kids probably weren't from Croydon.  So, I asked you what the looters should have done.  Ensured their numbers reflected the racial mix of an area before looting it?

In the footage I have seen, I saw black, Asian, white and mixed race kids.  Now, I'm not from London.  I don't know what proportions to expect given the areas these kids are coming from.  But you say the mix of looters is disproportionately black.  Now, evidence please, or run off and slaver over the Daily Mail like a good little reactionary bore will you?  Cheers.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 10, 2011)

mauvais said:


> I think you know what I mean; driven to that kind of behaviour by lack of opportunity, for instance, wouldn't necessarily be a conscious protest against unemployment but could/would still be an expression of disenfranchisement; rather than say more comfortable youth doing it out of sheer boredom.



Ok, well, if there was more conscious political motivation going on, you'd see more specifically targeted destruction. You might even see some banners or chanted demands.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Dude. You were going on about how the blacks have it so bad. I was showing you that Asians often have it worse. Unless Asians are now classified as black... well.



No... you said socio economic conditions were colourblind.... but your evidence shows the opposite.

That colour is very clearly a factor in socio economic conditions.


----------



## pk (Aug 10, 2011)

TruXta said:


> In other words, you see exactly what you want to see. Well done.



Oh fuck off, fool. You think there's no link between Monday's trouble and the gang culture, you scream WACIST when it's pointed out that there might be a link, yeah, rose tinted goggles, always useful when trying to analyse the root causes of social unrest. Unless the camera crews & photographers are all racist too, it definitely looked like organised gangs of black youth were controlling the streets Monday. Put your head back in the sand, ignore the fact that too many young black kids are the victim of same gangs, it's clearly making you feel uncomfortable.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

Red Cat said:


> I don't think it does assume stupidity. We all fantasise, otherwise advertising wouldn't work. Children and teenagers especially so. And a belief/hope/delusion that material goods will meet complex psychological, emotional and social needs is hardly confined to alienated youth - in fact, capitalism expands its markets on precisely such things.



Fantasies are not the same thing as aspirations.

That's a massive mistake.

Do you aspire to be a footballer or a singer? No? Not anymore?
So why should these people be different?


----------



## mauvais (Aug 10, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Ok, well, if there was more conscious political motivation going on, you'd see more specifically targeted destruction. You might even see some banners or chanted demands.


Targeted, maybe - but the rest I'm not so sure of. If you're literally completely removed from any kind of political process or avenue, why would there be that type of expression? The SWP could turn up and add a layer on top to tick that box in which case it'd be the opposite - look different but no change underneath.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> From video and photos in the media/internet. From the pics of looters posing with their stolen goods.
> 
> No, I never said it was ALL black kids, but in Croydon there was little evidence of Pakistani or Asian kids hoofing windows and running off with TV screens. But hey, what would I know about the ethnic make-up of a town I visit every day?


They're too busy grooming white girls, right?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> No... you said socio economic conditions were colourblind.... but your evidence shows the opposite.
> 
> That colour is very clearly a factor in socio economic conditions.



Would you stop misquoting me? I said it was "*more often than not* colour-blind". Meaning it doesn't matter whether you're black, brown, yellow or blue, you'll still be shafted by the system. You were initially talking about the *very real *exclusion faced by predominantly black communities, I was saying it's nothing to do with being black per se, it's to do with class.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> From video and photos in the media/internet. From the pics of looters posing with their stolen goods.
> 
> You can play the colourblind do-gooder all you like, but unless you acknowledge a few uncomfortable truths you may as well just hand the initiative to wankers like the EDL. No, I never said it was ALL black kids, but in Croydon there was little evidence of Pakistani or Asian kids hoofing windows and running off with TV screens. But hey, what would I know about the ethnic make-up of a town I visit every day? Why should anyone look at the issue of gang culture that destroys the lives of many young black men and address it with any honesty? No, let's look to the left to brush all that shit under the carpet and pretend everyone but them are just racists. How "wadical"!


it's another pk fuckwit moment.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> Oh fuck off, fool. You think there's no link between Monday's trouble and the gang culture, you scream WACIST when it's pointed out that there might be a link, yeah, rose tinted goggles, always useful when trying to analyse the root causes of social unrest. Unless the camera crews & photographers are all racist too, it definitely looked like organised gangs of black youth were controlling the streets Monday. Put your head back in the sand, ignore the fact that too many young black kids are the victim of same gangs, it's clearly making you feel uncomfortable.



0/10. Try not to do what you accuse others of doing, ie. putting words in their mouths. Organised gangs of *youth *controlled the streets. Were they _disproportionately_ black? Cuz that's what you've been claiming with nothing but "I saw it on telly" as evidence.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 10, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> These people are not great political theorists but - when their EMA has been cut, Uni education privatised, services to their grandparents cut, NHS reduced despite election promises, etc, etc - they look at (some of) PMs expenses, at bankers bonuses, at corporate tax aviodance, at the wars, at Trident - and they know they've been had. We all know we've been had. The difference is the kids have absolutely nothing to lose.



the only two places closed on lewisham high street today were the connexions youth service and the open doors careers advice office, both closed permanently


----------



## xenon (Aug 10, 2011)

Plenty of white riotters / looters in Manchester last night. If they're are particular problems with family breakdown, bad role models etc,  more prevalent in certain communities. Tackel those issues as they are. Respect peple enough not to make special cases for them. For all those amongst minority and / or  disenfranchised groups who aren't looting.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

You may have said more often than not... however it's still untrue.

More often than not socio economic conditions are biased against those of colour.

Which means it is everything to do with being black, brown, yellow or blue.

Class only comes into it if you are white.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> *Fantasies are not the same thing as aspirations.*
> 
> That's a massive mistake.
> 
> ...



I don't think I agree, not when you're talking about teenagers. I would say that it is only as you get older that you start to categorise your fantasies differently, in a box marked 'never going to happen'.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Class only comes into it if you are white.



This is where you're going off target. Anyway, I've gotta go.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Class only comes into it if you are white.



Eh?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think I agree, not when you're talking about teenagers. I would say that it is only as you get older that you start to categorise your fantasies differently, in a box marked 'never going to happen'.



Depending on what opportunities you have.

The less opportunities the quicker that box fills up.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Eh?



What happened to the rest of my post? Or did you jump when I said white?


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Fantasies are not the same thing as aspirations.
> 
> That's a massive mistake.
> 
> ...



I didn't actually say they aspire to be those precise things - more that the gap between the representation of a kind of life and the reality of theirs is huge. I don't want to be a singer no and I have no desire, fantasy or aspiration to be rich, but I would love to have the money so that certain trainings were available to me  - the gap between what I could do or 'be' if I had a little money and the reality of my life causes some frustration.

I'm not convinced that aspirations and fantasies are so separate - they're both about desire.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

TruXta said:


> This is where you're going off target. Anyway, I've gotta go.



No it's not. It's bang on.

Bye.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

Red Cat said:


> I didn't actually say they aspire to be those precise things - more that the gap between the representation of a kind of life and the reality of theirs is huge. I don't want to be a singer no and I have no desire, fantasy or aspiration to be rich, but I would love to have the money so that certain trainings were available to me  - the gap between what I could do or 'be' if I had a little money and the reality of my life causes some frustration.
> 
> I'm not convinced that aspirations and fantasies are so separate - they're both about desire.



And intelligence. These kids are smart enough to know the difference between something you can have and something you cannot.

A singing career you cannot have... a flatscreen tv you can.

And I know you didn't say it... it was that old bloke that dylans quoted that said it. Which is why I said he was out of touch.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> What happened to the rest of my post? Or did you jump when I said white?


No you made it sound like no one else could have a social class, which is weird.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 10, 2011)

Breaking news:


> In the interests of maintaining a consistent political approach, the French and US governments have this morning tabled a fresh UN Resolution that recognises the legitimacy of those in the UK actively opposing oppression. Both governments have despatched military assets towards the UK in the light of threats from the current UK leader to fire ‘on his own people’. More soon…


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> No you made it sound like no one else could have a social class, which is weird.


I understood it a little differently. I think the point made was that it's far too easy to call it a race issue when the faces are Black, forgetting that race and class issues are interchangable. People only seem to address class issues directly when the faces are White.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Breaking news:


LoL


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 10, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I understood it a little differently. I think the point made was that it's far too easy to call it a race issue when the faces are Black, forgetting that race and class issues are interchangable. People only seem to address class issues directly when the faces are White.


There's a tendency by the media to talk only of "the white working class" and ignore any other group of people who are also working class. That's a mistake, I think.


----------



## articul8 (Aug 10, 2011)

Not sure if anyone has already posted this yet - but it is remarkably prescient, and written over 40 years ago:

This is


> ... a rebellion against the commodity, against the world of the commodity in which worker-consumers are _hierarchically_ subordinated to commodity standards. Like the young delinquents of all the advanced countries, but more radically because they are part of a class without a future, a sector of the proletariat unable to believe in any significant chance of integration or promotion, [they] take modern capitalist propaganda, its publicity of abundance, _ literally_. They want to possess _now_ all the objects shown and abstractly accessible, because they want to _use_ them. In this way they are challenging their exchange-value, the _commodity reality_ which molds them and marshals them to its own ends, and which has _preselected everything_. Through theft and gift they rediscover a use that immediately refutes the oppressive rationality of the commodity, revealing its relations and even its production to be arbitrary and unnecessary. The looting [...] was the most direct realization of the distorted principle: “To each according to their _false_ needs” — needs determined and produced by the economic system which the very act of looting rejects. But once the vaunted abundance is taken at face value and directly _seized,_ instead of being eternally pursued in the rat-race of alienated labor and increasing unmet social needs, real desires begin to be expressed in festive celebration, in playful self-assertion, in the _potlatch_ of destruction. People who destroy commodities show their human superiority over commodities. They stop submitting to the arbitrary forms that distortedly reflect their real needs. The flames [...] _consummated_ the system of consumption. The theft of large refrigerators by people with no electricity, or with their electricity cut off, is the best image of the lie of affluence transformed into a truth _in play_. Once it is no longer bought, the commodity lies open to criticism and alteration, whatever particular form it may take. Only when it is paid for with money is it respected as an admirable fetish, as a symbol of status within the world of survival. Looting is a _natural_ response to the unnatural and inhuman society of commodity abundance. It instantly undermines the commodity as such, and it also exposes what the commodity ultimately implies: the army, the police and the other specialized detachments of the state’s monopoly of armed violence. What is a policeman? He is the active servant of the commodity, the man in complete submission to the commodity, whose job is to ensure that a given product of human labor remains a commodity, with the magical property of having to be paid for, instead of becoming a mere refrigerator or rifle — a passive, inanimate object, subject to anyone who comes along to make use of it. In rejecting the humiliation of being subject to police, the blacks are at the same time rejecting the humiliation of being subject to commodities. The [....] youth, having no future in market terms, grasped another _quality_ of the present


http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/10.Watts.htm


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> There's a tendency by the media to talk only of "the white working class" and ignore any other group of people who are also working class. *That's a mistake, I think.*



It is indeed. That's why it's important for individuals to recognise that their issues are not always exclusive to them and their communities...that there is a clear theme to it all, despite the internalised 'labelling' that polarises groups.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> And intelligence. These kids are smart enough to know the difference between something you can have and something you cannot.
> 
> A singing career you cannot have... a flatscreen tv you can.
> 
> And I know you didn't say it... it was that old bloke that dylans quoted that said it. Which is why I said he was out of touch.



Yes, maybe he was implying kids want these specific things, and although I moved away from that line and emphasised more the gap between 2 different kinds of lives, I'm sure that plenty do. When I've worked in schools I've encountered many kids expressing such desires. I'm sure that fantasising or aspiring go some way to helping people feel less powerless than they are - it doesn't have to be thought about in such a simplisitic and negative way. I don't think it's got anything to do with intelligence or lack of it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> rose tinted goggles, always useful when trying to analyse the root causes of social unrest.


I see, so no evidence at all.

Tell you what, start a thread and paste all your reactionary cliches in them and we'll know where we can find you if we need a laugh.  Bye.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

Red Cat said:


> Yes, maybe he was implying kids want these specific things, and although I moved away from that line and emphasised more the gap between 2 different kinds of lives, I'm sure that plenty do. When I've worked in schools I've encountered many kids expressing such desires. I'm sure that fantasising or aspiring go some way to helping people feel less powerless than they are - it doesn't have to be thought about in such a simplisitic and negative way. I don't think it's got anything to do with intelligence or lack of it.



So we come to the difference between fantasy and aspiration.

That difference is based in experience and understanding.


Aspiration is attainable. Fantasy is not.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

Between fantasy and aspiration is reality. The reality is that there is a massive middle ground where 'opportunity' is lacking.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> From video and photos in the media/internet. From the pics of looters posing with their stolen goods.
> 
> You can play the colourblind do-gooder all you like, but unless you acknowledge a few *uncomfortable truths* you may as well just hand the initiative to wankers like the EDL. No, I never said it was ALL black kids, but in Croydon there was little evidence of Pakistani or Asian kids hoofing windows and running off with TV screens. But hey, what would I know about the ethnic make-up of a town I visit every day? Why should anyone look at the issue of gang culture that destroys the lives of many young black men and address it with any honesty? No, let's look to the left to brush all that shit under the carpet and pretend everyone but them are just racists. How "wadical"!



What "uncomfortable truths " would THAT be , then ?


----------



## Santino (Aug 10, 2011)

Can someone remind me: if disenfranchised young people have a rational belief that they can't achieve success, does that make them more or less likely to riot?


----------



## Santino (Aug 10, 2011)

Uncomfortable truths FTW.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> What "uncomfortable truths " would THAT be , then ?


He's got nothing more to add, so he'll be leaving the thread.  Which is good, because there's still plenty of sensible discussion to be had.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 10, 2011)

Santino said:


> Can someone remind me: if disenfranchised young people have a rational belief that they can't achieve success, does that make them more or less likely to riot?


According to the vigilante in Southall on teh news it makes them terrorists. HTH.

I'm running out of labels here.


----------



## stuff_it (Aug 10, 2011)

'This is not the revolution you are looking for'


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

I look forward to PK's analysis on the majority White crowd looting/rioting in Manchester yesterday.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 10, 2011)

Some YouGov/Sun polling regarding the riots, their causes and the police/govt response to them.

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/yg-archives-pol-sun-riots-100811.pdf


----------



## Garek (Aug 10, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I look forward to PK's analysis on the majority White crowd looting/rioting in Manchester yesterday.



Wiggers?


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> So we come to the difference between fantasy and aspiration.
> 
> That difference is based in experience and understanding.
> 
> Aspiration is attainable. Fantasy is not.



I think the mind is a more muddy place than the clear cut compartments you suggest.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Between fantasy and aspiration is reality. The reality is that there is a massive middle ground where 'opportunity' is lacking.



Aye. And the reality is most of these kids realise it.

Which is why they are making their own 'opportunities'.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

Red Cat said:


> I think the mind is a more muddy place than the clear cut compartments you suggest.



I'm not saying it's clear cut... I'm saying they are not stupid.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Some YouGov/Sun polling regarding the riots, their causes and the police/govt response to them.
> 
> http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/yg-archives-pol-sun-riots-100811.pdf


Something that jumps out is that the answers are arranged according to voting intention (last time and next time) and this includes only Lib/Lab/Con.  No non voters.  No other parties.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Aye. And the reality is most of these kids realise it.
> 
> Which is why they are making their own 'opportunities'.



Yeap! ...and the way they create these opportunities disgusts us, so time to get our fingers out and create options where there are none!


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 10, 2011)

Santino said:


> Can someone remind me: if disenfranchised young people have a rational belief that they can't achieve success, does that make them more or less likely to riot?



I _think_ the original quote implied that if you constantly show images of success and your reality is one in which success and even a job are impossible that may make you angry enough to riot.

I guess it may also make you feel so powerless that you end up with no desire for anything.


----------



## Red Cat (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I'm not saying it's clear cut... I'm saying they are not stupid.



I don't think they're stupid either.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 10, 2011)

Now would be a good time for one of our leaders of this elective dictatorship to step up to the plate and demand that we declare a New Constitution, one based on Popular Sovereignty. We the people... by the people, for the people. A modern, secular, representative democracy working towards it being a better place. A cooperative between people and government based on meritocratic ideals, working together with reasonable, logical laws and effective systems?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeap! ...and the way they create these opportunities disgusts us, so time to get our fingers out and create options where there are none!



Exactly!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Now would be a good time for one of our leaders of this elective dictatorship to step up to the plate and demand that we declare a New Constitution, one based on Popular Sovereignty. We the people... by the people, for the people. A modern, secular, representative democracy working towards it being a better place. A cooperative between people and government based on *meritocratic ideals*, working together with reasonable, logical laws and effective systems?



What are these? Normally 'meritocracy' is just another way of saying 'them that get the breaks get to the top'.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 10, 2011)

belboid said:


> just now on Newsnight, not that one, tho I'm sure it's just as vile I couldn't bear to watch him again



Ah OK. Guardian have a transcript ...



> The Newsnight presenter Gavin Esler then asked Gove whether he was saying there is no connection between any of the spending cuts and the violence.
> 
> *MG:* It is ludicrous...​*HH:* ...there is no justification...​*MG:* ...ludicrous to assert that there are people who burnt down an EMI factory because they were concerned about the disappearance – I should actually say the reform - of the EMA. The idea is fatuous. It demeans Harriet even to try to make that argument. Yes there are urban problems. Harriet has had to tackle them as a constituency MP. I am aware of them as well.​*HH:* But you are going to make them worse because of the things you are doing. You are not going to make them better by this focus on deficit reduction which actually threatens police numbers as well as council services. Listen to the point about parenting in the earlier discussion.​
> At this point Gove raised his voice as he said:
> ...



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/aug/10/michaelgove-harrietharman

What a tosser ...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 10, 2011)

It's interesting though isn't it? The government are absolutely *shitting* themselves at the idea that anyone might think their cuts could contribute in any way to the breakdown of law and order and getting super-aggressive with anyone who dares to suggest it.

Like that Simon Hughes remark about people saying stuff about causes needing to be 'taken out' ...


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 10, 2011)

If you want to see it, here's Gove getting petulant on Newsnight.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 10, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What are these? Normally 'meritocracy' is just another way of saying 'them that get the breaks get to the top'.


I see it more along the lines of those who work hard succeed and those who don't, don't.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

That's unrealistic.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I see it more along the lines of those who work hard succeed and those who don't, don't.



It doesn't really work like that, though. Personally, I don't want to live in a society where people are encouraged to 'work hard' anyway.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 10, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Ah OK. Guardian have a transcript ...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/aug/10/michaelgove-harrietharman
> 
> What a tosser ...


Gove seems immune to listening to anyone other than himself.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 10, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It doesn't really work like that, though. Personally, I don't want to live in a society where people are encouraged to 'work hard' anyway.


Part the time you work, part the time you play - the right to pursue happiness is pretty standard in any constitution.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I see it more along the lines of those who work hard succeed and those who don't, don't.





> "There were some people that were hard working and some people who were not. Some people who could be bothered, and some people who could not be bothered. And the result of that was that, bit by bit, those who were hard working, and could be bothered, accumulated some wealth. And eventually, those who could not be bothered, could not accumulate wealth, and in the end, in order to survive, preferred, actually, to give up their labor power as a commodity, in return for a living wage."



http://davidharvey.org/2008/09/capital-class-12/


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

Unless you can't work, of course.


----------



## belboid (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> the right to pursue happiness is pretty standard in any constitution.


no it isn't, and we dont have one anyway


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Part the time you work, part the time you play - the right to pursue happiness is pretty standard in any constitution.



The right not to have to work hard to get what you need would be more on the mark - where others are rich, nobody should be expected to put in a full week just to cover their basics.

What you're talking about with your 'meritocracy' is not far away from the US-style constitution, in which, generally speaking, the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 10, 2011)

belboid said:


> no it isn't, and we dont have one anyway


We do have one, just not in one document.
Parliament could pass a law declaring a new constitution based on popular sovereignty if it wanted, but they are happy with the current parliamentary sovereignty they got when the Monarchy fell.
I am suggesting that our constitution is not fit for purpose and needs a tidy up.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> We do have one, just not in one document.



No we really don't. Much of the British system isn't even written down anywhere. The UK has no constitution, hence prime ministers, acting nominally in the name of the monarch, have way too much power - including the power to abolish other parts of the system such as the GLC at will.

People who talk about the UK's 'unwritten constitution' miss the point, I think.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> We do have one, just not in one document.
> Parliament could pass a law declaring a new constitution based on popular sovereignty if it wanted, but they are happy with the current parliamentary sovereignty they got when the Monarchy fell.
> I am suggesting that our constitution is not fit for purpose and needs a tidy up.


Well, Walter Bagehot, I suggest that actually we need not to tinker with a mission statement, but clear the management out and run the company ourselves.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 10, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The right not to have to work hard to get what you need would be more on the mark - where others are rich, nobody should be expected to put in a full week just to cover their basics.
> 
> What you're talking about with your 'meritocracy' is not far away from the US-style constitution, in which, generally speaking, the poor stay poor and the rich stay rich.



So no change then? 

We are far from meritocratic with the current system, I am suggesting that we need to embrace change - a New Constitution - the French do it every fifty years or so.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 10, 2011)

Good idea danny ----- let's make a start !


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> So no change then?
> 
> We are far from meritocratic with the current system, I am suggesting that we need to embrace change - a New Constitution - the French do it every fifty years or so.


I'm still trying to work out what you think is so good about meritocracy.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Aug 10, 2011)

*BBC reporter at Highbury Magistrates Court*tells *BBC 5 live* the first person who appeared in the dock this morning was a 31-year-old teacher called Alexis Bailey. She pleaded guilty to being part of the looting of the Richer Sounds store in Croydon.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14449675
I wonder what her reason for rioting/looting was?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 10, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, Walter Bagehot, I suggest that actually we need not to tinker with a mission statement, but clear the management out and run the company ourselves.


Are you a member of the underclass?


----------



## past caring (Aug 10, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm still trying to work out what you think is so good about meritocracy.



People like Gmart would take their rightful place at the top?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> So no change then?
> 
> We are far from meritocratic with the current system, I am suggesting that we need to embrace change - a New Constitution - the French do it every fifty years or so.


I would question the idea that one should even be striving for 'meritocracy'. What does that mean anyway? How much more wealth ought a doctor to have than a street cleaner? Both jobs need doing.

This goes back to something Orwell observed - that there are two categories of work: those that do the work and those that manage those that do the work; and the latter jobs are generally better paid and more agreeable to do than the former.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> Good idea danny ----- let's make a start !


Well, we may not we accomplish it today, tomorrow, or within the century, but that we should walk towards it today, tomorrow, and always.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 10, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm still trying to work out what you think is so good about meritocracy.


The idea that you will succeed if you work hard without regard to your family wealth at birth. Just on your own talents and ingenuity.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Are you a member of the underclass?


I don't know how to work a Blackberry, so I was blackballed.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> The idea that you will succeed if you work hard without regard to your family wealth at birth. Just on your own talents and ingenuity.


 
Ever heard of / read Michael Young's "The rise of meritocracy" ?


----------



## past caring (Aug 10, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> *BBC reporter at Highbury Magistrates Court*tells *BBC 5 live* the first person who appeared in the dock this morning was a 31-year-old teacher called Alexis Bailey. She pleaded guilty to being part of the looting of the Richer Sounds store in Croydon.
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14449675
> I wonder what her reason for rioting/looting was?



And this of what relevance to a discussion about reasons for the riots?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> The idea that you will succeed if you work hard without regard to your family wealth at birth. Just on your own talents and ingenuity.


So, how can that be achieved?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 10, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would question the idea that one should even be striving for 'meritocracy'. What does that mean anyway? How much more wealth ought a doctor to have than a street cleaner? Both jobs need doing.
> 
> This goes back to something Orwell observed - that there are two categories of work: those that do the work and those that manage those that do the work; and the latter jobs are generally better paid and more agreeable to do than the former.


Are you suggesting that all hierarchical systems should be abolished by law?

Probably not, but it made me laugh 

A doctor has more skills and so is more rare. A street cleaner takes little skill and is thus far from rare. These are facts and I'm sure if you went to the doctor you would prefer it this way?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Gove seems immune to listening to anyone other than himself.



I think it's more general than that. The government cannot allow people to talk about causes, but only to indulge in a mindless game of what someone on here called 'Daily Mail Bingo' trying to outdo each other in condemnation and lurid punitive fantasies.

They are absolutely *shitting* themselves at the idea that people might connect their cuts and/or their wider policies with the breakdown of law and order, so they have no choice but to shout down anyone who tries to discuss causes in pretty much the same terms Gove used with Harman in that interview.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Aug 10, 2011)

past caring said:


> And this of what relevance to a discussion about reasons for the riots?



I wonder what her reasons were for being involved?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I wonder what her reasons were for being involved?


Is Richer Sounds a record shop?  Maybe she thought she'd get some Crowded House CDs?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 10, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> So, how can that be achieved?


You could ask the same about the pursuit of happiness in the American Constitution It is an ideal, but there are many, maybe you have an idea about how to frame it?

I think it is a reasonable ideal to aim at.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I think it is a reasonable ideal to aim at.


Well, I don't, so I've no incentive to frame anything.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

Happiness is not an achievement.


----------



## past caring (Aug 10, 2011)

ElizabethofYork said:


> I wonder what her reasons were for being involved?



You'll have to ask her. Whatever they were, what do you think they might tell us of the motivations of the vast majority of those involved? Or are you expecting them to be teachers (or their socio-economic equivalents) too?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 10, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, I don't, so I've no incentive to frame anything.


I am just suggesting that the pursuit of happiness and a meritocracy might be good ideals to aim at.

The key thing is to get rid of parliamentary sovereignty, that is the key reason for the riots, the underclass doesn't feel part of society and has nothing to lose.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

What it shows us is that teachers can't run that fast with a stereo on their back.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Are you suggesting that all hierarchical systems should be abolished by law?
> 
> Probably not, but it made me laugh
> 
> A doctor has more skills and so is more rare. A street cleaner takes little skill and is thus far from rare. These are facts and I'm sure if you went to the doctor you would prefer it this way?



I would like to see all education and training for jobs such as doctor fully funded collectively. It would take study to become a doctor, but not money. A very different idea of 'meritocracy' from the one you seem to have in mind.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Happiness is not an achievement.


It is crucially not being put forward as an achievement, simply a freedom to exercise this freedom (or to ignore it).


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would like to see all education and training for jobs such as doctor fully funded collectively. It would take study to become a doctor, but not money. A very different idea of 'meritocracy' from the one you seem to have in mind.


Out of interest... how would you select?


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I am just suggesting that the pursuit of happiness and a meritocracy might be good ideals to aim at.
> 
> The key thing is to get rid of parliamentary sovereignty, that is the key reason for the riots, the underclass doesn't feel part of society and has nothing to lose.



Please take a look at the book I reccommended earlier.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> It is crucially not being put forward as an achievement, simply a freedom to exercise this freedom (or to ignore it).



How about we stop commodifying it entirely?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 10, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I would like to see all education and training for jobs such as doctor fully funded collectively. It would take study to become a doctor, but not money. A very different idea of 'meritocracy' from the one you seem to have in mind.


Well at least it sounds like you have a people based solution in mind 
i still think we should get rid of parliamentary sovereignty and replace it with a popular sovereignty though - any oppressive system forces the people into the role of subject.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> The idea that you will succeed if you work hard without regard to your family wealth at birth. Just on your own talents and ingenuity.



a true meritocracy would see inheritance taxed at 100% and distributed equally to the citizens,  private schools closed and free access to further education for all.  i wonder how much the capitalist classes would really like to see such a system.


----------



## Santino (Aug 10, 2011)

A bit late to the party, but of course the UK has a constitution. The state and government is constituted in a certain way. It's just not set out in one document.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 10, 2011)

Santino said:


> A bit late to the party, but of course the UK has a constitution. The state and government is constituted in a certain way. It's just not set out in one document.


Welcome


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> The idea that you will succeed if you work hard without regard to your family wealth at birth. Just on your own talents and ingenuity.


yes, and it's a ridiculous myth, peddled by the ruling classes to make us dance to their tune.
e2a: I refer you to my hon friend Maidmarian's reading recommendation; Michael Young's book (or rather, LORD young's book nails it completely!)


----------



## Gmart (Aug 10, 2011)

past caring said:


> People like Gmart would take their rightful place at the top?


Hardly, I'm good at what I do


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I am just suggesting that the pursuit of happiness and a meritocracy might be good ideals to aim at.








or, to put another way, decontextualised, apolitical hogwash


----------



## laptop (Aug 10, 2011)

Back to discussion of reasons:



> The rocketing house prices and gentrification in East London have left young people in the area aware that they are unlikely ever to be able to afford to buy a home of their own in the area in which they grew up.
> 
> The British coalition government's introduction of what it laughably calls "affordable rents" means massive increases in rents for social housing, driving people from their homes and traditional areas into who-knows-which wasteland. In Hackney and Tower Hamlets, luxury apartments sit side-by-side with some of the poorest estates in the country. Raising rents to 80 per cent of the "market rent" of the private sector must mean massive increases.
> As the sun set I left the area, remembering how, on March 1, 2011, Mervyn King, governor of the Bank of England, told members of parliament: "The price of this financial crisis is being borne by people who absolutely did not cause it." He said then that government spending cuts were the fault of the City and expressed surprise there had not been "more public anger".
> ...





> "It's us versus them, the police, the system," said an unemployed man of Kurdish origin in his early 20s, sitting at the entrance to a Hackney housing estate with four Afro-Caribbean friends who nodded in agreement.
> 
> "There's two worlds in this borough. More and more middle classes are coming and we're being pushed out. The shops are pricing stuff like it's the West End, we can't afford the rents. We're the outcasts, we're not wanted any more.
> "There's nothing for us."
> ...


----------



## Gmart (Aug 10, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> yes, and it's a ridiculous myth, peddled by the ruling classes to make us dance to their tune.
> e2a: I refer you to my hon friend Maidmarian's reading recommendation; Michael Young's book (or rather, LORD young's book nails it completely!)


It certainly is, and it is down to the parliamentary sovereignty they got when they bested the monarchy in 1688. Most other places noted the mistake and deliberately put the people as sovereign, thus the power is conferred by the people, as opposed to being imposed on the people.

I have noted the book, it looks interesting, thank you


----------



## kabbes (Aug 10, 2011)

smokedout said:


> a true meritocracy would see inheritance taxed at 100% and distributed equally to the citizens, private schools closed and free access to further education for all. i wonder how much the capitalist classes would really like to see such a system.



Indeed, anything else labelled as "meritocracy" actually rapidly becomes more accurately described as "winner-takes-all", with more wealth and power gradually accruing over the generations to smaller groups of people until the result is as profoundly _un_meritocratic as the feudal system.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 10, 2011)

kittyP said:


> Excellent comment!!



Nope, spurious tosh and a new low from dylans. An insult to black & working class people is dylan's analysis.


----------



## past caring (Aug 10, 2011)

I'm surprised you've got the front to show your fucking face jer. "send in the army!", "citizens' militias!"

Cunt.


----------



## gavman (Aug 10, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Wouldn't you say the class system discriminates against ethnic minorities tho?


race is a red herring imo. young people are criminalised by anti-drugs laws and alienated by heavy handed tactics to impose outdated rural tory morality on modern urban youth.
if a person's only interactions with the plod are when they are being stopped and searched they quickly come to realise that the system isn't designed for their benefit, but to control and criminalise them.
so fuck the system, and fuck the police who enforce it

and the lack of irony when politicians go on screen and say that law breaking will be punished, when the banksters, politicians and journalists have all showed breathtaking contempt for the same law, is flabbergasting.
we've all seen the bankers transfer billions from the public to their own balance sheets, at a cost that dwarves anything the rioters have done, yet we're supposed to turn a blind eye to that white collar crime and be more outraged at kids nicking trainers and mobiles?


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 10, 2011)

past caring said:


> I'm surprised you've got the front to show your fucking face jer. "send in the army!", "citizens' militias!"
> 
> Cunt.



You wanted your pantomime tory; I am exactly what you made me. Believe what you will.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> It certainly is, and it is down to the parliamentary sovereignty they got when they bested the monarchy in 1688. Most other places noted the mistake and deliberately put the people as sovereign, thus the power is conferred by the people, as opposed to being imposed on the people.
> 
> I have noted the book, it looks interesting, thank you


so, umm, what do you want, a charismatic Nasserite dictatorship?
I'm baffled as to what your preferred solution is, tbh


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Is Richer Sounds a record shop? Maybe she thought she'd get some Crowded House CDs?


nope, hi-fi kit


----------



## Greebo (Aug 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> <snip>the lack of irony when politicians go on screen and say that law breaking will be punished, when the banksters, politicians and journalists have all showed breathtaking contempt for the same law, is flabbergasting.
> we've all seen the bankers transfer billions from the public to their own balance sheets, at a cost that dwarves anything the rioters have done, yet we're supposed to turn a blind eye to that white collar crime and be more outraged at kids nicking trainers and mobiles?


Agreed.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> nope, hi-fi kit


Ah, OK.  She must have wanted stuff for playing her Crowded House CDs louder, then.


----------



## past caring (Aug 10, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> You wanted your pantomime tory; I am exactly what you made me. Believe what you will.



From outrage to self-pity in less than 10 posts. Pathetic.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> The idea that you will succeed if you work hard without regard to your family wealth at birth. Just on your own talents and ingenuity.


fine, just come up with a master plan to abolish all class systems....


----------



## gavman (Aug 10, 2011)

magneze said:


> I posted this on the general london riot thread, but it's probably most relevant to this one.



desrves a re-post, that


----------



## gavman (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> Military service. They can do peacekeeping missions in REALLY poor places, learn about the value of trusting and depending on their fellow man, learn a trade, perhaps become respected and employable. Otherwise they are lost, doomed to repeat the mistakes of their fuckwit parents who let them run around Clapham at 2am aged 11.
> 
> Some form of boot camp process, as ugly as it sounds, would force them to explore their dependencies on shitty gangs to feel safe/empowered.
> 
> Ever seen Brat Camp? It works, you know. In matter of weeks.


so we give our repressed and angry youths guns and power over foreigners?
you don't see any potential problems here?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 10, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> If you want to see it, here's Gove getting petulant on Newsnight.




He's totally fucking panic stricken isn't he?

Sweating bullets, eyes swivelling, ignoring everything she says and shouting her down like he was on Fox News (I seem to recall Gove is well dirty with News International, even by the standards of Cameron's government)

They're absolutely _*terrifed*_ at the idea of people connecting their cuts with the breakdown of law and order ...


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> race is a red herring imo. young people are criminalised by anti-drugs laws and alienated by heavy handed tactics to impose outdated rural tory morality on modern urban youth.
> if a person's only interactions with the plod are when they are being stopped and searched they quickly come to realise that the system isn't designed for their benefit, but to control and criminalise them.
> so fuck the system, and fuck the police who enforce it
> 
> ...



No. You're not supposed to turn a blind eye to any of it.

Who told you you are?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2011)

Gmart said:


> The idea that you will succeed if you work hard without regard to your family wealth at birth. Just on your own talents and ingenuity.


Left to their 'own talents and ingenuity', children would not even learn how to talk.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 10, 2011)

laptop said:


> Back to discussion of reasons:



That stuff about gentrification is interesting isn't it?


----------



## gavman (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> No. You're not supposed to turn a blind eye to any of it.
> 
> Who told you you are?


pick any talking head on the news, compare and contrast their outrage over the riots with their response to the banking crisis.
the banksters crashed the economy. how many of them have been remanded in custody?
(to use one of the many rallying calls of the middle classes responding to the riots)


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> <snip> and the lack of irony when politicians go on screen and say that law breaking will be punished, when the banksters, politicians and journalists have all showed breathtaking contempt for the same law, is flabbergasting.
> 
> we've all seen the bankers transfer billions from the public to their own balance sheets, at a cost that dwarves anything the rioters have done, yet we're supposed to turn a blind eye to that white collar crime and be more outraged at kids nicking trainers and mobiles?



Yes, that's exactly what we're all supposed to do ...

... and it'll probably work too.

The threat of being mugged by feral youth is concrete where the threat of being mugged by capitalism, even though the impact is likely to be more lasting, is abstract.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 10, 2011)

past caring said:


> From outrage to self-pity in less than 10 posts. Pathetic.



If you really truly believe that I want armed miltia, you're the pathetic one.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You may have said more often than not... however it's still untrue.
> 
> More often than not socio economic conditions are biased against those of colour.
> 
> ...


utter total bollocks. whatever 'it' has, it may have quite a lot to do with colour, but CERTAINLY not 'everything', and class comes into it whatever colour you are. In tottenham (and here - Leyton) - this is all about the frustrations and alienation and sheer so-fucking-whatness of working class youth FULL STOP - regardless of colour. there is on top the anger at police harassment of the black community, but the core issue is a youth who feel - rightly - they've been sold up the river.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> desrves a re-post, that


I'm glad I listened to that.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> pick any talking head on the news, compare and contrast their outrage over the riots with their response to the banking crisis.
> the banksters crashed the economy. how many of them have been remanded in custody?
> (to use one of the many rallying calls of the middle classes responding to the riots)



What's that got to do with turning a blind eye?


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2011)

'yes, and it's a ridiculous myth, peddled by the ruling classes to make us dance to their tune.
e2a: I refer you to my hon friend Maidmarian's reading recommendation; Michael Young's book (or rather, LORD young's book nails it completely!) '

oh, I don't know, people can go down as well, look at the failure that is Toby Young, Michaels Youngs offspring...


----------



## gavman (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> What's that got to do with turning a blind eye?


they've got away with it, and we're supposed to beaver on regardless in order to continue to subsidise the richest people in the country


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> utter total bollocks. whatever 'it' has, it may have quite a lot to do with colour, but CERTAINLY not 'everything', and class comes into it whatever colour you are. In tottenham (and here - Leyton) - this is all about the frustrations and alienation and sheer so-fucking-whatness of working class youth FULL STOP - regardless of colour. there is on top the anger at police harassment of the black community, but the core issue is a youth who feel - rightly - they've been sold up the river.



I live in that same area. And you haven't understood what I meant.

Nor have you taken on board my much earlier point that it's our generation that sold them up that river.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> They're absolutely _*terrifed*_ at the idea of people connecting their cuts with the breakdown of law and order ...


Yup.  Because then we'll have to ask whether Clegg warned them about the consequences.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> they've got away with it, and we're supposed to beaver on regardless in order to continue to subsidise the richest people in the country



Most of the rioters will get away with it too.

Will we not beaver on to subsidize them?


----------



## Diamond (Aug 10, 2011)

Good piece linked to in guardian livefeed from Live magazine editor. Worth repeating as a voice from a similar group/generation to the rioters:



> Omar Shahid, Live’s Political Editor, speaks on the London riots.
> 
> 
> Let’s not kid ourselves. These riots and looting now have nothing to do with police brutality or government cuts. They are to do with a frustrated youth who have no sense of direction. These youth, most probably, are the same thugs who go out and vandalize, steal, and cause havoc in society. What good is burning a random car or business going to do? What if that car or business belong to a friend or family member?
> ...


----------



## gavman (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Most of the rioters will get away with it too.
> 
> Will we not beaver on to subsidize them?


will it cost us trillions?
will the entire economy require re-jigging in order to subsidise their gambles?
will it require the largest ever transfer of public funds to private institutions?


----------



## gavman (Aug 10, 2011)

Diamond said:


> Good piece linked to in guardian livefeed from Live magazine editor. Worth repeating as a voice from a similar group/generation to the rioters:


you did say a good piece, right?
the bit you posted is fucking retarded


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> desrves a re-post, that



pretty incredible summary that whether you agree or not, he should be interviewed by Newsnight,, etc...


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 10, 2011)

Cameron frothing on about how "human rights nonsense" won't get in the way of prosecuting rioters.

(BBC News 24)


----------



## gavman (Aug 10, 2011)

treelover said:


> pretty incredible summary that whether you agree or not, he should be interviewed by Newsnight,, etc...


if he is he'll just be shouted down by kelvin mackenzie. again


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2011)

quote="Bernie Gunther, post: 10361604"]He's totally fucking panic stricken isn't he?

Sweating bullets, eyes swivelling, ignoring everything she says and shouting her down like he was on Fox News (I seem to recall Gove is well dirty with News International, even by the standards of Cameron's government)

They're absolutely _*terrifed*_ at the idea of people connecting their cuts with the breakdown of law and order ...[/quote]

This is going to be the line they take, criminal behaviour, absolutely no social context, draconian law and order response, we will see it all tomorrow in HP.


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2011)

fuck, why won't the quotes, etc work for me...


----------



## dennisr (Aug 10, 2011)

I can't help but like the points being made here: http://harrypaterson.co.uk/blog/what-goes-around

*What Goes Around…*
"And so now you cower in your devalued house, the one with negative equity, bleating that it’s not fair! That these animals aren’t political! They’re just greedy, immoral, violent thugs! Of course they are. What else could they be? You supported the wiping out of entire communities and the destruction of entire industries if it stood in the way of an extra few quid in your pocket, caring only for yourself. Why should the looting scum be any different? You never gave a shit for anyone but yourself, why should they?"


----------



## gavman (Aug 10, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> Cameron frothing on about how "human rights nonsense" won't get in the way of prosecuting rioters.
> 
> (BBC News 24)


he's been speaking purely to his tory constituency every time he opens his mounth. he's just going down a shopping list of right-wing concerns


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)




----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I live in that same area. And you haven't understood what I meant.
> 
> Nor have you taken on board my much earlier point that it's our generation that sold them up that river.


horseshit - make your points better, clearer, and more plainly, and stop falling in love with your own clever-cleverness, and I'll pay them due respect


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2011)

dennisr said:


> I can't help but like the points being made here: http://harrypaterson.co.uk/blog/what-goes-around
> 
> *What Goes Around…*
> "And so now you cower in your devalued house, the one with negative equity, bleating that it’s not fair! That these animals aren’t political! They’re just greedy, immoral, violent thugs! Of course they are. What else could they be? You supported the wiping out of entire communities and the destruction of entire industries if it stood in the way of an extra few quid in your pocket, caring only for yourself. Why should the looting scum be any different? You never gave a shit for anyone but yourself, why should they?"



not sure about this, the ones under attack in London are probably not middle england, etc many wouldn't have even been here in the 80's...


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2011)

That Kate Tempest is incredible, how come she is so unknown?, or is that obvious, can't have politically astute young working class people on TV.


----------



## rekil (Aug 10, 2011)

treelover said:


> fuck, why won't the quotes, etc work for me...


Check that richtext editor box is ticked in preferences?


----------



## dennisr (Aug 10, 2011)

treelover said:


> not sure about this, the ones under attack in London are probably not middle england, etc many wouldn't have even been here in the 80's...


the writer never said they were. it will be middle england - lead by the tories and media - baying for blood though. points are being made quite clearly - i cannot see how you are missing them. Here is some more:

"_You _made this happen. _You_ and the millions of selfish, greedy, short sighted bastards just like you. You got the world you created, the world you _deserved._ So suck it up. Stop snivelling. Stop your hypocritical cries of outrage and moral indignation. Everything has to be paid for, yeah? Well, you had yours and now you’ve got the bill. Time to pay…"


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

treelover said:


> That Kate Tempest is incredible, how come she is so unknown?, or is that obvious, can't have politically astute young working class people on TV.



Amazing young lady.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> Cameron frothing on about how "human rights nonsense" won't get in the way of prosecuting rioters.
> 
> (BBC News 24)


PK's writing his speeches now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> PK's writing his speeches now.



To me the problem isn't that Cameron & co are coming out with this shit and refusing to engage in any debate about the context of the riots. That's inevitable.

What depresses me is the thought of the mealy-mouthed crap that will come out of Ed Milliband's mouth in the coming days and weeks.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> What depresses me is the thought of the mealy-mouthed crap that will come out of Ed Milliband's mouth in the coming days and weeks.


Did you see him on Breakfast this morning?  He said he was humble.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 10, 2011)

dennisr said:


> I can't help but like the points being made here: http://harrypaterson.co.uk/blog/what-goes-around
> 
> *What Goes Around…*
> "And so now you cower in your devalued house, the one with negative equity, bleating that it’s not fair! That these animals aren’t political! They’re just greedy, immoral, violent thugs! Of course they are. What else could they be? You supported the wiping out of entire communities and the destruction of entire industries if it stood in the way of an extra few quid in your pocket, caring only for yourself. Why should the looting scum be any different? You never gave a shit for anyone but yourself, why should they?"



That's rather magnificent ...



> So you cry for the firemen to put out the blaze engulfing your home, the firemen you scorned and sneered at when they were on strike, asking for your support. You need an ambulance now as the Mrs has keeled over with all the stress, terror and horror of the last few days. The same ambulance men you thought should be privatised, cut and sacked. After all, why should you have to pay for anything from your taxes?
> 
> _You _made this happen. _You_ and the millions of selfish, greedy, short sighted bastards just like you. You got the world you created, the world you _deserved._ So suck it up. Stop snivelling. Stop your hypocritical cries of outrage and moral indignation. Everything has to be paid for, yeah? Well, you had yours and now you’ve got the bill. Time to pay…


----------



## story (Aug 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> desrves a re-post, that



And another one


----------



## Hollis (Aug 10, 2011)

This is a good article from the independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...ring-costs-ndash-but-so-do-riots-2333991.html

'It's not one occasional attack on dignity, it's a repeated humiliation, being continuously dispossessed in a society rich with possession. Young, intelligent citizens of the ghetto seek an explanation for why they are at the receiving end of bleak Britain, condemned to a darkness where their humanity is not even valued enough to be helped. Savagery is a possibility within us all. Some of us have been lucky enough not to have to call upon it for survival; others, exhausted from failure, can justify resorting to it.

Our leaders still speak about how protecting the community is vital. The trouble is, the deal has gone sour. The community has selected who is worthy of help and who is not. In this false moral economy where the poor are described as dysfunctional, the community fails. One dimension of this failure is being acted out in the riots; the lawlessness is, suddenly, there for all to see. Less visible is the perverse insidious violence delivered through legitimate societal structures. Check out the price of failing to care.'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Did you see him on Breakfast this morning? He said he was humble.


I didn't see him no. I'll judge him on what he says tomorrow in parliament. Perhaps he'll surprise me, but I doubt it.


----------



## dylans (Aug 10, 2011)

dennisr said:


> the writer never said they were. it will be middle england - lead by the tories and media - baying for blood though. points are being made quite clearly - i cannot see how you are missing them. Here is some more:
> 
> "_You _made this happen. _You_ and the millions of selfish, greedy, short sighted bastards just like you. You got the world you created, the world you _deserved._ So suck it up. Stop snivelling. Stop your hypocritical cries of outrage and moral indignation. Everything has to be paid for, yeah? Well, you had yours and now you’ve got the bill. Time to pay…"


I think he has nailed it


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 10, 2011)

Can we have the whole article that dennisr just linked tattooed onto the face of every cabinet member since 1979 please? Just so we can remind ourselves what they're really about while they're talking shit and lies.

(sorry, indulging myself in a bit of punitive fantasy there ... but why should the right-wingers have all the fun)


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Perhaps he'll surprise me, but I doubt it.


He won't.

For some reason I can't watch him without hearing the Muppet Show theme.


----------



## ExtraRefined (Aug 10, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> They're absolutely _*terrifed*_ at the idea of people connecting their cuts with the breakdown of law and order ...



They don't have much to worry about. Despite the best efforts of the Guardian, the BBC, and the Labour Party, hardly anyone believes that the riots are being caused by the cuts. Even amongst Labour voters only one in six is dim enough to believe this nonsense. As usual, don't mistake the urban75 echo chamber for popular opinion.

http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...08/10/blame-for-the-riots-the-red-blue-split/


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 10, 2011)

treelover said:


> quote="Bernie Gunther, post: 10361604"]He's totally fucking panic stricken isn't he?
> 
> Sweating bullets, eyes swivelling, ignoring everything she says and shouting her down like he was on Fox News (I seem to recall Gove is well dirty with News International, even by the standards of Cameron's government)
> 
> They're absolutely _*terrifed*_ at the idea of people connecting their cuts with the breakdown of law and order ...





> This is going to be the line they take, criminal behaviour, absolutely no social context, draconian law and order response, we will see it all tomorrow in HP.


Oh no, the tories do social context when it suits them (ie single mums, "worklessness" etc)


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 10, 2011)

on the lighter side of things...

http://photoshoplooter.tumblr.com/


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 10, 2011)

Young people riot, and everyone searches for an explanation.

It was really hard coming up with explanations for the middle class doctors' kids stomping on and torching police cars in the recent Vancouver hockey riot.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 10, 2011)

gavman said:


> desrves a re-post, that



Indeed - thank fuck there's somebody talking some sense out there - virtually nothing but bullshit and blather from the politicans and media.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2011)

ExtraRefined said:


> They don't have much to worry about. Despite the best efforts of the Guardian, the BBC, and the Labour Party, hardly anyone believes that the riots are being caused by the cuts. Even amongst Labour voters only one in six is dim enough to believe this nonsense. As usual, don't mistake the urban75 echo chamber for popular opinion.
> 
> http://www1.politicalbetting.com/in...08/10/blame-for-the-riots-the-red-blue-split/


Rather loaded question designed to catch out those who haven't thought things through.

Q: What is the main cause of crime?

A: Criminal behaviour.

Can't argue with that.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 10, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Most of the rioters will get away with it too.
> 
> Will we not beaver on to subsidize them?





> Once Maggie got through with Arthur, she started on the steel industries, the civil service, nurses, teachers, you name it.  Anything to eradicate even a semblance of solidarity and collective action. You urged her on, voted her in three times, licking your lips as an extra holiday a year became a reality. A new car every three years and, Christ, check out your pension, Mr Fat Wallet! Let the good times roll! Yep, she changed Britain forever and Tony Blair, or Tory Plan B, to use an appropriate anagram, carried on her work. Extended it, deepened it and made it unassailable for another decade at least.
> 
> By 2000, the Thatcher revolution was complete. Solidarity, collective endeavour and helping your neighbour, all wiped from the cultural landscape along with the once-thriving and vibrant communities that spawned those ideals and kept them alive. Of course, there were a few downsides for you, a few niggling doubts starting to set in. Pension looking very shaky all of a sudden, your meagre shares worthless and your Mum’s new hip postponed three times as the NHS cuts, sorry, ‘reforms’, really started to bite.
> 
> And then, horror of horrors, the markets crashed, your house price fell and, almost before you knew it, there were mobs of feral youths rampaging around outside. Burning your car and pissing through your letterbox. Youths that were the second and third generations from the communities you helped destroy. After all, a penny extra on your income tax to subsidise inner city scum? Fuck that!



source above ...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 10, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Rather loaded question designed to catch out those who haven't thought things through.
> 
> Q: What is the main cause of crime?
> 
> ...



Yep, deep insight there


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 10, 2011)

There's an interesting feature of the new boards: the people I had on ignore, no longer seem to be on ignore anymore.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 10, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There's an interesting feature of the new boards: the people I had on ignore, no longer seem to be on ignore anymore.



Poor little you ...


----------



## junglevip (Aug 10, 2011)

I thouht this was worthy of a post

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/11921072


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 10, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Poor little you ...



I know. I've now read two of your posts, for the first time in about three years.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 10, 2011)

You had _Bernie_ on ignore?


----------



## laptop (Aug 10, 2011)

Crispy said:


> You had _Bernie_ on ignore?



I want a button that says "Have JC ignore me"


----------



## kittyP (Aug 10, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


>




I have heard some of her stuff before.
She is totally amazing!


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2011)

'http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...dea-of-british-civility-for-ever-2334863.html'

Rather reactionary article here by the Indie's Environment Editor who i imagine is usually a liberal...

with some dubious subtexts...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I understood it a little differently. I think the point made was that it's far too easy to call it a race issue when the faces are Black, forgetting that race and class issues are interchangable. People only seem to address class issues directly when the faces are White.


People tend to forget that class cuts across ethnicity, gender and cultural issues, in fact across all social issues and relations.


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2011)

'He was quickly mobbed by members of the public and a large group surrounded and followed him as he made his way slowly around Market Street.
One man, mistaking the Labour leader for his older brother, shouted: "All platitudes, Dave, as usual. You are all the same."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ed-miliband-mobbed-on-manchester-visit-2335310.html
The people really have a downer on the politicians at present, even if they mix them up...


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 10, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Rather loaded question designed to catch out those who haven't thought things through.
> 
> Q: What is the main cause of crime?
> 
> ...



Q: What is the main cause of fruit?
A: Fruit



Your go.


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2011)

interesting video here, Dominic Noonan filmed talking to rioters in manchester...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...caught-on-film-during-Manchester-looting.html


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 10, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Q: What is the main cause of fruit?
> A: Fruit
> 
> 
> ...



Yep, thing is the way the poll works, that trick completely invalidates the numbers for the other options because it's asking what the "main" cause is and not giving you the option to have multiple causes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> There's a tendency by the media to talk only of "the white working class" and ignore any other group of people who are also working class. That's a mistake, I think.



It is, it's also, in my opinion, the cardinal point that reveals the stupidity of the likes of the EDL - the fact that they attack their own class rather than the real root of their problems.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2011)

treelover said:


> interesting video here, Dominic Noonan filmed talking to rioters in manchester...
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...caught-on-film-during-Manchester-looting.html


Who would've expected someone in manchester being in manchester.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

Garek said:


> Wiggers?



I've never trusted people who wear syrups, to be fair.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

Garek said:


> Wiggers?



What is a Wigger?


----------



## Garek (Aug 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've never trusted people who wear syrups, to be fair.



I now have images of Bruce Forthsyth announcing the next item to appear from a looted shop.

"And next ladies and gentlmen is this lovally microwave, ooh isn't it fancy"
"Oooooooooooh!"


----------



## dennisr (Aug 10, 2011)

Dan Hind on Al Jazeera is pretty good:

*Nothing 'mindless' about rioters*
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/201189165143946889.html
_"In London today people were on the streets tidying up the damage. The hashtag #riotcleanup on Twitter is being used by councils and residents to coordinate the work. The decision to act in this way, to make the streets a little more safe, to reclaim them for peaceful sociability, steps away from the temptation to condemn the violence or explain it in terms that inevitably simplify or distort it. Those who come together like this will be less likely to conclude that the country is on the verge of chaos, less likely to call for harsh measures and the further erosion of liberty in the name of security. It is the one shrewd thing one can do in present circumstances and it is to be celebrated."_


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2011)

I predict Duncan Smith as soon as he comes back from his holiday will make a 'major speech on welfare and responsibility' which won't just affect the groups involved n the riotsbut all on benefits, the right have been chomping at the bit to push this...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Well, Walter Bagehot, I suggest that actually we need not to tinker with a mission statement, but clear the management out and run the company ourselves.



Amusingly enough, I've just been thumbing through my copy of Bagehot (plus Harvey & Bather) to see what sort of constitutional position/precedent there is for martial law (not much at all), which will doubtless disappoint all those right-wingers who want to see the army on the streets.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Amusingly enough, I've just been thumbing through my copy of Bagehot (plus Harvey & Bather) to see what sort of constitutional position/precedent there is for martial law (not much at all), which will doubtless disappoint all those right-wingers who want to see the army on the streets.



Wouldn't that be covered by the "Emergency Powers Act" (about 1972---ish) ?

Iirc it was introduced for NI's troubles , but can also be applied here ?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

smokedout said:


> a true meritocracy would see inheritance taxed at 100% and distributed equally to the citizens, private schools closed and free access to further education for all. i wonder how much the capitalist classes would really like to see such a system.



Closing private schools? Bad news for GMart, who teaches/taught at one.


----------



## Emski11 (Aug 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> People tend to forget that class cuts across ethnicity, gender and cultural issues, in fact across all social issues and relations.



Absolutely.It's not an either/or analysis: Black working class youth face some of the same issues as white working youth but different pressures as well: racism ( more harassment from the police; less likely to get jobs because of racism as well as a complex web of pressure to join gangs because being outside of the "mainstream" is predictable as well as hatred for people who are doing better than them- as well as low aspirations). Where do those low aspirations come from? A society that in the main despises and looks upon young out of work working people with contempt and fear. Look at the language that's been used about white working class youth for years- generally considered to be a laugh to use the despicable word "chav"- how much more comtempt for Black youth? Trust me, the racist vitriol hasn't even warmed up yet- check out the comments on a variety of message boards.
( I use the term working class in relation to these young people in relation to their parents' generations- a lot of the working class jobs have gone. And the mainstream media predictably bleat- and worse- on about "sink estates/ASBO youth","benefits culture"; " the underclass" and make no connection with the loss of manufacturing jobs/apprenticeships etc over the past generation). These youth know they are alternatively despised or invisible until they do something destructive and ruthless- like burning and looting.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> There's an interesting feature of the new boards: the people I had on ignore, no longer seem to be on ignore anymore.


"ignore" feature on xenforo ain't ready yet, but LL's working on it. Lad's doing his best, give him time...


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 10, 2011)

Emski11 said:


> Absolutely.It's not an either/or analysis: Black working class youth face some of the same issues as white working youth but different pressures as well: racism ( more harassment from the police; less likely to get jobs because of racism as well as a complex web of pressure to join gangs because being outside of the "mainstream" is predictable as well as hatred for people who are doing better than them- as well as low aspirations). Where do those low aspirations come from? A society that in the main despises and looks upon young out of work working people with contempt and fear. Look at the language that's been used about white working class youth for years- generally considered to be a laugh to use the despicable word "chav"- how much more comtempt for Black youth? Trust me, the racist vitriol hasn't even warmed up yet- check out the comments on a variety of message boards.
> ( I use the term working class in relation to these young people in relation to their parents' generations- a lot of the working class jobs have gone. And the mainstream media predictably bleat- and worse- on about "sink estates/ASBO youth","benefits culture"; " the underclass" and make no connection with the loss of manufacturing jobs/apprenticeships etc over the past generation). These youth know they are alternatively despised or invisible until they do something destructive and ruthless- like burning and looting.


 
Can you use a larger font please ?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

Emski11 said:


> Absolutely.It's not an either/or analysis: Black working class youth face some of the same issues as white working youth but different pressures as well: racism ( more harassment from the police; less likely to get jobs because of racism as well as a complex web of pressure to join gangs because being outside of the "mainstream" is predictable as well as hatred for people who are doing better than them- as well as low aspirations).
> 
> Where do those low aspirations come from? A society that in the main despises and looks upon young out of work working people with contempt and fear. Look at the language that's been used about white working class youth for years- generally considered to be a laugh to use the despicable word "chav"- how much more comtempt for Black youth? Trust me, the racist vitriol hasn't even warmed up yet- check out the comments on a variety of message boards.
> 
> ...



Good post.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> Wouldn't that be covered by the "Emergency Powers Act" (about 1972---ish) ?
> 
> Iirc it was introduced for NI's troubles , but can also be applied here ?



It *could* but it'd be tricky, because the EPA was done after-the-fact of going into NI (remember, we were originally "invited" there), so it's never been properly tested. A good constitutional lawyer could probably stall the government into having to amend (or act illegally). IIRC the last successful activation of a form of martial law was 1926.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Closing private schools? Bad news for GMart, who teaches/taught at one.


did he? and he's the bloke wibbling on about 'a true meritocracy'?
fucking hell!


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It *could* but it'd be tricky, because the EPA was done after-the-fact of going into NI (remember, we were originally "invited" there), so it's never been properly tested. A good constitutional lawyer could probably stall the government into having to amend (or act illegally). IIRC the last successful activation of a form of martial law was 1926.



Yep--- I think they'd have to declare a "state of emergency" first.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

dennisr said:


> I can't help but like the points being made here: http://harrypaterson.co.uk/blog/what-goes-around
> 
> *What Goes Around…*
> "And so now you cower in your devalued house, the one with negative equity, bleating that it’s not fair! That these animals aren’t political! They’re just greedy, immoral, violent thugs! Of course they are. What else could they be? You supported the wiping out of entire communities and the destruction of entire industries if it stood in the way of an extra few quid in your pocket, caring only for yourself. Why should the looting scum be any different? You never gave a shit for anyone but yourself, why should they?"


That is one of the most fantastic things I have ever read. It says it all


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 10, 2011)

this is something i wrote on facebook, obviously it's totally incomplete and i only said like half of what i wanted to say. I'm going to write "part 2" soon about the state and what i see as it's changing character.I am sorry about how long it is but I still feel like I didnt say everything and I'm probably completely wrong in a lot of it.

----------------------------------------------



I have found it really interesting to read people's facebook statuses and opinions on the London riots even if I don't necessarily agree with all of them. I think that the whole thing is a very difficult issue and there's not one "explanation" that's going to be correct because it will be different explanations for different people and in different areas. I am going to write some thoughts about what I think this all means and if you dont agree with me at all or think I am talking shit, i encourage you to say so because it is very possible I am wrong.

There is the question of who's doing the riots?

It is not as simple to say that it's just "little shits" doing it. Although undoubtedly some, probably most, of them are. I've seen a lot of angry posts by people on facebook which attack people they see as trying to excuse the riots, and some of the responses to those posts, by people who don't in many cases live in the area, are hardly helpful and some must even seem insulting and like politically correct nonsense. For example if you are a shopkeeper whose shop has been destroyed you won't want to hear someone preaching to you about how it is society's fault.

But what created these people? It may be that they dont give a shit about anything. But why? We have this problem, we have a problem of increasing anti-social behaviour and people who, according to someone I know, "seem to have all the humanity sucked out of them". *So the question is, what the fuck do we do about it? *

A lot has been said already about how underprivilege and a total lack of educational opportunities has created the conditions for the riots, which seem to be largely senseless. Certainly in the areas that this is taking place, it is extremely difficult to find a job or have access to educational opportunities. Nobody is saying that the riots are explicitly political or that they are rioting for these reasons. But a lot of people there have grown up in desperate poverty without any opportunity of improving their situation. And they dont even understand the concept of respect because nobody has even shown them any. So they are not going to know right from wrong.

These type of people (and the type of people who choose criminality as their "profession") have always existed but over the last years, the acceptence of a level of anti-social behaviour seems to have grown and I've seen people saying on facebook that the type of behaviour now common place in many areas would not have been tolerated by the community when they were growing up (60s and 70s). I'm going to get crucified for saying this lol but there are generations of people who have grown out without a job, without a prospect of ever getting one apart from shitty minimum wage ones. Obviously being unemployed or having no job prospects doesn't make you violently start looting, but it means that you don't have a support structure, you don't have the structure and discpilne of going to work, or thinking you will go to work. But when you do think that you have these things, and then they are removed from you reach, you are going to be angry.

To be honest I dont think you can entirely blame cuts or the government for this although obviously they do have a huge responsibility for it. I think that it is alot to do with the culture. I think that, in the last few years especially, all of the talk of "chavs" which has pretty much demonised a huge section of the population, and anyone who is percieved by dress, accent etc to be part of that section by extension, has contributed to an already massive social divide, and taken to its conclusion there are a surprisngly large number of people who consider everyone that they see as a "chav" to be almost subhuman or a different species. I'm not saying there aren't reasons for this which we need to look at aswell. But I think that this certainly contributed to the problem because people are now going to feel that society does not give a fuck about them so why should they give a fuck about it. And the evidence can be seen around them, for example in the heavy handed behaviour of the police. Approximately one person a week dies in police custody in the UK, and the map of the deprivation in the UK correlates strongly with areas that have had problems.

People are saying that its a result of lack of discipline etc and in one case "that parents are not allowed to hit their kids". I'm not saying for a moment that'd be a solution but I would say, that if you have not had a good upbringing to teach you right from wrong, and what you see is a "dog eat dog world" where the only moral rule is the survival of the fittest, and there is absolutely no opportunity for this to change, and indeed, the only thing that you see is people who have worked hard getting no reward from it, then you might conclude that it is waste of time trying to care about society. Why do some people, who may be from the same area or even be from the same family, do this behaviour and others not? I dont know. Nobody does.

There seems to be a few disparate groups involved in it. Some of them are obviously anti-social pricks, some seem to be in it for the "free" goods, and some have genuine anger and grievances, and perhaps alot are a mixture of all three. A friend told me that rioters he'd seen in Birmingham were clearly not all robbing and some were clearly enjoying themselves, so it seems that motivations are extremely varied. It also seems to vary by region, because in Birmingham the rioters were apparently mostly not interested in beating people or trying to fight the police.

A few nights ago a mate said to me jokingly that perhaps these riots are because Thatcher is dieing, and her whole life is flashing before her eyes. But I see it more as Thatcher's final victory against society and the triumph of a total lack of care for others and how this has been raised to be an art form. The way these rioters are behaving do show that they live in a dog eat dog world - for example, the insanity of looters coming back from burnt out shops with televisions under their arms only to be robbed violently by other groups of people who had no motivation except robbery. The people stopping to help an injured teenager and then robbing him. The whole ideology driving the riots seems at first sight to be nihilism and consumer greed, its like a horrible parody of a JG Ballard book. While there is an element of desperation of a type that should be inexcusable in the West - as shown as people looting milk, food and nappies from shops, much of it seems like they are literally just rioting because they want a free TV!

But that's not all there is - why would this happen in a society where we're constantly told that we "have everything" and that we are luckier than most countries in the world. But if that was the case why would people be doing this, and on such a large scale, doesn't that indicate that something is going very badly wrong here. The sort of apolitical rioting and looting we're seeing while it's easily dismissed as "mindless thuggery" certainly has a political/social cause. A lot of people prodicted this sort of unrest, but few people predicted that it would happen so soon or be this violent, with people scared to leave their homes, and people's homes being torched.

Imagine the fear, and the mistrust that is now going to exist where the riots have happened. Shop keepers are going to be looking at everyone who comes into their shop that's under a certain age, and wondering if they were involved in it, and I honestly understand the reaction of some who wish to defend their homes and businesses with force. I don't have a problem with that at all tbh, and good on them. But I find the idea at the same time, could potentially turn quite worrying as it may just spark off more violence, so people who are doing this need to be careful. I also find the whole idea of calls to send in the army etc completely messed up, although I understand why people who live in those areas are saying that.

I've only said about half of what I want to say even though this note was alot longer than I intedned it to be, and I'm sorry if this note seems a bit confused, it's because I'm confused lol. The second part of this which I will write tomorrow will talk about the role of the state and how I think that it's going to change in the coming years. Again I'd really like people's comments on this and what they think.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 10, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Did you see him on Breakfast this morning? He said he was humble.



Like Rupert and the pie thrower?


----------



## Ivana Nap (Aug 10, 2011)

I think this is an interesting piece from CIF (sorry if it's been posted before)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/10/liverpool-riots-mob-mayhem


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

treelover said:


> The people really have a downer on the politicians at present, even if they mix them up...


the scales have truly fallen from their eyes


----------



## dennisr (Aug 10, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> That is one of the most fantastic things I have ever read. It says it all


 Indeed - says it all. PC was making many of the same points at the beginning of this thread - this article sums up the situation.

A bit more:
_"Youths brainwashed and conditioned by the collective sum of thirty years consumerist propaganda. You gotta have ‘stuff’, you gotta have money and ‘things’.  Sadly, they lacked the education to join the dots. Couldn’t work out why their schools were closed or the funding cut, as teachers, scape-goated by successive governments struggled to make a difference, all the while trying to defend their own jobs, pay and conditions. Ditto the firemen, nurses, dinner ladies et al…_
_Yeah, they wanted the ‘stuff’ but how? No job, no chance of one, university maybe? Slog your balls off to end up thirty grand in debt, ready to stack shelves on minimum wage or join all the other degree holders on the dole. Besides, they were ‘scum’, ‘chavs’ ‘feral pond life’ ‘scroungers’ and ‘criminals’, right? Condemned, alienated, cut off and excluded from society, they created their own. Based on imported gang culture, violence, drugs. Where fear, respect and having a ‘rep’ became the aspirations to replace the ones from which they’d been cut off."_


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> Cameron frothing on about how "human rights nonsense" won't get in the way of prosecuting rioters.
> 
> (BBC News 24)



That will provide the criminal justice system a good get-out if they don't go after all of them - "Cameron mouthed off and prejudiced possible prosecutions".


----------



## past caring (Aug 10, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> this is something i wrote on facebook, obviously it's totally incomplete and i only said like half of what i wanted to say. I'm going to write "part 2" soon about the state and what i see as it's changing character.I am sorry about how long it is but I still feel like I didnt say everything and I'm probably completely wrong in a lot of it.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------



The major thing wrong with it froggy (and the same thing is often present in your longer posts) is your tendency to hedge things round with caveats and reticence - you write some good stuff, don't fucking apologise for it!


----------



## frogwoman (Aug 10, 2011)

Thank you mate. If I think something I should just fucking say it innit.


----------



## dennisr (Aug 10, 2011)

past caring said:


> you write some good stuff, don't fucking apologise for it!



*likes lots*


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> What is a Wigger?



Term originating on west coast of US about 15 years ago to describe middle-class white kids who listened to so-called "gangsta rap" and affected the walk and talk of the rappers. Derived from the contraction of "white nigger".

What it means now and over here, I don't know.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

Garek said:


> I now have images of Bruce Forthsyth announcing the next item to appear from a looted shop.
> 
> "And next ladies and gentlmen is this lovally microwave, ooh isn't it fancy"
> "Oooooooooooh!"



 Good game, good game!!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Term originating on west coast of US about 15 years ago to describe middle-class white kids who listened to so-called "gangsta rap" and affected the walk and talk of the rappers. Derived from the contraction of "white nigger".
> 
> What it means now and over here, I don't know.



I know that. 

I wanted to know what the poster using it meant by it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

treelover said:


> I predict Duncan Smith as soon as he comes back from his holiday will make a 'major speech on welfare and responsibility' which won't just affect the groups involved n the riotsbut all on benefits, the right have been chomping at the bit to push this...



Bluntly, this would have happened anyway, except that the excuse would have been the fact that the economy is likely to slide toward recession in the next quarter or two, so all they get is an extra excuse for what they'd already be planning to do.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I know that.



Just thought I'd make sure. 



> I wanted to know what the poster using it meant by it.



Probably not.


----------



## Garek (Aug 10, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I know that.
> 
> I wanted to know what the poster using it meant by it.



Meant nowt by it. Just seeing these ridiculous comments from people inferring that there are "uncomfortable truths" and it brought an image to my head of them being confronted with white rioters and then grasping at straws.

I can see how it might be misintrepted and I probably shouldn't have posted it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

Garek said:


> Meant nowt by it. Just seeing these ridiculous comments from people inferring that there are "uncomfortable truths" and it brought an image to my head of them being confronted with white rioters and then grasping at straws.
> 
> I can see how it might be misintrepted and I probably shouldn't have posted it.



Okay.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

Emski11 said:


> Absolutely.It's not an either/or analysis: Black working class youth face some of the same issues as white working youth but different pressures as well: racism ( more harassment from the police; less likely to get jobs because of racism as well as a complex web of pressure to join gangs because being outside of the "mainstream" is predictable as well as hatred for people who are doing better than them- as well as low aspirations). Where do those low aspirations come from? A society that in the main despises and looks upon young out of work working people with contempt and fear. Look at the language that's been used about white working class youth for years- generally considered to be a laugh to use the despicable word "chav"- how much more comtempt for Black youth? Trust me, the racist vitriol hasn't even warmed up yet- check out the comments on a variety of message boards.
> ( I use the term working class in relation to these young people in relation to their parents' generations- a lot of the working class jobs have gone. And the mainstream media predictably bleat- and worse- on about "sink estates/ASBO youth","benefits culture"; " the underclass" and make no connection with the loss of manufacturing jobs/apprenticeships etc over the past generation). These youth know they are alternatively despised or invisible until they do something destructive and ruthless- like burning and looting.



(puts down magnifying glass)

I was fortunate enough to grow up before much of a gang culture took hold, although there was still plenty of w/c territorial aggressiveness - you didn't let a group of youths from another council estate on yours, you ran them off - but we didn't have the whole weight of organised criminality bearing down on us as can happen with local gangs nowadays, either.
And yes, in my own experience of a dozen or so SUS stops in the '70s, we were more likely to get pulled in the first place if one of us was black, and that hasn't changed over the years - it's always the black kid (and nowadays, post 2005, the Asian kids as well), that gets the most hassle (I believe the coppers call it "banter"). We used to have a system back in the '70s and '80s where if you saw someone being hassled, you'd walk over, stand a discreet distance away and take notes of what was said by both parties. Amazing how coppers would move themselves along if you did that, but I suppose nowadays they'd nick you for a breach of data protection!

As for terminology, I'm happy to use "underclass" because it's *their* label that they've put on me and my friends and neighbours, but yes, working class is more aposite, even though I, for example, am a long-term claimant, so probably fit the underclass/scrounger labels well. 

As I've remarked on this and another thread, we used to think youth unemployment was bad in the '70s and '80s, but there was always a way out back then, even if it was hard labour on a YOPS scheme or joining the army. Nowadays the "training" isn't worthy of the name, it's an insult to the people subjected to it by patronising tossers who work for companies who're pretty much bilking the public purse with government consent.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> did he? and he's the bloke wibbling on about 'a true meritocracy'?
> fucking hell!



If GMart is GMarthews, who people here referred to as GMart, then yes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 10, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I look forward to PK's analysis on the majority White crowd looting/rioting in Manchester yesterday.


 
absentee mothers, maybe?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Thank you mate. If I think something I should just fucking say it innit.


yep - exactly. Confidence!


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> If GMart is GMarthews, who people here referred to as GMart, then yes.


christ, he's the same prat who moaned about people ripping the piss out of toffs on a past 'upper class twit of the year' thread. Mr Ivory-tower-with-no-grip-on-reality


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> absentee mothers, maybe?


Disproportionate white people.


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2011)

Ivana Nap said:


> I think this is an interesting piece from CIF (sorry if it's been posted before)
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/10/liverpool-riots-mob-mayhem



'In 1981 I could have cited unemployment (check), low-income, single-parent family (check), experience of police brutality (check) as factors in my participation, but none of the above even remotely came into my thinking then and I doubt it is stoking today's unrest, either.'

Afaik, Kevin Sampson family owned the local newsagent in my town, (a money maker in those days) he lived in West Kirby a posh part of the Wirral, he went to University when only 7% did, he did run with Tranmere as a teenager, but he is pushing the poverty line, etc...

quite a few round The Farm and The End were from middle class backgrounds, Pete Hooton lived in a detached in Melling..

Oh, and he is writing a book about the toxeth riots


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 10, 2011)

I knew the End were shit.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> absentee mothers, maybe?


Link to stats please? 

I am sick of the absentee father, breakdown of the nuclear/extended family thing being *ONLY* mentioned with regard Black people quite frankly. PK needs to look around him and accept the issues that are affecting all ethnicities.


----------



## belboid (Aug 10, 2011)

treelover said:


> he did run with Tranmere as a teenager,


he didn't.  He was a Liverpool supporter, he just chose to write his book about Tranmere


----------



## belboid (Aug 10, 2011)

Gove has been back on form today, saying it is too early to discuss causes, but its all the fault of shit parents and trendy teachers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14473339


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

Boris gets told!


----------



## miktheword (Aug 10, 2011)

belboid said:


> he didn't. He was a Liverpool supporter, he just chose to write his book about Tranmere


 
are you sure about this?
always thought he was a Tranmere fan, who later got into Liverpool, nicknamed 'Sammy of The Road End.'

(also, VP, 'wigga' was being used at least 30 years ago in West London)


----------



## kittyP (Aug 10, 2011)

belboid said:


> Gove has been back on form today, saying it is too early to discuss causes, but its all the fault of shit parents and trendy teachers.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14473339



Utter utter dick!!! 

Oh, not you belboid.


----------



## belboid (Aug 10, 2011)

miktheword said:


> are you sure about this?
> always thought he was a Tranmere fan, who later got into Liverpool, nicknamed 'Sammy of The Road End.'



fairly sure. He was certainly a Liverpool fan during the period Awaydays was set


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 10, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> There's a tendency by the media to talk only of "the white working class" and ignore any other group of people who are also working class. That's a mistake, I think.



Personally I think the issue here is more about an underclass that has emerged in the last 30 years that doesn't feel any connection to working-class people. I don't know the solution to the problem, but one thing I do know is that in the period between the end of WWII and the mid-seventies, unemployment was much lower and so these kids would have been absorbed into the wider working class.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf
"A Century of Change: Trends in UK statistics since 1900"


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2011)

anyway, he is a bit economical with the truth...


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Personally I think the issue here is more about an underclass that has emerged in the last 30 years that doesn't feel any connection to working-class people. I don't know the solution to the problem, but one thing I do know is that in the period between the end of WWII and the mid-seventies, unemployment was much lower and so these kids would have been absorbed into the wider working class.
> 
> http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf
> "A Century of Change: Trends in UK statistics since 1900"


yes, because the traditional working class has been trashed, along with their industries, jobs, culture and communities. And THIS is the inevitable end result of that - a youth who see, all too clearly, that this society, and the people who run it, have nothing for them, and don't give a shit about them - so why should they respect it or the well-to-do? 
it can't be a coincidence that this riots come at the end of a disastrous 3-year period for working-class and inner-city youth - youth unemployment soaring, tuition fees soaring, EMA slashed, youth services slashed.


----------



## kittyP (Aug 10, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Personally I think the issue here is more about an underclass that has emerged in the last 30 years that doesn't feel any connection to working-class people. I don't know the solution to the problem, but one thing I do know is that in the period between the end of WWII and the mid-seventies, unemployment was much lower and so these kids would have been absorbed into the wider working class.
> 
> http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf
> "A Century of Change: Trends in UK statistics since 1900"


 
Why do people talk about these things as though they are reasonably current.

There has always been what is considered to be an 'under class', as long as we have had populations that are ruled over by what is considered to be a 'higher class'.

We are just noticing it more now due to expansion of world media and promotion of human rights.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 10, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> yes, because the traditional working class has been trashed, along with their industries, jobs, culture and communities. And THIS is the inevitable end result of that - a youth who see, all too clearly, that this society, and the people who run it, have nothing for them, and don't give a shit about them - so why should they respect it or the well-to-do?
> it can't be a coincidence that this riots come at the end of a disastrous 3-year period for working-class and inner-city youth - youth unemployment soaring, tuition fees soaring, EMA slashed, youth services slashed.



Exactly.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 10, 2011)

kittyP said:


> Why do people talk about these things as though they are reasonably current.
> 
> There has always been what is considered to be an 'under class', as long as we have had populations that are ruled over by what is considered to be a 'higher class'.
> 
> We are just noticing it more now due to expansion of world media and promotion of human rights.



If the 'people' you are referring to here is me, then I think you misunderstand the point. Of course, there has always been an underclass, but it has grown in the last 30 years because for political and economic reasons. Do you think that these events would have happened in the 60's like they are now? These recent riots are unprecedented in the way they have manifested themselves.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 10, 2011)

kittyP said:


> Why do people talk about these things as though they are reasonably current.
> 
> There has always been what is considered to be an 'under class', as long as we have had populations that are ruled over by what is considered to be a 'higher class'.
> 
> We are just noticing it more now due to expansion of world media and promotion of human rights.



I'd say that with the advent of almost full employment and the implementation of the welfare state, the underclass was quickly disappearing in the 60s. It took the mass unemployment of the 80s to seriously reverse that trend.


----------



## kittyP (Aug 10, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> If the 'people' you are referring to here is me, then I think you misunderstand the point. Of course, there has always been an underclass, but it has grown in the last 30 years because for political and economic reasons. Do you think that these events would have happened in the 60's like they are now? These recent riots are unprecedented in the way they have manifested themselves.



Sorry I did misunderstand your point. I apologise.

I was confused by this



> Personally I think the issue here is more about an underclass that has emerged in the last 30 years



It just riles me that when bad stuff happens people (not you) seem to think that its all a new thing.


----------



## kittyP (Aug 10, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd say that with the advent of almost full employment and the implementation of the welfare state, the underclass was quickly disappearing in the 60s. It took the mass unemployment of the 80s to seriously reverse that trend.



Yes sorry. I misunderstood IWNW's post.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 10, 2011)

kittyP said:


> Sorry I did misunderstand your point. I apologise.
> 
> I was confused by this
> 
> It just riles me that when bad stuff happens people (not you) seem to think that its all a new thing.



That's OK, I should have worded my post a bit more clearly. I agree nothing is new, it just occurs in different ways and proportions over time.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 10, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> "ignore" feature on xenforo ain't ready yet, but LL's working on it. Lad's doing his best, give him time...



It's seeming like forever.


----------



## Crispy (Aug 10, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> It's seeming like forever.



lllama's not working on it, the xenforo people are. coming in the next upgrade "this summer"


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 10, 2011)

Crispy said:


> lllama's not working on it, the xenforo people are. coming in the next upgrade "this summer"



That's good to know, but it's not really a huge issue for me.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 10, 2011)

Radio Nottingham reporter just questioned Nick Clegg about his history as an arsonist @ age 13 !!!

(it was a greenhouse apparently)


----------



## belboid (Aug 10, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> Radio Nottingham reporter just questioned Nick Clegg about his history as an arsonist @ age 13 !!!
> 
> (it was a greenhouse apparently)


a rare cactus collection!


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'd say that with the advent of almost full employment and the implementation of the welfare state, the underclass was quickly disappearing in the 60s. It took the mass unemployment of the 80s to seriously reverse that trend.


yes it was, and it sickens me that we've now thrown that away.
We - the British people collectively, but ESPECIALLY all the people who supported Thatcher & co - have brought this on ourselves


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 10, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Link to stats please?
> 
> I am sick of the absentee father, breakdown of the nuclear/extended family thing being *ONLY* mentioned with regard Black people quite frankly. PK needs to look around him and accept the issues that are affecting all ethnicities.


 
he won't. That is an uncomfortable truth.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 10, 2011)

This is kind of interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

miktheword said:


> are you sure about this?
> always thought he was a Tranmere fan, who later got into Liverpool, nicknamed 'Sammy of The Road End.'
> 
> (also, VP, 'wigga' was being used at least 30 years ago in West London)



I wouldn't know. I used to try to avoid venturing into the Babylon that lies north of the Thames back then.


----------



## Santino (Aug 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Disproportionate white people.



Thankfully with a simple surgical procedure and a regime of physiotherapy most people can be cured of being disproportionate.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 10, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> This is kind of interesting.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots


kind of a relief to know it's not a peculiarly British problem, then


----------



## gavman (Aug 10, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> on the lighter side of things...
> 
> http://photoshoplooter.tumblr.com/


i know we're too grown up to repost, but i've larfed like an open drain twice at this now


----------



## gavman (Aug 10, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> This is kind of interesting.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots


had me all misty eyed...riot nostalgia


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

> *An Open Letter to David Cameron’s Parents*
> 
> August 10, 2011
> 
> ...



http://nathanieltapley.com/2011/08/10/an-open-letter-to-david-camerons-parents/


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

For those without a subscription to the FT, I thought I'd reproduce this:

*Economics not racism riles the Nando’s generation*

_By Clive Bloom_

The spate of rioting that spread from Tottenham to Enfield, Walthamstow and Hackney has caught Britain by surprise. Familiar with a new generation of protests over student fees and bankers’ bonuses, few expected a repeat of the scenes last witnessed in Brixton and Broadwater Farm – not least London’s police.

There are superficial similarities between the riots in Broadwater Farm, the area of Tottenham where PC Keith Blakelock was murdered in 1985, and those that followed the shooting of Mark Duggan on Thursday last week. The dubious circumstances surrounding Mr Duggan’s death certainly rekindled that era’s mood of anger, directing it initially at Tottenham police station before it spilt out more widely on to the streets. Yet, underneath, the circumstances are quite different.

The 1980s were a period of institutional police racism, coupled with casual disregard for the feelings of ethnic minorities. To a large extent these problems have been reduced, if not entirely solved. London’s police have mostly cleaned up their act, while police leaders have spent a generation cultivating links with local communities – including a great deal of time spent socialising with community leaders. The conundrum now is why these efforts came to nothing.

The problem is that the source of local tension has changed. In the 1980s there was generalised distrust at many levels between a police force that too often lived up to its racist reputation, and a local community divorced from those who were supposed to protect it. Today, relations between police and community figures in places such as Tottenham have improved, at least on the surface. But, underneath, relations with young black men, and especially those who are economically disadvantaged, have actually worsened.

Sources of tension are easy to identify – especially given that young black people are by far the group most likely to be stopped and searched. The police response to the disturbances – complete with the use of dogs and horses – has also indicated the impossibility of police “liaison” successfully reaching down to the lowest levels of each deprived area. The hope was that improved links with community leaders would allow the police to call on less forceful preventative measures in the event of renewed tensions. That hope has proved naive.

Black youths in London’s most deprived areas are now more self-reliant and inward-looking, even more than their counterparts in the 1980s. A minority rely on drug dealing and petty theft. The social cohesion that once came from youth clubs and churches has too often been replaced by the structure and sense of “belonging” of a gang – a social role with its own morality and self-esteem, but at least one that counts for something in a world of limited prospects. This is a crisis not of straightforward police racism, but of communities facing external economic pressures that, in turn, have exacerbated internal divisions.

That said, the spread of riots into other areas of London is exclusively a function of economics, not racial tension. These are events devoid of political intent: they have little in common with the student violence earlier this year, except their use of social media as an organisational tool – although this time by the disenfranchised poor, rather than the educated, politically aware white elite. These are riots marked out by the looting of Foot Locker and Nando’s – the shopping places of Britain’s new underclass. Those who have grown in a world where social identity comes from consumption find themselves barred in times of economic hardship, except by theft.

London has burned many times, of course. In the anti-Catholic Gordon riots of 1780 more than 280 died as half the City was set ablaze in four days of violence. The 1860s often had daily unrest in Hyde Park, while in 1912 the suffragette Christabel Pankhurst organised secret cells of arsonists to spread fear around the city. London recovered from these traumas, as it did after the violence of the 1980s. Yet this time only aid to communities disintegrating in the face of harsh economic times, rather than provoked by casual police racism, will begin to repair the damage that has been done. 

_The writer is author of ‘Violent London: 2000 Years of Riots, Rebels and Revolts’ _


----------



## magneze (Aug 10, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Boris gets told!



I wish I could give that video more thumbs up.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 10, 2011)

@ 'Open Letter to David Cameron's Parents'

Haha, classic ...


----------



## pk (Aug 10, 2011)

xenon said:


> Plenty of white riotters / looters in Manchester last night. If they're are particular problems with family breakdown, bad role models etc,  more prevalent in certain communities. Tackel those issues as they are. Respect peple enough not to make special cases for them. For all those amongst minority and / or  disenfranchised groups who aren't looting.



Can't argue with any of this, sort of goes without saying really.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 10, 2011)

kabbes said:


> CyberRose, Streathamite said nothing about intentions, political or otherwise. He never called it a "political protest" either.
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that if young people having no stake in society to such an extent that they go looting and rioting isn't political then nothing is political. Riots are as political as you get. And that's got nothing to do with intentions.


Ok sorry I've gone off on a tangent because me and Streathamite used the word "political" to mean different things.

I don't disagree with anything Streathamite has said, and I have made it clear in my original post (here) that I agree that socio-economic (or political, to use the term in your way) reasons are a major factor behind what we are seeing. Where I think we might have a disagreement is that I see other factors as well. My comments about followers of ideology using these events to promote their agendas relates to my belief that there are many causes for these riots, not all of which can be explained by one single factor. Everyone seems to have picked one reason why we are seeing riots and standing behind that to prove their views are right. The far right stand behind racial problems, the far left stand behind economic problems, conservatives stand behind a lack of respect for the rule of law and discipline, liberals say there is nothing for young kids to do, etc, etc. Ignoring the rants of the far right, I don't think any one ideology's single analysis stands up to the test when you actually look at this, but the truth is somewhere shared between them all.

If the reason was purely economic, then that doesn't explain why most poor people are not rioting (or take part in crime in general). If the reason was kids have nothing to do, then that doesn't explain why most kids are not rioting. If the reason was racial, then that doesn't explain why thousands of white people have been rioting. Etc, etc.

I will not disagree with anything anyone says here about the economic or political reasons behind this riot, but at the same time I will also not use that belief that discount any other factor...


----------



## pk (Aug 10, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I look forward to PK's analysis on the majority White crowd looting/rioting in Manchester yesterday.



What analysis? They're opportunist cunts, pull their benefits too, force them to attend shouty sessions with Jeremy Kyle, what's your point caller?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> What analysis? They're opportunist cunts, pull their benefits too, force them to attend shouty sessions with Jeremy Kyle, what's your point caller?



What you mean it's not because they are fatherless as well? Only Black children are fatherless afterall!


----------



## pk (Aug 10, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> What you mean it's not because they are fatherless as well? Only Black children are fatherless afterall!



Who's the racist now? Disgusting...


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 10, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Ignoring the rants of the far right, I don't think any one ideology's single analysis stands up to the test when you actually look at this, but the truth is somewhere shared between them all.



Best post all night. Now I'm off to the pub. Laters.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> Who's the racist now? Disgusting...


Yeah I am racist of course...not that I am pulling you up on the crap you have been spouting all over this thread. My fault.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 10, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Best post all night. Now I'm off to the pub. Laters.


I'm sorry, but has the 'like' function been disabled or summat?


----------



## pk (Aug 10, 2011)

I'm no racist. My brain isn't wired that way. Can't speak for yours.

You might be surprised to learn that my views are shared by many black community leaders.

Because you're an idiot, you refuse to see this.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> I'm no racist. My brain isn't wired that way. Can't speak for yours.
> 
> You might be surprised to learn that my views are shared by many black community leaders.
> 
> Because you're an idiot, you refuse to see this.


Yeah I am an idiot, I think that being fatherless is an issue that only affects Black youth and that this is the primary reason Black youth riot/loot.....oh wait....that's not me, it's you.


----------



## pk (Aug 10, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeah I am an idiot, I think that being fatherless is an issue that only affects Black youth and that this is the primary reason Black youth riot/loot.....oh wait....that's not me, it's you.



No it isn't. This is exactly why I think that you are an idiot.

I never said "being fatherless is an issue that only affects Black youth and that this is the primary reason Black youth riot".

You need to blatantly lie instead of trying to address the issues.

You're not worth the bother.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> No it isn't. This is exactly why I think that you are an idiot.
> 
> I never said "being fatherless is an issue that only affects Black youth and that this is the primary reason Black youth riot".
> 
> ...



It is a fair assessment of your input lately. You can duck and dive it all you like, it doesn't make me a liar, or yourself worth the bother.


----------



## treelover (Aug 10, 2011)

'Scotland Yard has said suspected rioters and looters can be beaten with weapons if they are honestly thought to pose a danger, writes my colleague *Vikram Dodd*.

In a document sent to businesses in the capital, police gave explicit guidance on what constitutes "reasonable force", saying people do not have to wait to be attacked if they are in their own home or business. With police numbers stretched the limit, the Met said if someone "honestly and instinctively" believed they, their business or another person was in danger, they could use force. The guidance says: "You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment."​It adds a weapon can be used and says: " The more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence."​The Met guidance says use of a weapon could also be lawful and constitute reasonable force​ 
Police now allowing force to be used against looters including weapons..

major step, retrograde?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 10, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'Scotland Yard has said suspected rioters and looters can be beaten with weapons if they are honestly thought to pose a danger, writes my colleague *Vikram Dodd*.
> 
> In a document sent to businesses in the capital, police gave explicit guidance on what constitutes "reasonable force", saying people do not have to wait to be attacked if they are in their own home or business. With police numbers stretched the limit, the Met said if someone "honestly and instinctively" believed they, their business or another person was in danger, they could use force. The guidance says: "You are not expected to make fine judgements over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment."​It adds a weapon can be used and says: " The more extreme the circumstances and the fear felt, the more force you can lawfully use in self-defence."​The Met guidance says use of a weapon could also be lawful and constitute reasonable force​
> Police now allowing force to be used against looters including weapons..
> ...



That's always been the law on self-defence, if you can plausibly claim that you believe you're defending your safety or someone else's you can use _proportional_ pre-emptive violence, improvised weapons etc. "Proportional" here meaning that to use potentially lethal violence you must believe it's a lethal threat.

The problem traditionally occurs when it's way out of proportion, or where it's clearly not an improvised weapon but one kept specifically for self-defence and hence implies that you weren't acting on the spur of the moment but planning to hurt someone or when there's a suggestion that you chose to damage someone when you didn't have to (e.g. Tony Martin shooting someone who was clearly running away from his gun, a gun held illegally 'cos he was a trigger-happy nutcase with previous for reckless use)

A lot of it is down to how the cops choose to interpret the situation, whether you're unlucky and get a bastard cop and whether they take a dislike to you for some reason.

It seems to me that what they're saying here is 'You don't have to worry about us deciding to be complete bastards and trying to make a case for GBH if you beat the shit out of a looter or rioter in any more or less legitimate self-defence situation (and you're not someone we have any other reason to dislike)" ...

What doesn't seem right is that bit about 'your business' though. I'm pretty sure that's not legally defensible if you have the choice of running away rather than fighting.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 10, 2011)

My CID drinking buddy tonight said he was all for the communities defending their patch, a la Southall. Was impressed. Wouldn't be drawn into the debate about more cops on the street apart from saying that a lot of his colleagues are as much upset about the situation as you and I. Fancy that.


----------



## manny-p (Aug 10, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> My CID drinking buddy tonight said he was all for the communities defending their patch, a la Southall. Was impressed. Wouldn't be drawn into the debate about more cops on the street apart from saying that a lot of his colleagues are as much upset about the situation as you and I. Fancy that.


You drink with CID?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

pk said:


> I'm no racist.


You're the one using the word, nobody else, so get down off your crucifix.

Oh, and get off the thread.  This is for serious debate.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 10, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> kind of a relief to know it's not a peculiarly British problem, then



I came to the same conclusion when a huge fuss was being made about the riot here a few months ago. If you did a little research, it became apparent that there were about six riots on that day, around the world.

I think the widespread nature of your current riots puts them into a slightly different league, though.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 10, 2011)

In answer to the original question, two words, social contract.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2011)

allybaba said:


> You drink with CID?


he'll drink with anyone who's buying.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 10, 2011)

8115 said:


> In answer to the original question, two words, social contract.



Needs more "lack of".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

8115 said:


> In answer to the original question, two words, social contract.



Yep, I've been saying that since Sunday. The government can't keep resiling from it's own obligations and then expect the other party to the contract to just sit and take such unilateral action.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 10, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Needs more "lack of".



Exactly.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> he'll drink with anyone who's buying.



I used to drink with CID. They always had the best snide gear to sell, so...


----------



## manny-p (Aug 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> he'll drink with anyone who's buying.


Wasn't urban 75 infamous for entertaining some police top brass?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> _The writer is author of ‘Violent London: 2000 Years of Riots, Rebels and Revolts’ _


that's hardly a recommendation.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

allybaba said:


> Wasn't urban 75 infamous for entertaining some police top brass?



What, Puddleduck? Hardly "top brass" at the time, only a divisional commander.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> that's hardly a recommendation.



I remember your thread about it. It isn't a particularly good book.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yep, I've been saying that since Sunday. The government can't keep resiling from it's own obligations and then expect the other party to the contract to just sit and take such unilateral action.



But the rioters seem to be mostly youth, as opposed to middle-aged people who've lost their job or had their benefits cut.


----------



## manny-p (Aug 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> What, Puddleduck? Hardly "top brass" at the time, only a divisional commander.


He was Brixton's police chief.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> that's hardly a recommendation.


  I just quoted the piece verbatim without edits.  I don't think it's any good, I just thought people would be interested in what FT readers are being treated to.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> But the rioters seem to be mostly youth, as opposed to middle-aged people who've lost their job or had their benefits cut.



So the state has historically taken up no obligations to serve the needs of minors as well as adults, Johnny?

I'm not talking about a social contract based on whether you're a tax-payer, but on the sort of _quid pro quo_ Locke theorised, where the governed consent to be governed in return for certain needs being met. Government can't unilaterally withdraw from obligations and expect people, young, old or middle-aged, not to attempt "re-negotiation".


----------



## manny-p (Aug 10, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> But the rioters seem to be mostly youth, as opposed to middle-aged people who've lost their job or had their benefits cut.



Ema blud


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2011)

allybaba said:


> He was Brixton's police chief.


wasn't he lambeth's?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

allybaba said:


> He was Brixton's police chief.



Yes. That's what I said. A divisional commander. That's not exactly "top brass", mate. There's 4 or 5 tiers of wanker above that in the Met.


----------



## manny-p (Aug 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> wasn't he lambeth's?


He used to be in the TSG.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2011)

allybaba said:


> He was Brixton's police chief.


yeh, he was lambeth commander: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-2373625-paddick-devastated-over-lambeth-job.do


----------



## manny-p (Aug 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes. That's what I said. A divisional commander. That's not exactly "top brass", mate. There's 4 or 5 tiers of wanker above that in the Met.


Top brass to me.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Yes. That's what I said. A divisional commander. That's not exactly "top brass", mate. There's 4 or 5 tiers of wanker above that in the Met.


commander
deputy assistant commissioner
assistant commissioner
deputy commissioner
commissioner


----------



## manny-p (Aug 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh, he was lambeth commander: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-2373625-paddick-devastated-over-lambeth-job.do


Really my mistake.


----------



## manny-p (Aug 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> commander
> deputy assistant commissioner
> assistant commissioner
> deputy commissioner
> commissioner


Give us the pay scales as well


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2011)

allybaba said:


> Give us the pay scales as well


you have to do some work you lazy fuck


----------



## manny-p (Aug 10, 2011)

I delegate


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 10, 2011)

allybaba said:


> I delegate


not to me you don't


----------



## manny-p (Aug 10, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> not to me you don't


I'm top brass though


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> So the state has historically taken up no obligations to serve the needs of minors as well as adults, Johnny?
> 
> I'm not talking about a social contract based on whether you're a tax-payer, but on the sort of _quid pro quo_ Locke theorised, where the governed consent to be governed in return for certain needs being met. Government can't unilaterally withdraw from obligations and expect people, young, old or middle-aged, not to attempt "re-negotiation".



The contract is with all citizens. What I'm saying is that if the real reason behind these riots was a deep seated, generalized anger of the breaking of the social contract, then one would expect to see more of a cross-section of citizens on the barricades.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 10, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The contract is with all citizens. What I'm saying is that if the real reason behind these riots was a deep seated, generalized anger of the breaking of the social contract, then one would expect to see more of a cross-section of citizens on the barricades.



That'd be dependant on where the axe was falling, hence mostly young students last year, local youth at the moment, and probably gainfully employed civil and public servants of all stripes by about october time. One of the insidious things about the cuts (mentioned on the thread about them last year) is that they're a rolling set of cuts, which "spreads the pain" enough that there's less likelihood of a critical mass of people being riled enough for action at the same time.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 10, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> That'd be dependant on where the axe was falling, hence mostly young students last year, local youth at the moment, and probably gainfully employed civil and public servants of all stripes by about october time. One of the insidious things about the cuts (mentioned on the thread about them last year) is that they're a rolling set of cuts, which "spreads the pain" enough that there's less likelihood of a critical mass of people being riled enough for action at the same time.



If what you're saying is correct, then about this time next year, it will be 40 year old nurses and ex-postmen with bandannas on their faces, and firebombs in their hands.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 10, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> If what you're saying is correct, then about this time next year, it will be 40 year old nurses and ex-postmen with bandannas on their faces, and firebombs in their hands.



No because while the social contract with them may have been changed to their detriment it still exists.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 10, 2011)

Dont be a dick JC3,  its almost _always_ poor young people who riot. They are most likely to be the people with nothing to loose and with the least power and status in society.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 10, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Dont be a dick JC3, its almost _always_ poor young people who riot. They are most likely to be the people with nothing to loose and with the least power and status in society.



But if the reason behind the rioting is a deep dissatisfaction with the breach of the social contract, then one would expect to see more than just a bunch of 15 - 20 year olds out there throwing rocks.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 10, 2011)

To put it simply, there are impoverished people at all ages. Why are the rest of them not rioting?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 10, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> To put it simply, there are impoverished people at all ages. Why are the rest of them not rioting?



Most older people in this country are more likely to 'protest' in a less destructive way IME/O...


----------



## Santino (Aug 10, 2011)

Because it's not an absurdly simplistic causal link.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 10, 2011)

Santino said:


> Because it's not an absurdly simplistic causal link.



My point exactly.


----------



## Santino (Aug 10, 2011)

How can smoking cause cancer, I know some people who smoke who don't have cancer.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> They are most likely to be the people with nothing to loose


They often have rocks to loose...


----------



## Steel Icarus (Aug 10, 2011)

Santino said:


> How can smoking cause cancer, I know some people who smoke who don't have cancer.



 Tweet genuinely seen earlier: "Social mobility does work - many pop and rock stars from poor backgrounds"


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 10, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Tweet genuinely seen earlier: "Social mobility does work - many pop and rock stars from poor backgrounds"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> But if the reason behind the rioting is a deep dissatisfaction with the breach of the social contract, then one would expect to see more than just a bunch of 15 - 20 year olds out there throwing rocks.



I agree with you to an extent. But I think it's missing the point a little to look at the individuals involved and ask what their motives are. Why are they rioting? For lots of reasons, and for no real reason at all. Because they're bored. Because they can. Because they see others doing it and it looks like a laugh.

I don't think that is really the point, or at least it isn't to me. How have the social conditions in which bored and frustrated teenagers will act like this come about? Why aren't their lives better than they are? Why are there not other choices available to them - or if those choices are available, why aren't they taking them? Why do they feel they have so little to lose?

This is a society that is failing many of its people. These riots are a consequence of that failure. Did the cuts make the kids riot? No, not directly. But are neglected kids likely to riot? Well, quite probably yes. And why wouldn't they? Why shouldn't they? It is up to others to provide them with reasons not to. Any society whose children are rioting needs to be looking at itself and asking what it it did wrong, because it will surely find that it did do something - or many things - wrong.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ..... Any society whose children are rioting needs to be looking at itself and asking what it it did wrong, because it will surely find that it did do something - or many things - wrong.



I am sure that some societal soul searching is required given the extent to the unrest. But is it not possible that things have simply progressed from the initial spark which was the police shooting in London and then multiplied to other centres each sparking off the previous. The actual numbers of rioters is still afaict quite small and in any society there will be small groups of people who have not "bought into" society who possibly in this instance saw a chance to create a bit of mayhem.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree with you to an extent. But I think it's missing the point a little to look at the individuals involved and ask what their motives are. Why are they rioting? For lots of reasons, and for no real reason at all. Because they're bored. Because they can. Because they see others doing it and it looks like a laugh.
> 
> I don't think that is really the point, or at least it isn't to me. How have the social conditions in which bored and frustrated teenagers will act like this come about? Why aren't their lives better than they are? Why are there not other choices available to them - or if those choices are available, why aren't they taking them? Why do they feel they have so little to lose?



I agree with all that, but I believe the answer to be complex. I believe it's a wider phenomenon, and must account for the rich kids here in Vancouver torching police cars, apparently oblivious to the cameras recording images that altered their futures.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> . Any society whose children are rioting needs to be looking at itself and asking what it it did wrong, because it will surely find that it did do something - or many things - wrong.



I agree with this too; which is why I believe that society is failing people in more than economic ways when middle class vancouver kids will join in random destruction following the loss of a hockey game.


----------



## r0bb0 (Aug 11, 2011)

how to engineer a riot? : shoot a youngster from a 'minority', have a kefuffle between the locals and the info spilling down from the top, take a hands off approach to policing the mayhem, let it get out of hand, tell the cutting govt that the police cuts are wrong (jobs for the boys), get heavy on Tuesday night when devils nite is over. I dont see the reason why Deb's in Clapham was looted for an hour and a half 'cause the police were stretched, I dont buy it. Peeps were telling Boris they knew about it from 17:00 hrs. Diane Abbot who someone quoted on this thread earlier made a bit of sense when she (left wembley) & was saying riots have happened because of causes like this in the past. COBRA could have easily been done by teleconference on Monday morning between Whitehall & Italy and there are loads of squaddies off to the 'stan based in London who could have been called in to assist the victims of these attrocities who were having there houses burnt down, big Decision to call them in, my a**.  the Crim Gang Rioters gonna be well up for it given the chance, dial a mob + all the hardships they have to face, minimum wage, rising cost of living, bombarded by hi-life ads and music vids, seeing the bankers get massive payments, fat cat politicians getting off lite with their sentences. Anyway, how to engineer a riot?


----------



## r0bb0 (Aug 11, 2011)

tanks at heathrow easy enough:


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 11, 2011)

r0bb0 said:


> tanks at heathrow easy enough:



I wonder what it would take to get them to start firing rounds out of that tank?

You have to wonder about a govt prepared to threaten its own citizens with heavy armour.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 11, 2011)

I heard one lady being interviewed with a bottle of wine apparently looted who argued that the riots were all about 'letting the rich know that we can do what we want too'...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I agree with all that, but I believe the answer to be complex. I believe it's a wider phenomenon, and must account for the rich kids here in Vancouver torching police cars, apparently oblivious to the cameras recording images that altered their futures.


Well, in Britain there are other things. Police stopping and searching young people in the street for no other apparent reason than that they are young and black. Sniffer dogs in tube stations and bus stations. These are not the actions of a free state. This is a state in which the police can randomly descend on you and look through all your things just because you're out in a public place - but where this happens all the time to people who look a particular way and live in a particular area, and not at all for anyone else.

It's not as simple as it was in the 1980s when the police force was shockingly and nakedly racist. Nowadays, it will as often as not be a black copper stopping the black kid randomly in the street. But if the police want a section of society to grow up hating them, they're going about it in just the right way.


----------



## flutterbye (Aug 11, 2011)

The police standing off and letting looting take place they never did this with any demo I've seen and the numbers were far fewer at these riots.

I know it all sounds a bit conspiratorial but it has crossed my mind in the last few days that this has been allowed to happen.

The tensions between the police and tottenham have remained on both sides since 85 the police have held a massive grudge, the tottenham community will not accept being lied to or any kind of cover up of a death from someone in their community, a riot would always be inevitable in that situation.

The police deal with bigger numbers at football matches every week and demos regularly and manage to control situations.How has this exploded in the way it has. 

Numbers stretched etc. I understand, but they simply stood back and watched shops get looted en-masse, I don't get it tbh.

That sounds mental, I don't go for conspiracy theories, its just the behaviour of the police, I don't understand it, its bizarre. Is this all a display to show DC does law and order, a way to rid the worst trouble off the streets for the olympics, and a way of normalizing the use of water cannons, pepper spray etc., on protesters generally.


----------



## mentalchik (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Any society whose children are rioting needs to be looking at itself and asking what it it did wrong, because it will surely find that it did do something - or many things - wrong.



Yup, a lot of people seem to be missing the point that we have whole generations of people that don't give a fuck about anyone/anything, it's very sad, makes me angry and it's a sign of things to come methinks


----------



## flutterbye (Aug 11, 2011)

Atari Teenage Riot's Alec Empire's take
http://www.eyho-blog.com/2011/08/09/london-riots-august-by-alec-empire/


----------



## extra dry (Aug 11, 2011)

If the government labeled the Rioters/dis-affected youth/angry young men and women terrorists this whole thing would be rapped up in a couple days.

  CCTV backed arrests, DNA matching, finger prints, eye witness, more cameras than in any other disturbances.  El Salvador style tactics, slaughter the family and any friends.  I think most of population would be horrified, but the riots would stop.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

I fail to see how slaughtering people is any more desirable than rioting.


----------



## Greebo (Aug 11, 2011)

extra dry said:


> If the government labeled the Rioters/dis-affected youth/angry young men and women terrorists this whole thing would be rapped up in a couple days.
> <snip>El Salvador style tactics, slaughter the family and any friends. I think most of population would be horrified, but the riots would stop.


Maybe but would you want to live in a country where that happened?


----------



## extra dry (Aug 11, 2011)

I was taking things to the extreme.  Things will go quiet soon as the government, get jobs for the populous and provide for society, rather than cut and take away more and outlets for the youth.


----------



## Termite Man (Aug 11, 2011)

flutterbye said:


> The police deal with bigger numbers at football matches every week and demos regularly and manage to control situations.How has this exploded in the way it has.



football matches and demos normally have a lot more notice than these riots did so the police will knopw where things will happen and be able to formulate plans and get people where they think they will need them. They did not have that for these riots so your analogy doesn't really work.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 11, 2011)

.double post... aha! I see what dp means now. Duh!


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 11, 2011)

extra dry said:


> I was taking things to the extreme. Things will go quiet soon as the government, get jobs for the populous and provide for society, rather than cut and take away more and outlets for the youth.


Soon? You think a £trillion of debt is going to evaporate? This is where we are for twenty years, not the next four as Gov likes to infer from its budget projections. Think about how much money has actually been looted... really, start considering the reality not the political class's propaganda.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

You miss the point, Johnny.  The riots aren't because of "dissatisfaction" at the lack of social contract.  They're because there *is no* social contract.  If there is no social contract then there is nothing to stop someone perpetrating whatever anti-social behaviour that happens to engage them today.  That's pretty much the definition of a social contract.


----------



## extra dry (Aug 11, 2011)

Greebo said:


> Maybe but would you want to live in a country where that happened?



i do, currently in Thailand, people get shot dead all the time, police, criminals and more worrying Frangs or foreigners, more common in the South of the country. 

 However two university students where gunned down just a mile from the place where I work. The 'gang' on scooters asked for their cash, the guys said No, and both where shot, one died the other is in a Thai ICU.  

So it can happen in any country really, just do Google for 'shooting deaths/robbery/riots August 2011'.

 Only to go off on a tangent - if this had been in Greece it would have been labeled and presented as anti-government protesters/'Urban anarchists'. 

In Afganistan, tribal factions/insurgents, in France 'student' protests, in Canada 'upset ice hockey fans', Mexico drug wars...etc. It will be eluminating to see how the government deal with it...


 In the Arab world who knows....but they all would have been put to the sword.


----------



## extra dry (Aug 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Soon? You think a £trillion of debt is going to evaporate? This is where we are for twenty years, not the next four as Gov likes to infer from its budget projections. Think about how much money has actually been looted... really, start considering the reality not the political class's propaganda.



your right...and the first gesture could be to take back the bankers bonuses.
  Open 'Amsterdam' style coffee shops thus cutting out the old drugs--gang--violence--resentment of the police--hate of society.

The revenue from taxing the customers will pay for some improvements like music centers to help keep marginally talented youths off the streets, every estate and community will have to have atleast three activity choices...BMX park a Skate park, football clubs 5/6/7/11 a side in the bigger areas, workshops, mechanic workshops, martial arts schools and keep them maintained and staffed by locals.

Is that too simplistic?


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 11, 2011)

coffee shops? I'd encourage you to read more widely for a while.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 11, 2011)

extra dry said:


> your right...and the first gesture could be to take back the bankers bonuses.
> Open 'Amsterdam' style coffee shops thus cutting out the old drugs--gang--violence--resentment of the police--hate of society.
> 
> The revenue from taxing the customers will pay for some improvements like music centers to help keep marginally talented youths off the streets, every estate and community will have to have atleast three activity choices...BMX park a Skate park, football clubs 5/6/7/11 a side in the bigger areas, workshops, mechanic workshops, martial arts schools and keep them maintained and staffed by locals.
> ...


 
and a free puppy for everyone


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2011)

Did anyone see Clegg a few moments ago on Breakfast?  What a slimeball.  It was quite funny to watch, though.  He was interviewed by that terrier of journalism, Bill Turnball.

Early on Clegg was asked about police cuts affecting the police response, and he answered a different question; the one he was expecting.  The one about government policies being a factor in the riots.  He got in early with how there was no connection; making a connection was ridiculous. Then sharp-as-a-pin Bill asked about Clegg's own predictions.  Clegg said it was completely different to the Greek situation.  These riots were just thefts, not the kind of civil unrest he'd been talking about.  And then he repeated that it was ridiculous to connect the riots with government policy.  And Bill valiantly let it drop. Because clearly asking if Clegg thought his old self had been being ridiculous would also be ridiculous.

But it was quite astonishing to see how much Clegg was taking the line they've been so keen to push.  No connection.  Ridiculous.  We've always been at war with Eastasia.


----------



## extra dry (Aug 11, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> and a free puppy for everyone


 
Have to be a pit bull -bom tish-


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 11, 2011)

RE Clegg this morning, Cameron yesterday, etc: Can't bear to watch anymore. There is, though, a huge demographic that has made its mind up and is receptive to the line being espoused. Extraordinary.


----------



## Garek (Aug 11, 2011)

Maybe instead of rethinking cuts to the police the government should be rethinking cuts to youth services and education.

EDIT: Due to appalling syntax.


----------



## gavman (Aug 11, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> I wonder what it would take to get them to start firing rounds out of that tank?
> 
> You have to wonder about a govt prepared to threaten its own citizens with heavy armour.


this is an old picture, taken after a supposed terrorist threat to heathrow airport


----------



## gavman (Aug 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> RE Clegg this morning, Cameron yesterday, etc: Can't bear to watch anymore. There is, though, a huge demographic that has made its mind up and is receptive to the line being espoused. Extraordinary.


on either c4 news or newsnight last night there was an acceptance that the previous labour govt had done lots for young people.
such as

asbos
social exclusion orders

 there aren't enough facepalms on the web


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 11, 2011)

ffs.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 11, 2011)

flutterbye said:


> The police standing off and letting looting take place they never did this with any demo I've seen and the numbers were far fewer at these riots.
> 
> I know it all sounds a bit conspiratorial but it has crossed my mind in the last few days that this has been allowed to happen.
> 
> Numbers stretched etc. I understand, but they simply stood back and watched shops get looted en-masse, I don't get it tbh.



this is nonsense.  there were thousands, if not tens of thousands of kids out on monday night.  hundreds of people i saw on the streets of catford and the same up the road in lewisham.  there were also kids running riot round the backstreets in ladywell, hither green, brockley.  there were old fart coppers huffing and puffing after kids in lewisham town centre, who'd obviously been dragged out of the local nick (the biggest in europe and it looked deserted), they didn't look like they'd seen daylight in 20 years.  as well as lewisham and catford, there were major disturbances in woolwich, bromley, peckham and camberwell.  that's just in south east london.  they were outnumbered and outmanoevered - although it is telling that several hundred coppers were defending oxford street, where no-one lives.


----------



## shaman75 (Aug 11, 2011)

sorry if this is a repost...


----------



## treelover (Aug 11, 2011)

its absolutely certain there will be benefits for the 'fourth sector' as shops, chain stores, etc,  buy in more security from the likes of G4S.


----------



## treelover (Aug 11, 2011)

in the parliamentary debate, a LP MP is calling for all the riot videos to be taken down,


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

That's a good idea at the moment.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

"Taken down" from where?  Youtube?  How are they going to enforce that?


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 11, 2011)

allybaba said:


> You drink with CID?



I drink with human beings, from all walks of life. Don't judge people like the majority here.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

Where would you draw the line?


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Where would you draw the line?


 Drinking with urbanites, I suppose. Has to be a limit.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2011)

smokedout said:


> this is nonsense. there were thousands, if not tens of thousands of kids out on monday night. hundreds of people i saw on the streets of catford and the same up the road in lewisham. there were also kids running riot round the backstreets in ladywell, hither green, brockley. there were old fart coppers huffing and puffing after kids in lewisham town centre, who'd obviously been dragged out of the local nick (the biggest in europe and it looked deserted), they didn't look like they'd seen daylight in 20 years. as well as lewisham and catford, there were major disturbances in woolwich, bromley, peckham and camberwell. that's just in south east london. they were outnumbered and outmanoevered - although it is telling that several hundred coppers were defending oxford street, where no-one lives.



Tens of thousands? really? That would be more significant than the smaller groups which I saw on news bulletins. If it is only a smallish number of people then it can more easily be blamed on perhaps a criminal underclass. If it really is tens of thousands that might be harder.

I suspect quite a lot of young people were carried away into joining in by the mood. That is no excuse though but why now and why in all those other cities?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

> *#riotcleanup or #riotwhitewash?*
> 
> August 10, 2011
> 
> ...



...read on here:

http://universityforstrategicoptimism.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/riotcleanup-or-riotwhitewash/


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

Why now? Summer holidays... I thought we'd covered that?
Why in all those other cities? Because they saw someone else do it.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

Why now?  Well why not?

The question is always "why has this happened?" But maybe the more pertinent question should be: "why does this usually _not_ happen?"

If human nature is as horrible and selfish as your average right-winger would like to believe then the surprise is not that there is looting this week but rather that there is not looting _every _week. After all, it's easy enough to get away with, it would seem.

And that takes us right back to the social contract again. People don't do this because they are persuaded not to -- persuaded because they have a stake in society and an interest in seeing their community gain rather than lose from their interaction with it. But if you take these things away from people then they lose their reasons to not act antisocially.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 11, 2011)

_"The strikingly middle-class, broadly white efforts to sweep issues of inequality under the carpet of a simulated big-society photo-op has been a telling, if little discussed, aspect of the recent rioting, making little headway in the scramble of blogposts and tweets attempting hasty analyses of the unfolding turmoil. This doughty bunch of volunteer cleaners, the substitution for a non-existent community, appeared right on cue to fill the media narrative all day following a night of London’s most extensive social unrest in decades. Even Mayor Boris had leisurely returned from holiday to be snapped with the broom-wielding bourgeoisie of Clapham as they amassed for a bit of symbolic social cleansing."_

Beard stroking champagne socialist


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Why now?  Well why not?
> 
> The question is always "why has this happened?" But maybe the more pertinent question should be: "why does this usually _not_ happen?"
> 
> ...



You're contradicting yourself.

To lose a reason to not act antisocially suggests they need a reason to not act antisocially. Which suggests they would... without a reason... act antisocially.

Which suggests that human nature is every bit as selfish as those rightwingers say.

Maybe you're not as far away from those rightwingers as you think?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> And that takes us right back to the social contract again. People don't do this because they are persuaded not to -- persuaded because they have a stake in society and an interest in seeing their community gain rather than lose from their interaction with it. But if you take these things away from people then they lose their reasons to not act antisocially.


Yep.

I am puzzled as to why anyone wouldn't ask why so many young people clearly see no advantage _to themselves_ of observing some of society's basic norms. It's the obvious question, surely.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You're contradicting yourself.
> 
> To lose a reason to not act antisocially suggests they need a reason to not act antisocially. Which suggests they would... without a reason... act antisocially.
> 
> ...


Not really. 'Human nature' isn't some default setting to which we revert unless otherwise stimulated. It is something we ourselves actively build as a response to our environment.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You're contradicting yourself.
> 
> To lose a reason to not act antisocially suggests they need a reason to not act antisocially. Which suggests they would... without a reason... act antisocially.
> 
> ...


I don't think human nature is either selfish or unselfish. I think personalities are formed as a consequence of the society they are formed within. If that society is selfish, they becomes selfish. If it is unselfish, they are unselfish.

ETA: lbj got there first.  But yes, what he said too.


----------



## treelover (Aug 11, 2011)

Some of the Empty Shops Network, such as Dougald Hine would probably agree with much of that piece..

Whike i agree with the danger of co-option and the class composition of the Broom Army, as people have posted elsewhere, at least it meant that the areas weren't being written  off and some thing could be salvaged from theb disaster, it helped the shopkeepers morale as well.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I don't think human nature is either selfish or unselfish.  I think personalities are formed as a consequence of the society they are formed within.  If that society is selfish, they becomes selfish.  If it is unselfish, they are unselfish.



So all humans brought up In this society are selfish?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> So all humans brought up In this society are selfish?


Depends on the pressures on them, i.e. the family and community context.

I have to say: that was an extremely clumsy attempt to present an excluded middle.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> So all humans brought up In this society are selfish?



Depends how you define selfish.  Reciprocal altruism is selfish, but it's not necessarily a bad way to have things.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> So all humans brought up In this society are selfish?



More selfish on average than our predecessors. Self-interest is a norm, not a fact about "human nature". The normative pressure to act according to a particular configuration of self-interest has increased massively in the last generations.

Dale Miller wrote a very interesting paper on this back in 1999: http://faculty-gsb.stanford.edu/millerd/docs/1999amerpsyc.html


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> So all humans brought up In this society are selfish?



This society has been raised on the ideologies of 'individualism',  those values indeed promote, _selfishness._


----------



## treelover (Aug 11, 2011)

*dougald*Dougald Hine 

The desire to make things better which #riotscleanup represents must now be turned to addressing the divides within our society.
16 hours ago

DH, ESN, i think...


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Depends on the pressures on them, i.e. the family and community context.



So not all humans?

The ones whose family and community context encourages them to be selfish.

Those who are taught not to be selfish... they aren't selfish?

Is this what you're saying?


----------



## 8115 (Aug 11, 2011)

The energy and ingenuity that people put into rioting could also be used.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet - Its not rigidlly determinsitic is it?
Its not 'person brought up in social depreivation will become selfish anti-social hoodie'.
Its generalised trends. Young person brought brought up in area of social deprivation is more likely to take part in anti-social/criminal behaviour. Not all the time, maybe just for a brief period, mabe for years and end up spending most of their life in and out of prison. And they may also - at other times - help old ladies accross the road, or help out at the local youth centre or do sponsored marathons for charity (maybe clad in sports gear they looted from the shopping mall the previous weekend).

You really seem to have a problem with things like context, shades of grey and understanding complex interplay of differing factors dont you?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> So not all humans?
> 
> The ones whose family and community context encourages them to be selfish.
> 
> ...


"Taught" implies some kind of external control mechanism.  It's not about being "taught".  It's about how you're treated yourself every day of your life.  What are the models for behaviour that are being imprinted onto your extremely malleable brain?  What do you see around you; how do those you trust and love react to events?

It's not about "do as I say".  It's about normalising selflessness rather than selfishness, so that this is the default instinct.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> "Taught" implies some kind of external control mechanism. It's not about being "taught". It's about how you're treated yourself every day of your life. What are the models for behaviour that are being imprinted onto your extremely malleable brain? What do you see around you; how do those you trust and love react to events?
> 
> It's not about "do as I say". It's about normalising selflessness rather than selfishness, so that this is the default instinct.



Well, genes plus environment presumably.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

8115 said:


> Well, genes plus environment presumably.


Your genes do nothing more than establish the malleability and potential of your brain, allowing you to learn. Behaviour is way more complex than can be established by the interactions of what actually constitutes a pretty limited set of genes. People have conscious awareness; they don't react purely on genetically-inbuilt instinct like insects.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> "Taught" implies some kind of external control mechanism.  It's not about being "taught".  It's about how you're treated yourself every day of your life.  What are the models for behaviour that are being imprinted onto your extremely malleable brain?  What do you see around you; how do those you trust and love react to events?
> 
> It's not about "do as I say".  It's about normalising selflessness rather than selfishness, so that this is the default instinct.



I'm with you so far... but when you say 'how you are treated everyday' who do you mean... treated by who?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I'm with you so far... but when you say 'how you are treated everyday' who do you mean?



I mean _everyone_, from your mother to the local policeman to the effects on you of the decisions of the government.

The closer the connection, however, and the more direct the impact of the treatment upon you, the more impact it will have.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Your genes do nothing more than establish the malleability and potential of your brain, allowing you to learn. Behaviour is way more complex than can be established by the interactions of what actually constitutes a pretty limited set of genes. People have conscious awareness; they don't react purely on instinct like insects.



Well, there could be genes which link closely to, I don't know, impulse control maybe, which could be relevant here.

So, genes plus environment plus I missed out a little bit of chaos theory.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

8115 said:


> The energy and ingenuity that people put into rioting could also be used.



Good post.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I'm with you so far... but when you say 'how you are treated everyday' who do you mean?



Not to pre-empt kabbes, but we pick up norms mainly from two sources, what we're told and what we observe around us. If society becomes more forgiving of selfish behaviour all the sermons in the world won't stop kids from feeling "if they can do it why can't I?".


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

8115 said:


> Well, there could be genes which link closely to, I don't know, impulse control maybe, which could be relevant here.
> 
> So, genes plus environment plus I missed out a little bit of chaos theory.


There may be.  At the extremes.  But impulse control is still more likely to be linked to how you were treated as a very young baby.  According to various strands of attachment theory, in any case.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 11, 2011)

8115 said:


> Well, there could be genes which link closely to, I don't know, impulse control maybe, which could be relevant here.



Or amygdala function.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Why now? Well why not?
> 
> The question is always "why has this happened?" But maybe the more pertinent question should be: "why does this usually _not_ happen?"
> 
> ...



Exactly right.  There is a tendency in these sort of situations to resort to hyperbole - I have heard many times that we live in a "totally valueless society".  This is patently not true.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> There may be. At the extremes. But impulse control is still more likely to be linked to how you were treated as a very young baby. According to various strands of attachment theory, in any case.



What?  Attachment theory leaves plenty of space for genetic influences.  Anyway, arguing about genes on the internet is a sure fire waste of time.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

I was just thinking, actually, that I am in danger of taking yet another perfectly good debate into the realms of genetics vs. environment.  In this case, it really is a sideshow, so I'll also not continue it.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I was just thinking, actually, that I am in danger of taking yet another perfectly good debate into the realms of genetics vs. environment. In this case, it really is a sideshow, so I'll also not continue it.



Cool.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I mean _everyone_, from your mother to the local policeman to the effects on you of the decisions of the government.
> 
> The closer the connection, however, and the more direct the impact of the treatment upon you, the more impact it will have.



So, the general trend is that people are selfish because most of the people around them are selfish?

How did those people become this way? Presumably because their specific environment was selfish?

Who was it who made this selfish, individualistic society? Was it selfish people?

What was their specific environment then?

When did this selfishness begin? If it is a growing trend then how is it that it is so successful?

And if you are a member of this selfish society... does it mean that you are selfish too?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

There are feedback loops indeed, which makes trends very difficult to change.  It's like steering a supertanker.

You persist in thinking of two mutually exclusive states of being, though, "selfish" and "unselfish".  The truth is that we have all kinds of impulses, most of which are context-specific.

Personally, I can feel that the society I grew up in does indeed have the tendancy to make me feel that other people's problems are not my problems.  This is something I have to consciously fight.  It's also a message we are increasingly fed -- the atomisation and polarisation of each part of society and each individual in society is increasingly taken for granted.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 11, 2011)

another FB 'friend' bites the dust...



> The world needs to stop being so damn political all the time- someone needs to tell these low lifes the truth. I stopped needing my arse wiped at an early age and am now considered an adult who is capable of making his own decisions in lif...e and therefore responsible for my actions. I could sit on my ass and do nothing but then my life will not be as good as it should be.
> 
> If I decide to go to the pub today and do nothing and then do the same tomorrow and the next day and just basically give up then pretty much the mortgage won't be paid next month. If things aren't working out exactly as planned then I try something else, there are successes and there are failures, but you can never give up.
> 
> In the UK we all get to go to school- some are better than others but it is up to you what you do with the chances you are given. Even if you don't get an education there are plenty of places you can go and get an adult eduction later in life and plenty of places that will pay for your retraining. Why should those organizations have to go to the 'dissaffected' and ask them what they want and how to do it and when and... chances are they would be told to f**k off.



Suggestions for a to the point reply appreciated


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> another FB 'friend' bites the dust...
> 
> Suggestions for a to the point reply appreciated


"Fuck off yourself"?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> So, the general trend is that people are selfish because most of the people around them are selfish?
> 
> How did those people become this way? Presumably because their specific environment was selfish?
> 
> ...



"There is no such thing as society" - remember who said that?


----------



## fractionMan (Aug 11, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> another FB 'friend' bites the dust...
> 
> Suggestions for a to the point reply appreciated




"If you're responsible for this half baked ill thought out drivel then it's you who should fuck off."

tbf though, I've been chatting with some of my real life friends and these kinds of posts are often an (extreme) case of not thinking it through rather than being a total idiot and/or twat.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2011)

I don't think focussing on selfishness is right.

The rioters have not bought into the society and its law and order, they see themselves as outside societal norms and therefore they don't feel the need to comply. Those with a stake in society but working in the same communities, shop keepers for example, did not riot. Yet in most cases they live in the same geographic society.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> When did this selfishness begin?


March 1944.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

Barking_Mad said:


> another FB 'friend' bites the dust...
> 
> Suggestions for a to the point reply appreciated


 
How about

"I would respond at length, but I'm busy slipping your mum a link"?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> March 1944.


Your birthday?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I don't think focussing on selfishness is right.



It's the issue at the core of this.

We live in an increasingly selfish society. Not just materially selfish, though.

And although the riots are about material possessions... they are because we have a culture that is... as kabbes put it 'other peoples problems are not my problems'.

Well guess what... now everyone's got the same problem.


----------



## treelover (Aug 11, 2011)

in terms of some of the reactions online,. etc, people are very very fearful quite now, they looked into the abysss and they don't like it, some of the riot scenes were indeed apocalyptic,

anyway, why should they agree with us, urban, etc if they think otherwise surely thats their right..


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> We live in an increasingly selfish society. Not just materially selfish, though.


No, indeed.  Because solidarity was such a dirty word in the 80s it had to be eradicated.  Society had to be atomised.  Because the last thing neoliberalism needs is solidarity.


----------



## rekil (Aug 11, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Tweet genuinely seen earlier: "Social mobility does work - many pop and rock stars from poor backgrounds"


I'm sure there was a thread here a while ago about how pop has been taken over by poshos.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

Always someone else's fault, though, Danny.


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Aug 11, 2011)

What do you think to Alain de Botton's manifesto?



> How to prevent riots without without police: a brief political programme:
> 
> Education: Make it relevant. Give people emotional and practical skills. Shakespeare can wait.
> 
> ...


----------



## TruXta (Aug 11, 2011)

Glib.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

Talking out of his botton.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Always someone else's fault, though, Danny.


You've used that gnomic epithet before, and I thought we'd ironed it out.  Or do you think I should bear responsibility for slavery, the Spanish Inquisition, and the York Pogroms too?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

We nearly ironed it out.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> How did those people become this way? Presumably because their specific environment was selfish?
> 
> Who was it who made this selfish, individualistic society? Was it selfish people?
> 
> ...


piss-easy: 4th may 1979


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

And, of course, it ties in neatly with that culture of 'other people's problems are not my problems' because then you get to 'it's not my fault... it's those Tories/Immigrants/capitalists/lefties/neoliberals/kids/media people/cops/whatever".


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It's the issue at the core of this.
> 
> We live in an increasingly selfish society. Not just materially selfish, though.



I just don't see the issue as being about selfishness, who is supposed to be being selfish? and why?

The rioters are just running amok, perhaps they feel they have nothing to lose, perhaps they are not bought into modern society .. And the riot cleaner uppers, are they selfish? I would have thought their actions were the very opposite of selfish.



Kizmet said:


> And although the riots are about material possessions... they are because we have a culture that is... as kabbes put it 'other peoples problems are not my problems'.
> 
> Well guess what... now everyone's got the same problem.



Why are the riots about material posessions? they are about havoc certainly and some people managed to loot stuff .. some were looting a pound shop, they aren't going to get much in the way of material posessions from a pound shop!

I think the riots were about making a statement that the participants do not belong to normal society, that they are lawless and that there is little we can do about it.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

Or thatcher.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> And, of course, it ties in neatly with that culture of 'other people's problems are not my problems' because then you get to 'it's not my fault... it's those Tories/Immigrants/capitalists/lefties/neoliberals/kids/media people/cops/whatever".



There's no logical connection between the two. That said, would you deny that there is a democratic deficit, that Big Corps (try to) decide what we want when we want it and that civil society is ever more marginalised?


----------



## shaman75 (Aug 11, 2011)

No idea where to put this, but I guess it shows up the ongoing problems between police and the community


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> We nearly ironed it out.


It is just ahistorical, when looking for reasons for the rise of selfishness, to ignore the New Right, neoliberalism, and the deliberate policy programmes designed to atomise society.

Now, your neobuddhist mantra that suggests anyone proposing that analysis is saying "it's all someone else's fault", you are missing something important.  Some of us fought those changes tooth and nail, and continue to do so.  It is not (as you seem to suggest) abdicating from society to recognise that society contains heterogeneity.

If the edifice of the state is the castle, then civil society is the earth-works and ramparts supporting the structure.  Without those to maintain the integrity of the castle, the stronghold falls. 

Civil society is where consent is manufactured.  The details of the hegemonic consensus are beaten out there in battles between a plurality of interest groups.  (These interest groups, of course, intersect in a venn diagram of virtually opaque complexity).  

For example, when the New Right (that is, the group of ideologues around Keith Joseph who propelled Thatcher to power) in the 70s sought to overturn the post war economic consensus (“Butskellism”), they needed to implant their ideology (neoliberalism) as the new commonsense: the “given”, which nobody questions.   Civil society had to be made to adopt neoliberalism.  Now, some sectors could be counted on (sections of the press, the CBI etc), others could not (the unions).  Therefore, the position of the unions had to be undermined.  Unions in the 70s were not “too powerful”, as the common consensus now has it, in some objective way, but too powerful for the purposes of the neoliberal project.  So laws were enacted which would limit unions’ ability to act, and ultimately cause membership to seep away.

By that means and others, a new consensus within civil society was arrived at, which came to be called Thatcherism in the UK.  The welfare state was restructured and a new compromise between capital and labour arrived at, as a result of the new balance within civil society.  The neoliberalism of the Thatcher era had a different flavour to that of today, though.  When the babyboomers became the dominant age-group within civil society, there were interest groups within the emerging make-up of the ruling elite that needed to be appeased.  For example, Blair’s government accepted the economic ideology of neoliberalism without question, but found that it had to advance the cause of gay rights.  In itself a good thing, of course, but it was not done for pure altruism, but because that venn diagram of power balances required it.  The neoliberal project required it in order to survive.  Now,   of course, there are openly gay Tory MPs and even a Tory government would not reverse those changes.  This must be, for neoliberalism to survive.

We are told now that the need for cuts is “obvious”.  But it isn’t; it’s an ideological position derived from Monetarism.  Franklin D didn’t think cuts were the “obvious” way to go in the depression of the 1930s.  Whether cuts are resorted to or not is a decision, not an objective fact.  Today, though, we have a Labour Party that doesn’t oppose the Tory cuts (and a Liberal Democrat Party whose ministers seem to be the ones in the coalition proposing the more rightwing courses of action). Labour now merely says the cuts shouldn’t be “so fast”; the “need” for cuts is not questioned by any significant section of civil society, not the press or media, not even trades union activists.  The neoliberal hegemony has won, and only marginalised individuals would say “no cuts”, because cuts, in some form or another, are a given; they are “common sense”.

That’s how consent is manufactured in civil society, and that’s how ideological hegemony is achieved. That’s _real_ “political correctness”.

Imagining that society is monolithic and homogeneous denies the evidence; it isn't.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

Key points from Cameron'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."
> 
> ...



https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Nobody-likes-a-Tory/144144931304


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Key points from Cameroon's speech today:



I am not convinced the police need any more powers.

If confronted with someone smashing a shop window, can they arrest them? yes they can..
etc

The instant messaging issue is interesting, and twitter and facebook, how much did it contribute, I suspect a lot of the rioters were simply seeing the activity on the news and thinking I want a bit of that ...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> No idea where to put this, but I guess it shows up the ongoing problems between police and the community


...Yeah have seen this vid....

Another tactic I have seen used on the youth around here is that they are stopped and searched, then asked what the first and last names/numbers are on their phones, if they can't say, they are arrested on suspiscion of theft. I don't know the first and last numbers on my phone = I am a thief too.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

As a bit of light relief, you might like to know that I just got the following spam email:



> Dear Mr kabbes,
> 
> 
> *UK riots: analysing the insurance industry’s response amid other competing concerns*
> ...


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

TruXta said:


> There's no logical connection between the two. That said, would you deny that there is a democratic deficit, that Big Corps (try to) decide what we want when we want it and that civil society is ever more marginalised?



You're a smart guy, truxta, why are you asking obvious questions? The conversation has moved passed that.

There is a logical connection... find it, then we can argue if you like.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 11, 2011)

Curfews, brilliant.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I just don't see the issue as being about selfishness, who is supposed to be being selfish? and why?
> 
> The rioters are just running amok, perhaps they feel they have nothing to lose, perhaps they are not bought into modern society .. And the riot cleaner uppers, are they selfish? I would have thought their actions were the very opposite of selfish.
> 
> ...



Selfishness is not just about material possessions. It's about the individual and how they see their needs in relation to others.


----------



## newme (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> ...Yeah have seen this vid....
> 
> Another tactic I have seen used on the youth around here is that they are stopped and searched, then asked what the first and last names/numbers are on their phones, if they can't say, they are arrested on suspiscion of theft. I don't know the first and last numbers on my phone = I am a thief too.



They can go through your phone on a stop and search?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

newme said:


> They can go through your phone on a stop and search?


Yeap, they do so regularly.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Selfishness is not just about material possessions. It's about the individual and how they see their needs in relation to others.


Well said.


----------



## newme (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Yeap, they do so regularly.



Weird, never knew that. Only ever been stopped and searched once and they failed to find anything despite there being things to find. Helps being in Cornwall tho dont really get hassled the same.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 11, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> It is just ahistorical, when looking for reasons for the rise of selfishness, to ignore the New Right, neoliberalism, and the deliberate policy programmes designed to atomise society.



I'm not ignoring them. In many respects I agree. I see it from a very different perspective... and I would suggest very different reasons for it... but we both agree that it exists and happens.

The next question, rather than argue about those perspectives is to talk about what to do.



> Now, your neobuddhist mantra that suggests anyone proposing that analysis is saying "it's all someone else's fault", you are missing something important.  Some of us fought those changes tooth and nail, and continue to do so.  It is not (as you seem to suggest) abdicating from society to recognise that society contains heterogeneity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## trabant (Aug 11, 2011)

Apologies if this has already been put up:


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> [...]everyone has responsibility[...]
> The next question[...] is to talk about what to do.


Indeed.  I'd agree.  When I put forward my (not original) analysis of how we got here, I'm not saying: "that's it; there's nothing we can do, let's all just stay fragmented".    Not sure why you'd think so.  But I certainly don't think we should ignore how we got here, because that'll help us understand what it is that needs fixing.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2011)

Missed these bits, because of the way your tags were arranged:



> But it also treats society as monolithic. Who bought those council houses? People. Who voted for those governments? People.
> 
> Who has the power to protect those from the insidious outside influences? People.



I disagree, I think my analysis does deal with that.  Yes, people. People whose interests intersect in a venn diagram of virtually opaque complexity.  But not _everyone_ voted for Thatcher.  I've just had that argument in another thread.  There, the poster was blaming "the English".  Here you appear to be blaming everyone.


----------



## past caring (Aug 11, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Here you appear to be blaming everyone.



And no-one.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> No idea where to put this, but I guess it shows up the ongoing problems between police and the community



Yep, shows some of the shit the police have to put up with just for doing their job...


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The contract is with all citizens. What I'm saying is that if the real reason behind these riots was a deep seated, generalized anger of the breaking of the social contract, then one would expect to see more of a cross-section of citizens on the barricades.


No, there's something else you need to know. The years 2008-2011 were an utter catastrophe for working class youth in the UK. Unemployment in the 16-25 age range skyrocketed, EMA was scrapped, uni tuition fees were trebled by many/most uni's, available FE places were cut (hence NEETS) and capital project spending in schools came virtually to a standstill. factor in police harassment of inner-city youth (especially black youth), and....you can guess the rest


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 11, 2011)

past caring said:


> And no-one.


Ah, yes, that's a very good point.  "Let's put this all behind us, and look the other way" does seem to be the message.


----------



## 8115 (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Yep, shows some of the shit the police have to put up with just for doing their job...



What, four people searching someone who doesn't appear to be giving them any trouble or attitude at all?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Yep, shows some of the shit the police have to put up with just for doing their job...


Nice selective viewing of that Vid. The guy filming, had every right to be. The cop was being obstructive and them decided to give him some rough treatment with a colleague because he has 'authority', nothing more.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

Prob been posted, but the Beeb has an article giving 10 possible causes for the riots. All will have been mentioned on this thread but what I find interesting is those are standing behind each argument:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14483149

A summary:

Welfare dependence (Daily Mail)
Social exclusion (Independent)
Lack of fathers (Daily Telegraph)
Spending cuts (Labour)
Weak policing (The Sun)
Police racism (Independent)
Gangsta rap and culture (Daily Mirror)
Consumerism (Guardian)
Opportunism (Irish Times - no idea of their ideological allegiance)
Technology and social networking (Met Police)

I've said earlier about different competing ideologies trying to get as much mileage out of this to promote their own agendas and I don't know if any of them are all that bothered about getting to the truth. I look at the above list and can agree (to some extent or another) with all of those reasons cited, but the question is, can the people above who put those ideas forward also agree with all the other points suggested?

All those points need addressing, but the different ideologies don't want to know about causes that don't fit their narrow world view. Unfortunately when we have multiple causes for a reason it is often too easy for the competing ideologies just to stand behind the reason they have put forward in order to further their agendas...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

I think all of those reasons are relevant actually. It is clearly not one thing or another, which is why it's ridiculous to try and pin it down to just one thing.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

8115 said:


> What, four people searching someone who doesn't appear to be giving them any trouble or attitude at all?


Why were they searching him?



Rutita1 said:


> Nice selective viewing of that Vid. The guy filming, had every right to be. The cop was being obstructive and them decided to give him some rough treatment with a colleague because he has 'authority', nothing more.


Well, it was more of a 'funny comment' but I do note the video was uploaded yesterday following a few nights of 1000s of people attacking police so I wonder how you would react after all that? Are you gonna be scared? On edge?


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I think all of those reasons are relevant actually. It is clearly not one thing or another, which is why it's ridiculous to try and pin it down to just one thing.


Unfortunately that's what the government will do. They will not address social exclusion, as much as they desire, they cannot bribe fathers to remain married (or get married!), they receive too much benefits (politically and individually) from consumerism and they won't reverse any of the cuts.

They will, however, try and kick people off benefits! (Altho that was nothing to do with any riots)


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I think all of those reasons are relevant actually. It is clearly not one thing or another, which is why it's ridiculous to try and pin it down to just one thing.


Can you add any more? Not that we are all that important, but it may be interesting to create a big list of causes and see what should be done about each one.

I would add the natural inclination for young people to seek out excitement.

Any more causes not on that list?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Why were they searching him?
> 
> Well, it was more of a 'funny comment' but I do note the video was uploaded yesterday following a few nights of 1000s of people attacking police so I wonder how you would react after all that? Are you gonna be scared? On edge?



It was like this before the riots. It has been like it for decades now. SUS laws were replaced with stop and search, same shit, different name. Do you know the first and last numbers on your mobile, without looking? If so you can be arrested on suspicsion of theft. That is what the police do young people regularly.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> It was like this before the riots. It has been like it for decades now. SUS laws were replaced with stop and search, same shit, different name. Do you know the first and last numbers on your mobile, without looking? If so you can be arrested on suspicsion of theft. That is what the police do young people regularly.


True but is it justified? Maybe maybe not, neither of us are in a position to judge that without knowing the background of those who are stopped!


----------



## 8115 (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Why were they searching him?



There's no smoke without fire, clearly.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Can you add any more?


The progressive decline in community development project funding, local youth services, local industry, erosion of parental 'authority' and support, the widespread demonisation of young people and the promotion of a culture of fear, the do as I say and not as I do appraoch of the government, a lack of awareness and experience of the Eton Possee...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> True but is it justified? Maybe maybe not, neither of us are in a position to judge that without knowing the background of those who are stopped!


Not true. It is not the background of those stopped that matters, but the reasons used by the police for stopping them. Given that young black men are six times more likely to be stopped than young white men, one of the reasons is clearly 'has black skin'.

Is 'being black' justification for any action by the police ever?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Selfishness is not just about material possessions. It's about the individual and how they see their needs in relation to others.



I just don't see how you have focussed in on the word "selfish" or "selfishness" as being the primary cause of these riots.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Why now? Summer holidays... I thought we'd covered that?
> Why in all those other cities? Because they saw someone else do it.


utter, total crap. it's because the same rampant social and economic problems blighting w/c youth happen in other cities too, arguably to an even greater degree than in London.
Doh!


----------



## Red Storm (Aug 11, 2011)

Voice of Reason. An explanation for the riots.

[/quote] 

I don't know if this has been posted but it's a cracking video.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

Spot on, that chap. Totally spot on. Sums up what I think of it too.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

extra dry said:


> I was taking things to the extreme. Things will go quiet soon as the government, get jobs for the populous and provide for society, rather than cut and take away more and outlets for the youth.


no they won't. the economy is gonna be sailing up shit creek for a long time to come, due to the cuts, and this bunch of ideological headbangers aren't there to 'provide for society' create jobs or help the state; they are there to help the rich (i.e. them and their mates), destroy the welfare state and drive spending on public services down as far as they possibly can. they don't give a flying one about the youth, or the poor, or you, or me.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> utter, total crap. it's because the same rampant social and economic problems blighting w/c youth happen in other cities too, arguably to an even greater degree than in London.
> Doh!


I don't think that is total crap. It's no surprise this happened in August, during the holidays. And if there's a lack of jobs or any other activity for young people, then they're basically bored.
I do think the other cities were copycat really.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Key points from Cameron's speech today:


in other words; anything and everything but addressing the key causal factors


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> in other words; anything and everything but addressing the key causal factors


Yep.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> utter, total crap. it's because the same rampant social and economic problems blighting w/c youth happen in other cities too, arguably to an even greater degree than in London.
> Doh!



To be fair I think it's a bit of both.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I don't think that is total crap. It's no surprise this happened in August, during the holidays. And if there's a lack of jobs or any other activity for young people, then they're basically bored.
> I do think the other cities were copycat really.


I don't think people riot - with all the risks that implies - out of imitation, but for the same reasons the London lot did - just like in '81, when the youth simply went berswerk everywhere (yes, I remember it all too well).
but I do agree with you that this is the time of year, for the reasons you gave, when it was most likely to happen


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> To be fair I think it's a bit of both.


like i said to _angel_, I agree on the timing, but to me it's obvious that these riots need to be put in socio-economic context; an entire generation of w/c urban youth who have been thoroughly shafted and left high and dry by the great neoliberal project - to the point they have absolutely zip to lose by rioting, and have thought "fuck this society, why should I abide by its' rules?"


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

They have also witnessed that marches and protests don't get us anywhere...


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> They have also witnessed that marches and protests don't get us anywhere...


yes, they just get ignored. I guess a riot is the ultimate form of Direct Action....


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> They have also witnessed that marches and protests don't get us anywhere...



Yep --- but that's hardly new !

(nor is rioting)


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> Yep --- but that's hardly new !
> 
> (nor is rioting)



What's your point?


----------



## laptop (Aug 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I guess a riot is the ultimate form of Direct Action....



Only if the cause is a reduction in the amount of plate glass. If that is the cause, it's very direct.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Prob been posted, but the Beeb has an article giving 10 possible causes for the riots. All will have been mentioned on this thread but what I find interesting is those are standing behind each argument:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14483149
> 
> ...



There are many layers of causes and also many different factors that ease the path from cause to effect.  Don't get them mixed up.

Weak policing, for example, isn't a cause in and of itself.  Weak policing doesn't make people riot -- if people didn't want to riot then they wouldn't riot, policing or not.  If true (which I am not sure sure of), it's a big factor in allowing the true cause to result in the effect, however.

I'd also say that a lot of the other reasons, although they look very disparate, all  boil down to the same underlying cause at the next layer down, in that they are all trying to address the fundamental truth of a youth that no longer abides by the social contract.  _Why_ is it spending cuts are causing this?  _Why_ does gansgta culture take hold?  _What is it_ about consumerism that feeds this?  Answering these questions leads you down the same few paths.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

I'm resisting the urge to 'like' that post kabbes. It is very right, though. And like that chap in Red Storm's clip, most of those talking sense about this are saying very much the same thing. There really is only one sensible way to look at this, I think.


----------



## doddles (Aug 11, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I just don't see how you have focussed in on the word "selfish" or "selfishness" as being the primary cause of these riots.


I don't know if selfishness was the primary cause. It wasn't the trigger. But I think it is behind the form that the riots took.

Many people have claimed that the riots aren't political because of the seemingly random destruction and looting and lack of any type of organised political focus. That they are criminals, pure and simple, is obvious from the way in which they are just taking stuff for themselves.

Taking stuff for themselves. That's selfishness. That's also what this and a succession of previous governments (and businesses obviously) have been telling us all we should be doing. Hell - they've even made it easy for the biggest takers - the tax avoiders - to rip off the nation. For themselves.

So no - selfishness probably wasn't the cause of the riots starting. But institutionalised and government promoted selfishness is fairly and squarely behind the "couldn't give a fuck" attitude of the rioters. It's part and parcel of neoliberalism.  “there is one and only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game” (Milton Friedman, 1970). In other words, take what you can and don't give a rats arse about anyone else.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm resisting the urge to 'like' that post kabbes. It is very right, though. And like that chap in Red Storm's clip, most of those talking sense about this are saying very much the same thing. There really is only one sensible way to look at this, I think.


Do not resist.  Give in to your dark temptations.


----------



## doddles (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I'd also say that a lot of the other reasons, although they look very disparate, all boil down to the same underlying cause at the next layer down, in that they are all trying to address the fundamental truth of a youth that no longer abides by the social contract. _Why_ is it spending cuts are causing this? _Why_ does gansgta culture take hold? _What is it_ about consumerism that feeds this? Answering these questions leads you down the same few paths.



Exactly. What is the "social contract"? I think most people still believe in such a thing, but all the time they've been sucked in by a system that doesn't. Or at least one in which certain members of society are expected to abide by, but others are encouraged to ignore.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

doddles said:


> I don't know if selfishness was the primary cause. It wasn't the trigger. But I think it is behind the form that the riots took.
> 
> Many people have claimed that the riots aren't political because of the seemingly random destruction and looting and lack of any type of organised political focus. That they are criminals, pure and simple, is obvious from the way in which they are just taking stuff for themselves.
> 
> ...


 
And DON'T forget to castigate anyone who draws parallels between the state of the economy & how people act !


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not true. It is not the background of those stopped that matters, but the reasons used by the police for stopping them. Given that young black men are six times more likely to be stopped than young white men, one of the reasons is clearly 'has black skin'.
> 
> Is 'being black' justification for any action by the police ever?


Sure if they're looking for a black suspect.

However, to answer your point, we have many many posts on this very thread giving reasons why people commit crime in general. I think most people would agree that the main reason (amongst many others) is down to the person's economic background (ie most people who commit crime are poor). I think most would also agree that ethnic minorities are more likely (proportionally) to be poor than white people, so does it also not stand up that ethnic minorities are more likely to be involved in crime than white people?

Now look at the job of the police. They deal with criminals and they target areas of high crime. If somebody from an ethnic minority is more likely to be involved in crime, or they are more likely to live in a high crime area because of the increased likelihood that they are from a poorer background then of course they will come into contact with the police more often. To add weight to that, black people are iirc around 7 times overrepresented in prison populations (somebody made the counter argument that courts were also racist).

When people pass off the fact that ethnic minorities are overrepresented in stops or in prisons as 'institutional racism', they also miss an opportunity to highlight the social inequalities that disproportionately affect ethnic minorities (compared to white people). Don't get me wrong, many policemen will be racists (as will members of any organisation, goes with being human unfortunately), but assuming a white policeman is racist just because he stops a black person, to me, shows ignorance of the job that person is trying to do and it also shows a lack of understanding (or an ideological refusal to accept) why that black person might have an increased likelihood of being involved in crime.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Sure if they're looking for a black suspect.
> 
> However, to answer your point, we have many many posts on this very thread giving reasons why people commit crime in general. I think most people would agree that the main reason (amongst many others) is down to the person's economic background (ie most people who commit crime are poor). I think most would also agree that ethnic minorities are more likely (proportionally) to be poor than white people, so does it also not stand up that ethnic minorities are more likely to be involved in crime than white people?
> 
> ...


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

"Most people who commit crime are poor" ------ You CANNOT be serious !!!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

You've totally missed my point. Using the colour of someone's skin as a criterion for choosing to stop and search them is wrong. It is always wrong. You are basically criminalising a skin colour. Can you not see that? There was a time not so long ago when black men would sell their flash sports cars because they were fed up with being stopped by the police all the time. You cannot label someone 'potential criminal' based on racial profiling. You MUST NOT do this.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You've totally missed my point. Using the colour of someone's skin as a criterion for choosing to stop and search them is wrong. It is always wrong. You are basically criminalising a skin colour. Can you not see that? There was a time not so long ago when black men would sell their flash sports cars because they were fed up with being stopped by the police all the time. You cannot label someone 'potential criminal' based on racial profiling. You MUST NOT do this.


I said nothing whatsoever about using the colour of someone's skin as a criterion for choosing to stop and search them. So next time read my fucking post before making accusations like that, ok?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Don't get me wrong, many policemen will be racists (as will members of any organisation, goes with being human unfortunately),



Are you suggesting that for those working for an 'organisation', being racist, is somehow inherently human?


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> "Most people who commit crime are poor" ------ You CANNOT be serious !!!


Eh?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

Also, IIRC, young black men are still subject to SAS out of proportion even to things like their relative population in the crime-affected areas and so on. You can't dismiss the problem just by saying that "black people are more likely to be poor".

Even if it _were_ acceptable to criminalise a skin colour, as lbj says, which clearly it can't be.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Are you suggesting that working for an 'organisation' and being racist is inherently human?


Jesus


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

I don't think you've quite grasped what 'Stop and Search' is, tbh.

Explain this:

"it also shows a lack of understanding (or an ideological refusal to accept) why that black person might have an increased likelihood of being involved in crime"

with reference to stop and search, which is what I was talking about.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Jesus


Jesus can't help you.

Explain what this means:



> Don't get me wrong, many policemen will be racists (as will members of any organisation, goes with being human unfortunately),



I also think you need to do some research about how Black men in areas where they make up a significant minority, are still likely to be stopped and searched much more than others.

The fantasy you are trying to build around yourself is not a reality, I'm sorry, it just isn't. People usually do this when the truth frightens them. Welcome to the world.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Eh?


 
I quoted back at you what you said.

I am disagreeing.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Also, IIRC, young black men are still subject to SAS out of proportion even to things like their relative population in the crime-affected areas and so on. You can't dismiss the problem just by saying that "black people are more likely to be poor".
> 
> Even if it _were_ acceptable to criminalise a skin colour, as lbj says, which clearly it can't be.


My point, is the police will stop people they think are criminals. That black people get stopped more (proportionally) either means the police are racist or black people are more likely to be involved in crime.

Black people are seven times overrepresented in the prison population. That backs up what I'm saying (unless you can suggest other reasons why this might be?)


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Jesus can't help you.
> 
> Explain what this means:


Why?


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> I quoted back at you what you said.
> 
> I am disagreeing.


Oh...ok


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> My point, is the police will stop people they think are criminals. That black people get stopped more (proportionally) either means the police are racist or *black people are more likely to be involved in crime.*



Where is your reseach on this. Are you doing a proportionate comparason of the figures?



> Black people are seven times overrepresented in the prison population. That backs up what I'm saying (unless you can suggest other reasons why this might be?)



Why do you think it is?

It doesn't represent what you are saying at all. You are forgetting to include some important information about institutionalised racism, harsher sentancing, higher levels of unemployment etc..


----------



## past caring (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Are you suggesting that for those working for an 'organisation', being racist, is somehow inherently human?



I don't think he is. Though he's given you the facepalm, what I think he's _actually_ saying is that being racist is inherent in being human. Unfortunately.

In which case a double facepalm from you would have been even more appropriate in response.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> My point, is the police will stop people they think are criminals. That black people get stopped more (proportionally) either means the police are racist or black people are more likely to be involved in crime.



I think it's time for a lesson in conditional probability.  Or you could accept that you're simply wrong to think that this is an acceptable implication without me having to educate you.  Somehow, I'm suspecting not though...



> Black people are seven times overrepresented in the prison population. That backs up what I'm saying (unless you can suggest other reasons why this might be?)



Are you kidding me?  There are so many possible reasons for this.  Such as: black people are more likely to get a prison sentence for the same crime.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> My point, is the police will stop people they think are criminals. That black people get stopped more (proportionally) either means the police are racist or black people are more likely to be involved in crime.



What criteria are the police using to decide whom to stop? 'People they think are criminals'? How do they work out whom to suspect of being criminals?


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

past caring said:


> I don't think he is. Though he's given you the facepalm, what I think he's _actually_ saying is that being racist is inherent in being human. Unfortunately.
> 
> In which case it's a double facepalm.


Fuck me it meant some people will be racist!


----------



## past caring (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Fuck me it meant some people will be racist!



Just what I said.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Why?


Because it doesn't make sense and/or makes you seem very ill informed.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Because it doesn't make sense and/or makes you seem very ill informed.


It just meant that some people will be racist...I honestly cannot understand what peoples' problem with that is (ok this is U75 and any excuse to deviate from a difficult argument etc etc)


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> My point, is the police will stop people they think are criminals. That black people get stopped more (proportionally) either means the police are racist or black people are more likely to be involved in crime.
> 
> Black people are seven times overrepresented in the prison population. That backs up what I'm saying (unless you can suggest other reasons why this might be?)


 
Racism --- ever heard of it ?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Fuck me it meant some people will be racist!


If you think it is inevitable that some of the police will be racist, surely you must accept that the reason so many young black men are stopped and searched is police racism? And perhaps you might accept that allowing the police these kinds of powers is not a wise thing to do.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Fuck me it meant some people will be racist!


 
& you're looking like one of them.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> It just meant that some people will be racist...I honestly cannot understand what peoples' problem with that is (ok this is U75 and any excuse to deviate from a difficult argument etc etc)



In the context of what you posted, it meant that being racist is inherently human, I disagree with you.

I am not deviating from the discussion. I am discussing your post with you which is very ill informed from where I am reading.

I have asked you a number of questions about your 'theory' and suggested research that you might want to do before making your mind up.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> Racism --- ever heard of it ?


So just so I know that everyone's singing from the same hymn sheet, everybody here believes that ethnic minorities being overrepresented in prions and in stop searches is due to racism, and nothing to do with their social background?


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> & you're looking like one of them.


By talking about social inequalities that disproportionately affect ethnic minorities?!?!?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

You haven't answered my question. How do the police decide whom to stop and search? What are the criteria they use?


----------



## past caring (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> It just meant that some people will be racist...I honestly cannot understand what peoples' problem with that is (ok this is U75 and any excuse to deviate from a difficult argument etc etc)



You could simply have intended to convey;

"In society as it is at present, you're likely to find some racists in any organisation".

Not something I agree with 100%, but certainly less contentious than the impression that you actually gave;

"Racism is part of being human and will therefore always be with us".


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> So just so I know that everyone's singing from the same hymn sheet, everybody here believes that ethnic minorities being overrepresented in prions and in stop searches is due to racism, and nothing to do with their social background?


 
I don't think anyone's SAID that.

YOU otoh HAVE said that Poor people are more likely to be criminals & ------some racist shit I can't be bothered with.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> So just so I know that everyone's singing from the same hymn sheet, everybody here believes that ethnic minorities being overrepresented in prions and in stop searches is due to racism, and nothing to do with their social background?



I don't believe the ideologies/effects/manifestation of racism, and the influence of social background can be separated.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If you think it is inevitable that some of the police will be racist, surely you must accept that the reason so many young black men are stopped and searched is police racism? And perhaps you might accept that allowing the police these kinds of powers is not a wise thing to do.


I accept it is a reason, but I don't accept it is the main reason...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> I accept it is a reason, but I don't accept it is the main reason...


In that case, perhaps you'd like to expand on your post where you said police stopped people they thought might be criminals. How does one separate the potential criminals from the crowd in a typical street?


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You haven't answered my question. How do the police decide whom to stop and search? What are the criteria they use?


Wrong time wrong place? Fitting the description of suspects believed to operate in the area? People who they actually know commit crime?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> I accept it is a reason, *but I don't accept it is the main reason...*



Because that scares you. I know why, because it's scary, like I said before, welcome to the world.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Wrong time wrong place? Fitting the description of suspects believed to operate in the area? People who they actually know commit crime?


That description being what?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose, suppose (for the sake of round numbers) that 1 in 1000 people from group A are criminals and 1 in 100 people from group B are criminals.  On the face of it, someone from group B is ten times as likely as someone from group A to be a criminal.  Seems like a good reason, on the face of it, for SAS on members of group A.

However, 99 of every 100 people you stop from group A will still be innocent.

Is that a good idea?  Stopping 99 innocent people for the sake of stopping 1 guilty one?  Don't you think the innocent members of group A are going to start getting very pissed off?

THAT is why stopping people on the basis of the colour of their skin is a really bad idea.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Wrong time wrong place? Fitting the description of suspects believed to operate in the area? People who they actually know commit crime?


 
Oh dear.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> By talking about social inequalities that disproportionately affect ethnic minorities?!?!?



...however you are not doing that effectively, you are brushing over important 'social inequalities' that affect us all.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> I don't think anyone's SAID that.
> 
> YOU otoh HAVE said that Poor people are more likely to be criminals & ------some racist shit I can't be bothered with.


I think I get your anger now. I have not said poor people are more likely to be criminals, I said criminals are more likely to be poor - HUGE difference, yes?

As for me being racist, well I expect those accusations from people here, but if you actually look at what I have written all I have said is that ethnic minorities face more social inequalities compared to white people. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but that view is certainly not racist is it?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> all I have said is that ethnic minorities face more social inequalities compared to white people. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but that view is certainly not racist is it?



But you haven't done that clearly at all.

You have also neglected to see that one of the _social inequalities_ that minorities face is _racism_ and that manifests in them being disporportionately stopped and searched, given harsher sentences, etc...You don't want to believe that, you seem to want the main reason to be because they are more likely to be _criminal_.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> criminals are more likely to be poor


What type of crime?


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> I think I get your anger now. I have not said poor people are more likely to be criminals, I said criminals are more likely to be poor - HUGE difference, yes?
> 
> As for me being racist, well I expect those accusations from people here, but if you actually look at what I have written all I have said is that ethnic minorities face more social inequalities compared to white people. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but that view is certainly not racist is it?



"Most people who commit crime are poor"

That's what you actually said. I disagree.

I think you're falling into a functionalist view of the world which is totally innaccurate, divisive & lazy/


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

.


----------



## dirtyfruit (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> In that case, perhaps you'd like to expand on your post where you said police stopped people they thought might be criminals. How does one separate the potential criminals from the crowd in a typical street?



We're ALL "potential criminals"


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

dirtyfruit said:


> We're ALL "potential criminals"



Whaddya mean ---- potential ?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 11, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> No, there's something else you need to know. The years 2008-2011 were an utter catastrophe for working class youth in the UK. Unemployment in the 16-25 age range skyrocketed, EMA was scrapped, uni tuition fees were trebled by many/most uni's, available FE places were cut (hence NEETS) and capital project spending in schools came virtually to a standstill. factor in police harassment of inner-city youth (especially black youth), and....you can guess the rest



But what is the relationship between anger with the Conservative Party, and burning down some local shop with flats above it?

The premise seems to be that because youth is angry because the future seems bleak, it is understandable that that anger would get taken out against fellow citizens.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Missed these bits, because of the way your tags were arranged:
> 
> I disagree, I think my analysis does deal with that. Yes, people. People whose interests intersect in a venn diagram of virtually opaque complexity. But not _everyone_ voted for Thatcher. I've just had that argument in another thread. There, the poster was blaming "the English". Here you appear to be blaming everyone.


 
No, everyone *except* kizmet.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Key points from Cameron's speech today:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Nobody-likes-a-Tory/144144931304



Great, consulting Bill Bratton, probably so he can tell the police how best to shove broomhandles up the arses of black suspects.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 11, 2011)

Something else that is lost in the blanket condmenation of 'rioters' is that differnt people were doing differnt stuff.
It seemed to me that the aggro in Tottenham and Hackney (from what I can work out) was mostly about young people angry at the police and siezing an opportunity to give them some stick.
Then you had people using the situation to loot shops - some of them might have been fighting the police as well, but a lot of them wont have been. Some of the footage shows people of varying ages and different ethnic backgrounds who've clearly turned up merely to help themselves to free shit from looted shops - i.e middle aged white blokes possibly with a van parked around the corner are a very differnt kettle of fish than hooded yoot. Here social media will have played a big part - people texting each other 'get down to croydon - shops all bust open, no cops anywhere'.
Then you had gangs  using the opportunity not just to loot, but also to attack people, burn down residential buildings and carry out muggings. Or murder people who were trying to protect their shops (possibly a racial element in that incident as well just to add to the overall joy)
Now some peope will be in all of these different groups. Some will just people who bowled along to check it out and decided to help themselves to some free trainers. Others will have been been more focused on sticking it the cops.
So all these differnt people will have been doing different stuff for differnt reasons.
The core group is still alienated urban youth, but the whole thing is messy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Do you know the first and last numbers on your mobile...



That's easy. 1 and 9.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Sure if they're looking for a black suspect.



Stop and search isn''t about looking for a suspect, it's about a copper deciding that he has reasonable cause to stop and search a member of the public. The reasonable cause can be that you're in the area where a crime was committed or in an area adjacent.

Prejudices will always inform decisions likely this precisely because the operational parameters are so loose. If a police officer had to *properly* account for the reasons for each stop and search (rather than giving the person searched a chit with a generic excuse scrawled semi-legibly on it) we might see less hassling, and more effective policing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Are you suggesting that for those working for an 'organisation', being racist, is somehow inherently human?



Everyone is a racist. Everyone suffers from the human trait that makes them suspicious, wary of and aggressive toward strangers. For most of the existence of humans, it's a trait that's served us well, but in a civilised society it has many drawback.
The issue is how, as an individual and as a society, we manage that trait, how far we're able to submerge the primal urge and over-write it with our acquired knowledge of individual human relations.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Everyone is a racist. Everyone suffers from the human trait that makes them suspicious, wary of and aggressive toward strangers. For most of the existence of humans, it's a trait that's served us well, but in a civilised society it has many drawback.
> The issue is how, as an individual and as a society, we manage that trait, how far we're able to submerge the primal urge and over-write it with our acquired knowledge of individual human relations.



Do the members of the Bullingdon club classify as a race? Because they're all more of a stranger to me than any black or asian person.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 11, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Do the members of the Bullingdon club classify as a race? Because they're stranger to me than any black or asian person.



I'm not normally in favour of eugenics, but it might be better if they weren't allowed to breed certainly ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Everyone is a racist. Everyone suffers from the human trait that makes them suspicious, wary of and aggressive toward strangers. For most of the existence of humans, it's a trait that's served us well, but in a civilised society it has many drawback.
> The issue is how, as an individual and as a society, we manage that trait, how far we're able to submerge the primal urge and over-write it with our acquired knowledge of individual human relations.


I don't accept that at all. One of the defining features of humans is our tendency to act altruistically towards strangers. And a characteristic of young children can often be their trusting and welcoming attitude towards strangers - that is until it is taught out of them.

And that's the point - humans are immensely plastic beings, which is the key to their success. We can be brought up to be trusting of strangers or to be wary or them. We can be brought up to be racist, but we can also be brought up not to be racist at all. The baby in its cot is not racist. It has to learn to be racist.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Everyone is a racist. Everyone suffers from the human trait that makes them suspicious, wary of and aggressive toward strangers. For most of the existence of humans, it's a trait that's served us well, but in a civilised society it has many drawback.



I do not agree what you describe is racism.

As a 'Mixed Race' person I know for a fact you are wrong.

Please stop characterising an initial fear/ignorance or suspicion of difference as racism. This manifests because of a mostly unconcious insecurity/fear/instinctual desire to be safe on the part of the person feeling it.

Racism is an _ideology_ that has been theologically justified, internalised, reinforced and is acted upon. As is tribalism.

Also your use of the term 'civilised society' above is baffling.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Racism is an _ideology_ that has been theologically justified, internalised, reinforced and is acted upon.


Yep. And there is good evidence of a lot of this. For instance, the way that negative racial stereotypes towards black people can be internalised by both white and black people in a society that is racist towards black people. Not what vp's position would predict.

I've seen other evidence presented to support the idea that we're 'hard-wired' to prefer those that look like us (in a very narrowly defined way, usually: ie look like us in the categories of racial characteristics), but I am not convinced by any of it. We grow up with a preference for people who look like us if we grow up with people who look like us around us! Our parents look like us a bit, and we see them a lot in our early years, so we form a preference for them. What I've yet to see is any study that looks at adopted children and shows that they grow up displaying a preference for people who look like them rather than for people who look like their adoptive families. To my knowledge such a study has not been done, but I would wager that if it were done, lo and behold, the children would grow up with a preference for people who look like their adoptive family.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

Yeah, according to Cordelia Fine in Delusions of Gender, babies show a preference for people who _look like their primary carers_.  Their primary carers are usually similar to the baby itself, of course, but if they weren't then the preference would be shifted accordingly.

And that doesn't even begin to address all the messages that bombard us that we absorb subconsciously every day of our lives, from as soon as we learn what words mean (and, indeed, before that, via images).


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

Mind you, she also questions what people even mean by "hard-wired".  It would seem that even that concept is an incredibly difficult one.  It's a term from computing that doesn't really have any well-defined meaning at all in neuroscience.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Mind you, she also questions what people even mean by "hard-wired". It would seem that even that concept is an incredibly difficult one. It's a term from computing that doesn't really have any well-defined meaning at all in neuroscience.



For me, 'hard wiring' also refers to capacity to be 'wired' a certain way. Nature + nurture = ?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, according to Cordelia Fine in Delusions of Gender, babies show a preference for people who _look like their primary carers_. Their primary carers are usually similar to the baby itself, of course, but if they weren't then the preference would be shifted accordingly..


And that is what you would expect. The idea that it would be adaptive to be any different is rather odd, really, given that we are born so entirely undeveloped - given the chances that we might be brought up by someone other than our parents, it's a 'good trick' to be able to adapt to prefer our new family. It would be most strange if we were instead hard-wired to be rigid in our preferences. Humans just aren't that kind of animal - that's the beauty of the human brain.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

Us laypeople still have a tendency to think of the brain in the way it was understood in the 1980s.  That is, that we form "circuits" via the fusing of neurones and these are then imprinted by repeated use.  But my very limited understanding is that neuroscience has moved on a _lot_ since then.  A lot of the language we use (such as "hard wiring") just makes no sense now.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Mind you, she also questions what people even mean by "hard-wired". It would seem that even that concept is an incredibly difficult one. It's a term from computing that doesn't really have any well-defined meaning at all in neuroscience.


We're 'hard-wired' with some things - liking nipples!  - but very few specifics beyond those that get us to the source of milk and protection. The rest of it is being born with potential, and also with drives to search things out: to search for patterns, basically, whether they are patterns in language or moral behaviour. We are born with the mechanisms in place to acquire certain kinds of things, and I'd say that a very strong common characteristic to all of this is pattern-seeking. We're complusive pattern-seekers - I think you can probably say that that is 'hard-wired'.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Yeah, according to Cordelia Fine in Delusions of Gender, babies show a preference for people who _look like their primary carers_. Their primary carers are usually similar to the baby itself, of course, but if they weren't then the preference would be shifted accordingly. ....



I think I may have read that, I read that it suggested a lot of boys grew up to marry women who resembled their mothers, their mothers being their main carers from an early age.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I think I may have read that, I read that it suggested a lot of boys grew up to marry women who resembled their mothers, their mothers being their main carers from an early age.


I don't think you have read it.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I think I may have read that, I read that it suggested a lot of boys grew up to marry women who resembled their mothers, their mothers being their main carers from an early age.


 
Only in as much as they tend to marry women though !


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I don't think you have read it.



It may have been a TV program.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> Only in as much as they tend to marry women though !



 No there was definately something, some study that claimed many young men tend to plump for women that resemble their carer.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Us laypeople still have a tendency to think of the brain in the way it was understood in the 1980s. That is, that we form "circuits" via the fusing of neurones and these are then imprinted by repeated use. But my very limited understanding is that neuroscience has moved on a _lot_ since then. A lot of the language we use (such as "hard wiring") just makes no sense now.


Well, I'm not really using it literally. It's a short-hand for saying that we're born with the particular ability in place. Insects are almost entirely hard-wired using that meaning - they emerge into imagohood already knowing everything they need to know. There's lots of stuff that is hard-wired in humans, of course, such as breathing, temperature regulation, etc.

That said, I'm prepared to admit i might be mistaken. I've seen neuroscientists use the term in the way I'm using it, tbf.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

weltweit said:


> It may have been a TV program.


_Delusions of Gender_ is a recent book written by a neuroscientist who was fed up with all the pop-psychology bullshit written by people who don't have a clue what they're actually talking about, but try to use the trappings of neuroscience nonetheless, in the same way that homeopaths will use the language of proper chemistry.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

weltweit said:


> No there was definately something, some study that claimed many young men tend to plump for women that resemble their carer.


 
Yes , sorry , just couldn't resist ! 

I have seen studies that claimed that too , but they were pretty flawed ----- 'ang on & I'll try & look it up if you're interested ---- will PM ?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> I have seen studies that claimed that too , but they were pretty flawed ----- 'ang on & I'll try & look it up if you're interested ---- will PM ?



Don't worry, but thanks for thinking of it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> _Delusions of Gender_ is a recent book written by a neuroscientist who was fed up with all the pop-psychology bullshit written by people who don't have a clue what they're actually talking about, but try to use the trappings of neuroscience nonetheless, in the same way that homeopaths will use the language of proper chemistry.


Sounds like a book I should read. 

You certainly go on about it enough.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> _Delusions of Gender_ is a recent book written by a neuroscientist who was fed up with all the pop-psychology bullshit written by people who don't have a clue what they're actually talking about, but try to use the trappings of neuroscience nonetheless, in the same way that homeopaths will use the language of proper chemistry.



Oh ok, yes I have not read that yet.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sounds like a book I should read.
> 
> You certainly go on about it enough.


I know, it is my current monomania, I will admit.

Best book I've ever read though, I reckon.


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One of the defining features of humans is our tendency to act altruistically towards strangers.


I would say it is exactly the opposite.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> I would say it is exactly the opposite.


Where it costs us little, we tend to help strangers rather than walk on by, even if that just means helping someone carry their buggy up some stairs. People in all cultures do this.

When was the last time you asked someone for directions in the street and they refused to help? I can't recall ever being refused. If people do refuse, they're not acting like a typical human - and it will almost certainly be out of some other impulse overriding the tendency to help: you scare them in some way, for instance.

Richard Dawkins has suggested that this tendency is 'hard-wired' (sorry kabbes!). I'm not so sure it is, but whether it is or not, it is very typically human to help others if we can't think of a reason not to.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> I would say it is exactly the opposite.


Speak for yourself.

Empathy is a human/natural trait. Nurture is the thing that reduces that sensitivity.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sounds like a book I should read.
> 
> You certainly go on about it enough.


She does write very much like ymu, mind you.  Which is disconcerting.

Where is ymu, anyway?


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Where it costs us little, we tend to help strangers rather than walk on by, even if that just means helping someone carry their buggy up some stairs. People in all cultures do this.
> 
> When was the last time you asked someone for directions in the street and they refused to help? I can't recall ever being refused. If people do refuse, they're not acting like a typical human.


When it costs us little, yes.  And of course I give people directions, it's common courtesy.  But this is from a position of security and in the context of a wealthy and developed society.  Humans did not evolve from such an environment originally.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Speak for yourself.
> 
> *Empathy is a human/natural trait.* Nurture is the thing that reduces that sensitivity.



This is certainly true. Mirror neurons see to that. Are we hard-wired with mirror neurons? Are we hard-wired to empathise? Yes, we almost certainly are.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> When it costs us little, yes. And of course I give people directions, it's common courtesy. But this is from a position of security and in the context of a wealthy and developed society. Humans did not evolve from such an environment originally.


Not really true. In fact, if you go to the poorest parts of the world, you will find that people are far _more_ helpful - ask directions in some of the poorest parts of the world, and you're likely to be asked to stay for dinner.

It's really not true at all that we've evolved from some more savage state. We really haven't. The origins of our modern morality are our past selves. Chimps help each other. Elephants help strangers where they can. We are highly social animals that have evolved from highly social animals!


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Chimps help each other.


Not when they meet another group of rival chimps!


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 11, 2011)

My point is that back in the not-very-distant evolutionary past, when resources were scarce, life marginal and no developed societal framework, strangers outside of immediate family/group/tribe would most likely have been viewed warily.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> When it costs us little, yes. And of course I give people directions, it's common courtesy. But this is from a position of security and in the context of a wealthy and developed society. Humans did not evolve from such an environment originally.



Again I feel like you speak for yourself to some extent or are reflecting the very worst of what we have come to believe is 'nature',


----------



## xenon (Aug 11, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> When it costs us little, yes.  And of course I give people directions, it's common courtesy.  But this is from a position of security and in the context of a wealthy and developed society.  Humans did not evolve from such an environment originally.



And we didn't get to this state of civilisation with out for the most part, coopoerating. The societies that hdid it another way were invaded or died out. 

I have a misanthropic streak, much as anyone who spends too much time on the internet and deals with the public but humanity still isn't this hopelessly violent destructive species many claim.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> Not when they meet another group of rival chimps!


Oh, there can be conflict between groups. And within groups. But if one chimp comes across a chimp from another group that is in trouble, it is likely to help. And as I say, elephants are the same. Dolphins don't just help other dolphins - they'll help a drowning human! Lots of animals recognise when others not related to them need help and proffer that help. And again, it is easy to see how this kind of behaviour is an evolutionary 'good trick' - if you're prepared to help others in trouble, hopefully others will be prepared to help you if you're ever in trouble.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> My point is that back in the not-very-distant evolutionary past, when resources were scarce, life marginal and no developed societal framework, strangers outside of immediate family/group/tribe would most likely have been viewed warily.



I see what you're saying & rutita1 is positing the counter-argument, but neither gets us very far just now.

I suppose I'm pragmatic, but I'm worried about what we do NOW, keep up the research though.


----------



## xenon (Aug 11, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> My point is that back in the not-very-distant evolutionary past, when resources were scarce, life marginal and no developed societal framework, strangers outside of immediate family/group/tribe would most likely have been viewed warily.



Well that's not the same as.
"One of the defining features of humans is our tendency to act altruistically towards strangers.
I would say it is exactly the opposite."

When resources are scarce, of course you look after yourself and those you feel the greatest afinity with first. What living species doesn't.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

I don't want to dwell on this altruism question too much, but 'always help others if it costs you little to help them' is a maxim that is good for you. One way or another, evolution tends to stumble across such good tricks - and mirror neurons appear to be one of the main ways of facilitating this, literally making us feel what we imagine it would be like to be in their shoes. This is not a product of modernity -in fact, if anything, modernity tends to act against it, alienating us from each other.


----------



## lighterthief (Aug 11, 2011)

xenon said:


> When resources are scarce, of course you look after yourself and those you feel the greatest afinity with first. What living species doesn't.


In a very simplistic way, perhaps for some of the rioters resources _are_ 'scarce'? Or they are unable to achieve status through normal, non-violent means - job, responsibility, respect? Or people feel they are not part of a 'cooperative' society and behave outside of normally accepted social boundaries?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> In a very simplistic way, perhaps for some of the rioters resources _are_ 'scarce'? Or they are unable to achieve status through normal, non-violent means - job, responsibility, respect? Or people feel they are not part of a 'cooperative' society and behave outside of normally accepted social boundaries?



Well, partly, if you see others not giving a shit, you're likely to stop giving a shit back. There's another side to altruism, which is the 'help others but don't be a mug' principle. You offer your generosity, but if it isn't reciprocated, you don't offer it a second time. This is very much how we tend to operate as humans. And I see it in operation here - if you feel rejected by society, you're likely to reject society. It's the right response, surely.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Do the members of the Bullingdon club classify as a race? Because they're all more of a stranger to me than any black or asian person.



Your answer is actually in one of the words of your post. They're not a race but a class (hence "classify"), and yes, they are certainly a strange and alien class of human.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't accept that at all. One of the defining features of humans is our tendency to act altruistically towards strangers. And a characteristic of young children can often be their trusting and welcoming attitude towards strangers - that is until it is taught out of them.



Altruism isn't an inherently human trait. It's shared by other species of animal. Other species who, just like the human animal, display fear of the other, of strangers.



> And that's the point - humans are immensely plastic beings, which is the key to their success. We can be brought up to be trusting of strangers or to be wary or them. We can be brought up to be racist, but we can also be brought up not to be racist at all. The baby in its cot is not racist. It has to learn to be racist.



You're getting hung up on the word "racism", while I'm talking about what informs racism and merely using the word as a shorthand for a mode of human behaviour which, while I won't say is innate, I will say has constituted part of what informed our practice of human relations right up until a couple of thousand years ago. That we've transcended (for the most part) those behaviours as our "default setting", they haven't gone away, they're merely being slowly eroded by the changes in our practices of human relations.


----------



## xenon (Aug 11, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> In a very simplistic way, perhaps for some of the rioters resources _are_ 'scarce'? Or they are unable to achieve status through normal, non-violent means - job, responsibility, respect? Or people feel they are not part of a 'cooperative' society and behave outside of normally accepted social boundaries?



I think there's a multitude of reasons although personly, I'm not inclined to put too much weight on deprevation being a cause. In any case, I'm not too interested in the particular reasons of any given riotter for what they've done. More the social climate that makes riotting and looting seem a reasonable thing to do. Well let's be honest, it was more looting than riotting. These weren't like riots as protest for the most part. These weren't against the bankers, politicians or structures of state. Though certainly one can't be blind to the backdrop which personally makes me more generally synical than I otherwise might be. 

So maybe lots of things. Lack of proper jobs. Peple with a lot of unspent energy, lack of boundries, the sort of cognetive dissanence living in contemporary UK engenders.

It will all happen again and we'll all ring our hands.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I do not agree what you describe is racism.
> 
> As a 'Mixed Race' person I know for a fact you are wrong.



On an individual level I'm sure you're right. I'm not talking about you, your pet dog or your great-aunt Dave though, I'm talking about "us" as communities.

All those jokes about the "Frogs" and "Krauts", the "Yanks" and arse  knows who else? Some of that is humour, some of it is suppressed racism, and we know it, just as sure as we know that jkes about "Pakis" and "coons" are racist.

Unless you're one of those people who believe racism can only be a colour issue.



> Please stop characterising an initial fear/ignorance or suspicion of difference as racism. This manifests because of a mostly unconcious insecurity/fear/instinctual desire to be safe on the part of the person feeling it.



Yes, there's a VERY obvious psychological element to it, but it's not actually the be-all and end-all. We're not just manifestations of psychological reactions, we're also machines that think, that learn and can change our minds. Equally, we can also be prone to irrationality and exaggeration.



> Racism is an _ideology_ that has been theologically justified, internalised, reinforced and is acted upon. As is tribalism.



Yes, it is. It's also a belief and a phenomenon that has it's roots deeper than internalised and reinforced theological justifications or psychological reactions.



> Also your use of the term 'civilised society' above is baffling.



You know how you hear about people crossing the road if they see a couple of kids hanging round, regardless of whether the kids are acting menacingly?
*That* is why that trait is a handicap in a civilised society - because your warning light comes on for no good reason and can actually *cause* you trouble rather than helping you avoid it.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

xenon said:


> It will all happen again and we'll all ring our hands.



"Hello hand, how are you?"


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You know how you hear about people crossing the road if they see a couple of kids hanging round, regardless of whether the kids are acting menacingly?.


That is learned behaviour.


----------



## xenon (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Hello hand, how are you?"



It didn't look quite right.  IS it wring?


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 11, 2011)

xenon said:


> It didn't look quite right.  IS it wring?



Yes.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Yep. And there is good evidence of a lot of this. For instance, the way that negative racial stereotypes towards black people can be internalised by both white and black people in a society that is racist towards black people. Not what vp's position would predict.



Go back and read what I wrote.  There's nothing I've said that obviates negative attitudes about people of one skin-colour being internalised by people of the same skin-colour.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Go back and read what I wrote.  There's nothing I've said that obviates negative attitudes about people of one skin-colour being internalised by people of the same skin-colour.



Sorry I must have missed some of the thread, how does racism fit into the riots?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

kabbes said:


> _Delusions of Gender_ is a recent book written by a neuroscientist who was fed up with all the pop-psychology bullshit written by people who don't have a clue what they're actually talking about, but try to use the trappings of neuroscience nonetheless, in the same way that homeopaths will use the language of proper chemistry.



Homeopaths.

Are they the ones with the personality disorder that causes them to destroy people's houses?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> On an individual level I'm sure you're right. I'm not talking about you, your pet dog or your great-aunt Dave though, I'm talking about "us" as communities.
> 
> All those jokes about the "Frogs" and "Krauts", the "Yanks" and arse knows who else? Some of that is humour, some of it is suppressed racism, and we know it, just as sure as we know that jkes about "Pakis" and "coons" are racist.



Learnt behaviour, not nature or inherent. You can't talk about 'us' as communities without accepting that I am not just speaking about my _individual_ experience. How are you defining community btw? How do you know mine is different from yours?



> Unless you're one of those people who believe racism can only be a colour issue.


 Of course not.



> Yes, there's a VERY obvious psychological element to it, but it's not actually the be-all and end-all. We're not just manifestations of psychological reactions, we're also machines that think, that learn and can change our minds. Equally, we can also be prone to irrationality and exaggeration.



Yes we can, of course. I have posited the question nature + nuture =? I am disagreeing with the weight you appear to be giving 'inherent' _adversity_ to difference.



> Yes, it is. It's also a belief and a phenomenon that has it's roots deeper than internalised and reinforced theological justifications or psychological reactions.



Yes there is a nature argument to self preservation, fear, insecurity, I have said that. I am talking about a disporportionate promotion of fear and insecurity against particular 'differences.' That is nurture.



> You know how you hear about people crossing the road if they see a couple of kids hanging round, regardless of whether the kids are acting menacingly?
> 
> *That* is why that trait is a handicap in a civilised society - because your warning light comes on for no good reason and can actually *cause* you trouble rather than helping you avoid it.



Civilised society, again you use that term, it's unnecesary in my opinion.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not really true. In fact, if you go to the poorest parts of the world, you will find that people are far _more_ helpful - ask directions in some of the poorest parts of the world, and you're likely to be asked to stay for dinner.
> 
> It's really not true at all that we've evolved from some more savage state. We really haven't. The origins of our modern morality are our past selves. Chimps help each other. Elephants help strangers where they can. We are highly social animals that have evolved from highly social animals!



Chimps also kill each other, and attack other chimp communities. _Plus ça change..._


----------



## TruXta (Aug 11, 2011)

Actuall, Rutita, regarding Us vs. Them, I don't think that is learned. More precisely, I think the tendency to _on average_ prefer in-groups to out-groups is way too pervasive to be purely learned behaviour. Who is seen as "in" and "out" is of course purely contextual and coincidental, apart from two groups:
men tend to dominate/marginalise women, and the old tend to lord it over the young. Other than that I think most forms of ostracism, discrimination and marginalisation is, on a very long scale, pretty much arbitrary. Yes, even racism.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Chimps also kill each other, and attack other chimp communities. _Plus ça change..._



Yeah, no fucking way are other primates noble savages. The closest is maybe bonobos, but even they go bad.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Learnt behaviour, not nature or inherent.



So why is it pretty much universal, why does it come so easily?



> Of course not.
> 
> Yes we can, of course. I have posited the question nature + nuture =? I am disagreeing with the weight you appear to be giving 'inherent' _adversity_ to difference.



Because it's so prevalent, and not just in human society, but elsewhere in the animal kingdom.



> Yes there is a nature argument to self preservation, fear, insecurity, I have said that. I am talking about a disporportionate promotion of fear and insecurity against particular 'differences.' That is nurture.



And so is it's opposite. A person has to be nurtured in a particular way to transcend those fears and insecurities.



> Civilised society, again you use that term, it's unnecesary in my opinion.



Civilisation and society are two very different things. One requires rigid hierarchical structures and laws in order to function, the other can rub along on an _ad hoc_ basis. I use "civilised society" to represent the social where it functions within the structures imposed by civilisation. Late-modern urbanised cultures, for example.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Yeah, no fucking way are other primates noble savages. The closest is maybe bonobos, but even they go bad.



They're the worst. One of them traumatised my little bro at the zoo when we were younger, wanking at him, and then flinging a turd! 

Laugh? I nearly wet myself!!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Yeah, no fucking way are other primates noble savages. The closest is maybe bonobos, but even they go bad.


tbf I never said they were. They do display altruistic behaviour towards others not from their group, however.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

lighterthief said:


> I would say it is exactly the opposite.



For me, one of the defining features of humans is a near-universal loathing of James Blunt.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> For me, one of the defining features of humans is a near-universal loathing of James Blunt.



And yet we find ourselves humming along to some of his best songs... nature is so cruel


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> So why is it pretty much universal, why does it come so easily?


 I have already answered that earlier.



> And so is it's opposite. A person has to be nurtured in a particular way to transcend those fears and insecurities.


 How is this different to what I have said already?



> ]
> Civilisation and society are two very different things. One requires rigid hierarchical structures and laws in order to function, the other can rub along on an _ad hoc_ basis. I use "civilised society" to represent the social where it functions within the structures imposed by civilisation. *Late-modern urbanised cultures,* for example.


 That's clearly where we disagree then.

I feel like I asked you an important question that you have not answered:



> You can't talk about 'us' as communities without accepting that I am not just speaking about my _individual_ experience. How are you defining community btw? How do you know mine is different from yours?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> They're the worst. One of them traumatised my little bro at the zoo when we were younger, wanking at him, and then flinging a turd!
> 
> Laugh? I nearly wet myself!!



That's just having a GSOH.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Actuall, Rutita, regarding Us vs. Them, I don't think that is learned. More precisely, I think the tendency to _on average_ prefer in-groups to out-groups is way too pervasive to be purely learned behaviour.



Have you read my earlier posts? I have posted my opinions about this.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> tbf I never said they were. They do display altruistic behaviour towards others not from their group, however.



Sorry, lbj, I haven't read the last few pages, so nothing personal. Apes are much like us, just as capable of heartbreaking compassion as they are of utter cruelty.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Have you read my earlier posts? I have posted my opinions about this.



Sorry, no


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Sorry, lbj, I haven't read the last few pages, so nothing personal. Apes are much like us, just as capable of heartbreaking compassion as they are of utter cruelty.


Indeed. I've not said different.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> "Most people who commit crime are poor"
> 
> That's what you actually said. I disagree.
> 
> I think you're falling into a functionalist view of the world which is totally innaccurate, divisive & lazy/





kabbes said:


> What type of crime?


Sorry, I'm not being specific. I'm talking about crime that provides an income. So not violent crimes etc

Maidmarion, does that answer any of your concerns at all? Or do you still think that people who commit crime that makes them money don't come from poor backgrounds?


----------



## gabi (Aug 11, 2011)

in answer to the op, no.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 11, 2011)

gabi said:


> in answer to the op, no.


Really? This is an uncaused event? Call the philosophers!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I feel like I asked you an important question that you have not answered:



You mean the bit you added to your post while I was answering/after I had already answered it? 

I'll break your question down, if you don't mind.



> You can't talk about 'us' as communities without accepting that I am not just speaking about my _individual_ experience.


Can't I? Not even if you've couched your comments so that they present as from an individual, i.e. "as a person of 'mixed race' "?
Can you see how I just might think you're saying one thing when you actually mean another?



> How are you defining community btw?



Community - group of people with something(s) in common such as locale, age, ethnicity, religion, shared hobby etc in any combination you care to imagine.



> How do you know mine is different from yours?



That's easy.

Yours is north of the Thames, mine is south, therefore you are a "bad stranger" from an alien community.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 11, 2011)

TruXta said:


> That's just having a GSOH.



Me or the bonobo?


----------



## gabi (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Really? This is an uncaused event? Call the philosophers!



i blame myself personally. im the reason these kids nicked flowers from a florist and smashed up an 89yo barber's shop. me!


----------



## TruXta (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Me or the bonobo?



The bonobo. You were the cruel one, laughin at your brother like that.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 11, 2011)

gabi said:


> i blame myself personally. im the reason these kids nicked flowers from a florist and smashed up an 89yo barber's shop. me!



Finally someone that owes up to their guilt!


----------



## DexterTCN (Aug 11, 2011)

Russell Brand has a very interesting opinion piece in the grauniad.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/11/london-riots-davidcameron

He mentions thatcher, the bankers, politicians and a lot more.   I like it.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> But you haven't done that clearly at all.


Maybe in your haste (enjoyment?) to accuse people of racism you haven't thought enough about what I've actually said?



> You have also neglected to see that one of the _social inequalities_ that minorities face is _racism_ and that manifests in them being disporportionately stopped and searched, given harsher sentences, etc


While I agree to an extent with that, neither of us have any proof, one way or another, that our position is correct. There are seven times more black people in prison than their population would suggest - that is either because they are committing more crime or because the system is inherently racist (or it is a combination). But neither hypothesis can be proved so where does that leave us?



> ...You don't want to believe that, you seem to want the main reason to be because they are more likely to be _criminal_.


My position all along has been concerned with economic background. If you were capable of understanding what I have said then you would realise that I am saying race has no bearing on whether somebody will commit crime, what I've said is that a person's economic background is the main reason people commit crime (altho as above, this is crime that provides an income)


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You mean the bit you added to your post while I was answering/after I had already answered it?


 Did I? Must have been the dual posting scenario, not done purposefully. 



> I'll break your question down, if you don't mind.
> 
> Can't I? Not even if you've couched your comments so that they present as from an individual, i.e. "as a person of 'mixed race' "?
> Can you see how I just might think you're saying one thing when you actually mean another?



I used my ethnicity to demonstrate because you seemed to be making assumptions about racism being _inherent in humans_, that my experience of being Mixed completely undermines.



> Community - group of people with something(s) in common such as locale, age, ethnicity, religion, shared hobby etc in any combination you care to imagine.
> 
> That's easy.
> 
> Yours is north of the Thames, mine is south, therefore you are a "bad stranger" from an alien community.



So no obvious difference at all then.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That description being what?


I am in no position to be able to answer that, am I?


----------



## gabi (Aug 11, 2011)

I've heard this twice tonight...

'I can't condone it, but...'

its up there with...

'Some of my best mates are black, but...'

Idiots.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 11, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Maybe in your haste (enjoyment?) to accuse people of racism you haven't thought enough about what I've actually said?


 Erm, until you scroll back, realise that I did not call you racist and come back and apologise I will no longer engage with you. I have challenged the points you made earlier in the thread and suggested you needed to do some more research. I did not call you a racist. You have demonstrated though, a lack of awareness and knowledge about racism.


----------



## grit (Aug 11, 2011)

gabi said:


> I've heard this twice tonight...
> 
> 'I can't condone it, but...'



You dont need to condone something to understand it.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 11, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Erm, until you scroll back, realise that I did not call you racist and come back and apologise I will no longer engage with you. I have challenged the points you made earlier in the thread and suggested you needed to do some more research. I did not call you a racist. You have demonstrated though, a lack of awareness and knowledge about racism.


Do you think what I've said is racist? Because that's how it has come across. If you don't then fair enough I will apologise...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 12, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Do you think what I've said is racist? Because that's how it has come across. If you don't then fair enough I will apologise...



I think you have demonstrated a lack of awareness and have tried to demonstrate how.

I did not call you a racist and do not want you to post that I did. I ask that you scroll back so that you can be sure yourself.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 12, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I think you have demonstrated a lack of awareness and have tried to demonstrate how.


Not sure I follow what you're saying here?



> I did not call you a racist and do not want you to post that I did. I ask that you scroll back so that you can be sure yourself.


No you did not directly, but your comments came across as implying I was being racist...again, if that was not the case I will apologise


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 12, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Not sure I follow what you're saying here?



IMO on this thread, you have demonstrated , a lack of awareness and knowledge about racism and it's effects. It's not a crime, nor is me sharing with you why/how I think you are doing this.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 12, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> IMO on this thread, you have demonstrated , a lack of awareness and knowledge about racism and it's effects.


Now that's not fair, I've said a number of times that racism will have an affect on police actions towards ethnic minorities, the difference between me and you is that I also think that police actions are not necessarily directed towards certain ethnicities but towards certain economic backgrounds. Now you might not agree with that and stand by your belief that disproportionate police action towards ethnic minorities is purely down to racism, but the truth is neither of us can prove either of the two arguments.



> It's not a crime, nor is me sharing with you why/how I think you are doing this.


You see, when you use phrases like "why you are doing this" - that comes across as accusations of racism...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 12, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> You see, when you use phrases like "why you are doing this" - that comes across as accusations of racism...


 Not if you take into account the context of the converstion we were having earlier today and the suggestions that you do some research about certain things that myself and others were saying to you. I didn't use the word 'why' above as in you have a motive, I meant because you are making assumptions without taking into account x, y or z factor/evidence.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 12, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Not if you take into account the context of the converstion we were having earlier today and the suggestions that you do some research about certain things that myself and others were saying to you. I didn't use the word 'why' above as in you have a motive, I meant because you are making assumptions without taking into account x, y or z factor/evidence.


If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, put the links up yourself. Don't tell me to "do some research" because you think I'm wrong, I could tell you to do some research because I think you're wrong, but that would make me look like a smug little bastard.

Now I suspect that any evidence you will post will simply highlight that ethnic minorities get stopped more, but that doesn't prove anything.

If you have any evidence that ethnic minorities do not face any more economic hardship proportionally when compared to white people then I'd accept that as some evidence...ah sod it, here's some stats for you:

http://www.poverty.org.uk/06/index.shtml

What do you think would be the implication for crime?


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 12, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Sorry, I'm not being specific. I'm talking about crime that provides an income. So not violent crimes etc
> 
> Maidmarion, does that answer any of your concerns at all? Or do you still think that people who commit crime that makes them money don't come from poor backgrounds?



No , I'm afraid not. Crimes that "makes them money" isn't a poor person's preserve. Expenses fiddles, corporate crime etc etc ---- see what I'm getting at ?


----------



## 5t3IIa (Aug 12, 2011)

Smug little bastard *like*


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 12, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> If you have evidence to suggest otherwise, put the links up yourself. Don't tell me to "do some research" because you think I'm wrong, I could tell you to do some research because I think you're wrong, but that would make me look like a smug little bastard.



Heh Good morning...Sleep well?

You have been pointed in the direction of evidence time and time again by myself and others on this thread. I don't just think you are wrong, I know you are wrong. You have repeated implied that ethnic minorities are disproportionately more likely to be criminals and that this is why they are subject to more police harrassment. Although you have acknowledged the existence of institutionalised racism you are neglecting to accept how that may be skewing your own arguments here. There is nothing smug or bastardly about pointing that out to you.


----------



## Winot (Aug 12, 2011)

Listening to all the debates, I am reminded of this:

http://bit.ly/nLxaxu


----------



## xes (Aug 12, 2011)

Slightly on topic, something to make you laugh.

Iran ready to send peace keepers to the UK.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/193467.html

I shit you not


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 12, 2011)

Anyone see BBC Breakfast reporting from LA?  They're supposed to be doing a "compare and contrast" thing on the 92 riots.  But it's the usual thing - absolutely vacuous.

However, in the report after 7am, the reporter said that the LA riots were caused by race. Those were his words, not rac_ism_ - race.  Now, either he's saying nothing at all, or something very stupid and dangerous in current conditions.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 12, 2011)

Yep danny , we noticed that too.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 12, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Sorry, I'm not being specific. I'm talking about crime that provides an income. So not violent crimes etc


Your opinion is that most crimes that provide an income are perpetrated by the poor?

Interesting.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 12, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> No , I'm afraid not. Crimes that "makes them money" isn't a poor person's preserve. Expenses fiddles, corporate crime etc etc ---- see what I'm getting at ?


 
@ CyberRose btw.,


----------



## kabbes (Aug 12, 2011)

I'm not sure that most insider trading is perpetrated by the poor.  But maybe CyberRose has some statistics that prove otherwise.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, everyone *except* kizmet.



That's beneath you, vp. Everyone includes me. And you know it.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 12, 2011)

I thought the Today programme made a decent stab at having a reasoned debate about the causes of the riots this morning, and Ed Miliband was actually quite good for once.  Many made the point that we are all responsible for sorting this mess out.  Particularly good was a former gang member who is now a youth worker.  He said that the murders of 20+ young men in south London are barely mentioned by the media, which sends out a message that those lives are worthless.  In relation to parents not being responsible, he said that many of the gang members have mothers who were only children themselves when they got pregnant.  How can you expect them to be good parents?  My neighbour made much the same point to me yesterday.


----------



## Winot (Aug 12, 2011)

Yes apart from the idiot blaming it all on the BBC.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 12, 2011)

Ms T said:


> I thought the Today programme made a decent stab at having a reasoned debate about the causes of the riots this morning, and Ed Miliband was actually quite good for once. Many made the point that we are all responsible for sorting this mess out. Particularly good was a former gang member who is now a youth worker. He said that the murders of 20+ young men in south London are barely mentioned by the media, which sends out a message that those lives are worthless. In relation to parents not being responsible, *he said that many of the gang members have mothers who were only children themselves when they got pregnant. How can you expect them to be good parents? My neighbour made much the same point to me yesterday.*


No sorry that last bit is just lazy. It has been the norm for teenagers to get pregnant and married at a very young age for quite a long time. There's some major denial going on here, that only recently have teen girls got pregnant. The difference is not being married, but I'm still not convinced that is all the reason for problems in the world.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Ah, yes, that's a very good point.  "Let's put this all behind us, and look the other way" does seem to be the message.



That's so blatantly untrue I'm actually a bit hurt.

Only a completely selfish arsehole could interpret my posts as blaming no-one. In fact I'm saying that we all have a responsibility to accept our share of how this society has ended up.

That nobody is blameless and that no matter what you think you do to fight the problems in society the real fight takes place everyday in your everyday interactions with people.

As kabbes pointed out... the nurture of selfishness comes from, primarily, the family and the community.

That's our link in the chain. That's where we can each have the most impact. And yet still the selfishness grows. I see a lot of people moaning and whinging about the government doing this and neo-liberal agendas and all manner of other excuses while at the same time acting just as selfishly and with the same intolerance of difference as the people they are slagging off.

It's of absolutely no use to anyone to have an understanding of what brought us here if that doesn't lead to a change in behaviour, is it? And it won't while it always someone else's fault. So let's face it... it's not.

It's your fault, my fault, our fault. And fuck you if you don't like it.

past caring thinks he's being clever blaming capitalism or the government or whoever for the ills of his society... but not clever enough to see his own behaviour is just as bad. That he is just as intolerant of different ideas. The more I see folk blaming others... the more I suspect that they do this to avoid responsibility themselves.

But how do you say we're all a bunch of cunts... and we either accept that and accept that we deserve the society we live in. Or we change it one step, one person at a time.

There is a third way.... heh... and that's that we accept that we're a bunch of cunts and have the society we deserve... but try and do a little something in return for our selfishness. Not in airy fairy let's change the world bollocks... but in a real, physical let's get involved with our local community way.

Wanna show that capitalism is wrong? Then prove that there is something more valuable than money... and that's time. Prove it by giving some of it to each other.

I'm not preaching... I've been a right selfish cunt in my time. And done well out of it. But I'm older now. Time to give something back.

Wanna question my credentials? Ok. For reasons best known to myself I have a copy of my very first thread on Urban... maybe 2001 maybe 02. I can cut and paste posts where I said similar things.... that it was important to focus on what a person can do in their family, friends and local community.

I knew it back then... but I didn't fully understand it. Nor was I doing anything about it. But ten years later I've made and lost money, made and lost friends... gained and lost family.

Gone from high paid job, fit girlfriend, fast car and nice house to penniless, living in a squat, playing the guitar and trying to build a community that really helps others.

I'm nothing special... it's just that there is a real opportunity to make changes here... in a real way. All it will take is good ideas and as rutita said earlier... that we get off our arses and do something about getting involved with projects that can actually make a difference on our own streets.

Here endeth the sermon... flame away.

But if you're London based and have skills that are arts or performance orientated and wanna see if you can get involved ... feel free to pm.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

Actually this is probably a crap place for this post...


----------



## kabbes (Aug 12, 2011)

Since we moved last year, I decided that I would make a determined effort to give my time within my community as much as possible.  And I have and, I have to say, it's made me a much happier person.

The next step would be to move away from just doing things to make my village a nicer place and instead giving time where it is _really_ needed.  I'm trying to work out how I can commit to something, however, because saying you will do stuff and then backing out is worse than never saying you'll do it in the first place.

But that's all rather beside the point of the destruction of the social contract that has precipitated these latest riots.  The problems faced by the poor and disenfranchised aren't going to be fixed by organising a tombola in a local fete.  There is something systematic at fault here -- something that transcends local community values and goes right to the heart of the way their opportunities are being removed right in front of their eyes by people saying to them, "do as we say, not as we do."


----------



## grit (Aug 12, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> No sorry that last bit is just lazy. It has been the norm for teenagers to get pregnant and married at a very young age for quite a long time. There's some major denial going on here, that only recently have teen girls got pregnant. The difference is not being married, but I'm still not convinced that is all the reason for problems in the world.



Lack of a family support network around a single mother can possibly lead to problems.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 12, 2011)

grit said:


> Lack of a family support network around a single mother can possibly lead to problems.


Tell me about it. But also, it's very easy to assume that just because you are with somebody that you must be getting all the support you need. Not the case at all, sometimes.


----------



## grit (Aug 12, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Tell me about it. But also, it's very easy to assume that just because you are with somebody that you must be getting all the support you need. Not the case at all, sometimes.



Absolutely, from anecdotal evidence there does seem to be a disproportionate amount of people likely to get into trouble who had a parent (usually the father) missing from their lives.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2011)

Not read this yet, just passing it on: Jacopo Ponticelli and Hans-Joachim Voth, "Austerity and Anarchy: Budget Cuts and Social Unrest in Europe, 1919-2009" - Centre for Economic Policy Research discussion paper (pdf)



> The data shows a clear link between the magnitude of expenditure cutbacks and increases in social unrest...The strength of the link between austerity measures and unrest is our first important finding...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

All this talk about breakdown of the family, gang culture, etc, is all very well, but no government can do anything about that kind of thing directly. And they are all symptoms of one thing - inequality. That's something a government can do something about, by taking money from the rich and spending it on the poor. Do that, and sure enough you'll find families breaking down less, gang culture weakened, and kids not choosing to riot.

Looking at the causes of the riots shows a complex picture, but the key to stopping them from happening again is really quite simple.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 12, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> No sorry that last bit is just lazy. It has been the norm for teenagers to get pregnant and married at a very young age for quite a long time. There's some major denial going on here, that only recently have teen girls got pregnant. The difference is not being married, but I'm still not convinced that is all the reason for problems in the world.



Well that was coming from someone with first-hand experience of gang culture, both as a member and as a youth worker.  He told a shocking story of a 13-year-old boy who punched his mother in the face because she told him he had to go to school.  He knew that if she laid a finger on him he could go to social services.  It's a bit fucked up really (not that I'm advocating that anyone should batter their kids!).


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Since we moved last year, I decided that I would make a determined effort to give my time within my community as much as possible.  And I have and, I have to say, it's made me a much happier person.
> 
> The next step would be to move away from just doing things to make my village a nicer place and instead giving time where it is _really_ needed.  I'm trying to work out how I can commit to something, however, because saying you will do stuff and then backing out is worse than never saying you'll do it in the first place.
> 
> But that's all rather beside the point of the destruction of the social contract that has precipitated these latest riots.  The problems faced by the poor and disenfranchised aren't going to be fixed by organising a tombola in a local fete.  There is something systematic at fault here -- something that transcends local community values and goes right to the heart of the way their opportunities are being removed right in front of their eyes by people saying to them, "do as we say, not as we do."



I think you need to firstly come up with something a bit more original than a tombola at a fete. 

Not that I'm disagreeing with what you're saying about "something rotten in the state of Denmark"... just that I don't see any evidence that just whinging about it endlessly actually makes any difference.

And it's old news. The point we made together was that we now live in a selfish society... so it is obvious that the government could do more to address inequality... but they won't unless they think we will.


----------



## Ms T (Aug 12, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Since we moved last year, I decided that I would make a determined effort to give my time within my community as much as possible. And I have and, I have to say, it's made me a much happier person.
> 
> The next step would be to move away from just doing things to make my village a nicer place and instead giving time where it is _really_ needed. I'm trying to work out how I can commit to something, however, because saying you will do stuff and then backing out is worse than never saying you'll do it in the first place.
> 
> But that's all rather beside the point of the destruction of the social contract that has precipitated these latest riots. The problems faced by the poor and disenfranchised aren't going to be fixed by organising a tombola in a local fete. There is something systematic at fault here -- something that transcends local community values and goes right to the heart of the way their opportunities are being removed right in front of their eyes by people saying to them, "do as we say, not as we do."



Have you thought about mentoring?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 12, 2011)

Ms T said:


> Have you thought about mentoring?


Vaguely.  I haven't looked into where that would happen though, or what it would involve.  Or what the committment involves, which is the important bit -- no point making a kid feel even more unwanted by having their own mentor disappear on them.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> All this talk about breakdown of the family, gang culture, etc, is all very well, but no government can do anything about that kind of thing directly. And they are all symptoms of one thing - inequality. That's something a government can do something about, by taking money from the rich and spending it on the poor. Do that, and sure enough you'll find families breaking down less, gang culture weakened, and kids not choosing to riot.
> 
> Looking at the causes of the riots shows a complex picture, but the key to stopping them from happening again is really quite simple.


I could not agree with you more


----------



## Ms T (Aug 12, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Vaguely. I haven't looked into where that would happen though, or what it would involve. Or what the committment involves, which is the important bit -- no point making a kid feel even more unwanted by having their own mentor disappear on them.



You could also look into helping with literacy skills in primary schools - probably less time-intensive, but very useful.  Some City firms run schemes in inner-city schools afaik.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> All this talk about breakdown of the family, gang culture, etc, is all very well, but no government can do anything about that kind of thing directly.



Exactly.

So who can, directly?


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 12, 2011)

grit said:


> Absolutely, from anecdotal evidence there does seem to be a disproportionate amount of people likely to get into trouble who had a parent (usually the father) missing from their lives.



Not quite true ----- look up juvenille delinquents on Wiki ---- the bit on "Family Background"----- (Tried to c&p it , but bolloxed it up ! )

Also, as lbj says, it's hardly the point.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2011)

David Harvey: Feral capitalism hits the streets



> But the problem is that we live in a society where capitalism itself has become rampantly feral. Feral politicians cheat on their expenses, feral bankers plunder the public purse for all its worth, CEOs, hedge fund operators and private equity geniuses loot the world of wealth, telephone and credit card companies load mysterious charges on everyone’s bills, shopkeepers price gouge, and, at the drop of a hat swindlers and scam artists get to practice three-card monte right up into the highest echelons of the corporate and political world.
> 
> A political economy of mass dispossession, of predatory practices to the point of daylight robbery, particularly of the poor and the vulnerable, the unsophisticated and the legally unprotected, has become the order of the day.
> 
> Does anyone believe it is possible to find an honest capitalist, an honest banker, an honest politician, an honest shopkeeper or an honest police commissioner any more? Yes, they do exist. But only as a minority that everyone else regards as stupid. Get smart. Get easy profits. Defraud and steal! The odds of getting caught are low. And in any case there are plenty of ways to shield personal wealth from the costs of corporate malfeasance.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

And up steps the most intolerant of them all....


----------



## Ms T (Aug 12, 2011)

Winot said:


> Yes apart from the idiot blaming it all on the BBC.



I do think 24-hour news had some part to play in all of this.  But it's here to stay and what are they supposed to do - ignore the riots?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Exactly.
> 
> So who can, directly?


Directly? Individuals can help other individuals of course. But if there is a systemic failure that leads to gross inequality of life choices, that's never going to be enough. There are plenty of individuals in the US who give their time to helping the disadvantaged, probably more than here - but the problems persist, and will continue to persist, for as long as the macro causes of those problems persist.

Directly, all you can really do is firefighting. The key is to stop the fire from being set alight in the first place, because, to stretch the analogy, while you're pouring water on the fire from your side, the social and economic conditions are pouring petrol on it from the other side. That isn't to say that you shouldn't try to fight the fire. Of course you should. But that's not a solution in the long run on the larger scale.

That's why it irritates me so much when, for instance, Ian Duncan Smith talks up the work of various groups that deal with young black boys who've got into trouble. The fucking cheek to laud these achievements, when it is the policies of his government that make the existence of such groups necessary in the first place.


----------



## past caring (Aug 12, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Actually this is probably a crap place for this post...



It remains crap wherever you put it, grasshopper.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

The world is made up of people who fight fires and people who think up solutions to fires.

If the fire is out of control... perhaps there aren't enough firefighters... and too many people thinking of solutions that don't work?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 12, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> The world is made up of people who fight fires and people who think up solutions to fires.
> 
> If the fire is out of control... perhaps there aren't enough firefighters... and too many people thinking of solutions that don't work?


Or it means that you didn't implement proper anti-fire bush clearance measures.  Or that you built your buildings out of inappropriate materials.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

past caring said:


> It remains crap wherever you put it, grasshopper.



My word, you're really insecure, aren't you?

And it shows so plainly.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> The world is made up of people who fight fires and people who think up solutions to fires.


I don't think that second bit is true. The world is unfortunately full of people in power who think up ways of keeping the fires going. You think the Tories want to reduce inequality? Their policies show that thus-far they have been intent on increasing it.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Or it means that you didn't implement proper anti-fire bush clearance measures.  Or that you built your buildings out of inappropriate materials.



Just shut the fuck up and grab a fucking bucket....


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think that second bit is true. The world is unfortunately full of people in power who think up ways of keeping the fires going. You think the Tories want to reduce inequality? Their policies show that thus-far they have been intent on increasing it.



Ok.... and people who start fires.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 12, 2011)

And fan the flames


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> So no obvious difference at all then.



Except for all you northerns having pointy heads and smelling of blue cheese, obviously.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

Cheesist.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> That's beneath you, vp. Everyone includes me. And you know it.


 
I do. My original post was meant to point out that perhaps *you* don't know.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Cheesist.



I love the smell of blue cheese, so I'm actually more of a pointy-headist.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ...
> That's why it irritates me so much when, for instance, Ian Duncan Smith talks up the work of various groups that deal with young black boys who've got into trouble. The fucking cheek to laud these achievements, when it is the policies of his government that make the existence of such groups necessary in the first place.



Interesting post and I agree with a lot of it..

But we have just had some 10 years of Labour government and they didn't tackle inequality either, surely if anyone might have been able to tackle it - it was new labour?

Anyhow, on inequality, you can tax the rich more and instigate minimum wages but depending on how high the minimum wage is there will still be a lot of people at the bottom of the heap.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

Ms T said:


> I do think 24-hour news had some part to play in all of this. But it's here to stay and what are they supposed to do - ignore the riots?


I'm a bit torn on this one. I watched bbc news coverage of the riots, but I am uneasy about the concept of news helicopters. There is a part of me that thinks that there is no place for them at all, if for no other reason than that they are noisy and intrusive on people's lives.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 12, 2011)

Is there a table enywhere showing the rankings of countries based on equality or inequality?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Interesting post and I agree with a lot of it..
> 
> But we have just had some 10 years of Labour government and they didn't tackle inequality either, surely if anyone might have been able to tackle it - it was new labour?
> 
> Anyhow, on inequality, you can tax the rich more and instigate minimum wages but depending on how high the minimum wage is there will still be a lot of people at the bottom of the heap.


New Labour are part of the problem too. That should go without saying, really. All three major political parties advocate policies that increase inequality.

And notice I say inequality here, not absolute poverty. It is the gap between rich and poor that matters. The larger that gap, the sicker the society.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> Is there a table enywhere showing the rankings of countries based on equality or inequality?


yes


----------



## quimcunx (Aug 12, 2011)

Haven't been reading this thread, soz. On the Sunday was it only Brixton which had one? I can't remember. If so I'm wondering if it would have become so contagious if there hadn't been Brixton Splash on. Had it not been on the usual gangs wanting to meet up for a little fight that are sometimes present at such events might not have happened and so there wouldn't have been some hyped up teenagers (and anyone else who took part) already in situ.

Or am I talking nonsense?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

On inequality.... it cannot be eliminated. Only mitigated.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> New Labour are part of the problem too. That should go without saying, really. All three major political parties advocate policies that increase inequality.



So, that suggests that they do not rate it as an issue. I suppose there is relative and absolute poverty. Labour I thought had pledged to reduce relative poverty and then I think they failed against their own measure.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

grit said:


> Absolutely, from anecdotal evidence there does seem to be a disproportionate amount of people likely to get into trouble who had a parent (usually the father) missing from their lives.



Part of the issue there is that unfortunately there's been far more research in the last 30-40 years into how being raised in a non-standard nuclear family deleteriously affects children than on the *sum* effect. While the imbalance won't have the effect of rendering the prior type of research invalid, it does mean there not much to measure it against, and therefore the "coms from a broken home" and "child of a single parent family" theses rule the discourse in most of the west, much to the delight of those of a conservative bent.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 12, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> The world is made up of people who fight fires and people who think up solutions to fires.


no, it isn't. the world is made up out of the haves and have-nots, the exploiters and the exploited, the rulers and the ruled.
It's called CAPITALISM, and we are now seeing the payback and blowback off a 30 year process of a naked, unconstrained variant on that which has destroyed all the things which gave british society shape, cohesion and binding values.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 12, 2011)

I've linked to information about inequality rankings before.  I might try to find it again later.

The US is worst amongst the developed world.  Japan and Scandawegia are best.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> So, that suggests that they do not rate it as an issue. I suppose there is relative and absolute poverty. Labour I thought had pledged to reduce relative poverty and then I think they failed against their own measure.


Nope. One of the major ideological planks of New Labour was the abandoning of the idea that governments should try to reduce relative poverty. That was what Mandleson meant when he said that they were 'intensely relaxed' about the stinking rich.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I'm not preaching...
> 
> Here endeth the sermon...


----------



## doddles (Aug 12, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I've linked to information about inequality rankings before. I might try to find it again later.
> 
> The US is worst amongst the developed world. Japan and Scandawegia are best.



Plenty of data here:
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> no, it isn't. the world is made up out of the haves and have-nots, the exploiters and the exploited, the rulers and the ruled.:



No.. I meant it literally, obviously... the world is made up of firemen, arsonists and fire prevention officers. And N-dubz.



> It's called CAPITALISM, and we are now seeing the payback and blowback off a 30 year process of a naked, unconstrained variant on that which has destroyed all the things which gave british society shape, cohesion and binding values.



What you gonna do about it?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 12, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I've linked to information about inequality rankings before. I might try to find it again later.
> 
> The US is worst amongst the developed world. Japan and Scandawegia are best.



It might have been something like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth

Although I am trying to get my head around exactly what the Gini-index signifies !!


----------



## past caring (Aug 12, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> That's so blatantly untrue I'm actually a bit hurt.
> 
> Only a completely selfish arsehole could interpret my posts as blaming no-one. In fact I'm saying that we all have a responsibility to accept our share of how this society has ended up.
> 
> ...





Kizmet said:


> And up steps the most intolerant of them all....


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


>



I bet you've peeled a lot of spuds in your time, you monumental pain in the arse!

If only you weren't so damned useful....


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

past caring said:


>



You, on the other hand, I have yet to see a purpose for....


----------



## past caring (Aug 12, 2011)

That's because you've yet to reach full enlightenment, grasshopper.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

They do say that's when you learn the true value of "nothingness".


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 12, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> What you gonna do about it?


continue with the activism I have been doing for most of my adult life. Obviously I'd have thought


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

If the goal is to have an empty mind, then you are truly enlightened.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> continue with the activism I have been doing for most of my adult life. Obviously I'd have thought



Fair enough. But do it harder. It doesn't seem to be working.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

That's unfair. I'm sorry.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 12, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> That's unfair. I'm sorry.


thank you. ONE person is not enough - it needs people like you - and millions, everywhere, to do the same.
Join your local anti-cuts group. ditto KONP. ditto eco groups, and anti-war groups. give help to UK uncut. EVERYTHING.


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> No idea where to put this, but I guess it shows up the ongoing problems between police and the community



fascist cunts. and they wonder why people take a pop when they can....this bloke was doing nothing wrong and got assaulted, just like anyone with the temerity to observe or film the cunts does

perhaps that's why a good chunk of the population shout and cheer when they hear of coppers getting killed?
if i thought i could get away with it, i'd shank one of the motherfuckers, then go out celebrating. if i saw a pig lying on the ground i would piss on it.
note this is not a call for violence against the filth, just what i would like to do if the tables were turned


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Yep, shows some of the shit the police have to put up with just for doing their job...


thanks for that. it's tricky when fascists don't have swastikas carved into their foreheads, however comments like this make it easy to identify you nonetheless


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Why were they searching him?
> 
> Well, it was more of a 'funny comment' but I do note the video was uploaded yesterday following a few nights of 1000s of people attacking police so I wonder how you would react after all that? Are you gonna be scared? On edge?


i just know how i'd react AFTER that. with a shank, or a petrol bomb, or all of my mates on rampage


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 12, 2011)

Not really funny to be defending the cops acting like that is it. Just makes you look like a cunt.


----------



## agricola (Aug 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> fascist cunts. and they wonder why people take a pop when they can....this bloke was doing nothing wrong and got assaulted, just like anyone with the temerity to observe or film the cunts does
> 
> perhaps that's why a good chunk of the population shout and cheer when they hear of coppers getting killed?
> if i thought i could get away with it, i'd shank one of the motherfuckers, then go out celebrating. if i saw a pig lying on the ground i would piss on it.
> note this is not a call for violence against the filth, just what i would like to do if the tables were turned



Given the second paragraph of your ACAB-fantasies this is probably a wasted effort, but did you actually watch the whole of that video?


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> Given the second paragraph of your ACAB-fantasies this is probably a wasted effort, but did you actually watch the whole of that video?


i watched all that was posted. i saw a police sas and a bystander filming. i saw that bystander assaulted by fascists


----------



## agricola (Aug 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> i watched all that was posted. i saw a police sas and a bystander filming. i saw that bystander assaulted by fascists



What is it he says to the police there again?  _"Get out of my way man"_, is it?


----------



## past caring (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> What is it he says to the police there again? _"Get out of my way man"_, is it?



And does anything happen before he says it that suggests why he might have done so? You want to play that game?


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 12, 2011)

As in, out of his view. The policeman is blocking the view of what his colleagues are doing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> What is it he says to the police there again? _"Get out of my way man"_, is it?


What the fuck are you defending the police in that clip for?

Seems like a classic case of police purposely escalating the situation. The reaction to 'get out of my way', which was followed incidentally by a reasoned and calm explanation of what the filmer was doing, was the obligatory 'calm down'. That's the prelude to violence from the police - the suspect was agitated, your honour. I thought he might be armed...


----------



## past caring (Aug 12, 2011)

Fruitloop said:


> As in, out of his view. The policeman is blocking the view of what his colleagues are doing.



Well, that's only part of it.

The policeman has quite deliberately moved to block his view, hasn't he? If the guy filming had simply moved so the plod was no longer blocking his view, what would have happened do you think?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola, are you really going to try to defend this? Really?

Another person on here who I might have disagreed with in the past but who I thought had decent instincts.


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> Given the second paragraph of your ACAB-fantasies



how would you feel towards members of the kkk after they tried to lynch you?
or soldiers of the wehrmacht after your home has been invaded, and you've been beaten and throttled?

ftr a pig cunt tried to strangle me during a neighbourly parking dispute, attached solid bar handcuffs so tightly that the pain was unbelievable, picked me up by them and used them to inflict torture that left me with limited use of my hands for over a month. at no time was i even remotely threatening, and i had tried to leave the scene of the confrontation (a civil dispute) and was prevented from doing so.
upon arrival in custody i was released immediately, and the officer was merely asked to 'reflect on his actions' after i made an official complaint about the unprovoked assault

this coincides with a lifetime of harrassment, assault and aggravated burglary for the heinous crime of growing my own smoke. not selling it, not supplying anyone else, but that makes me fair game for every cunt in uniform
when i had my car stolen...didn't even merit a visit from plod
but growing my own smoke..aggravated burgalry and assault. strip searched and imprisoned.

so perhaps to you acab is the rallying cry of bedroom anarchists. to me it's the result of murderous rage towards the people trying to kill me, invade my home, traumatise my family and destroy my life, just for smoking ganja

acab, indeed.
anyone who is happy to deprive me of my freedom because of the daily fucking mail proscribed social policy, no fate is too bad for


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 12, 2011)

Police raiding your house and confiscating drugs are burglars.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 12, 2011)

You can see why he and anyone else who is needlessly criminalised by stupid drug laws might resent being given 'the treatment' though.


----------



## agricola (Aug 12, 2011)

past caring said:


> And does anything happen before he says it that suggests why he might have done so? You want to play that game?



He has an unobstructed view of what is going on before he - the filmer - walks over to the PC and tells him to get out of the way.




			
				gavman said:
			
		

> how would you feel towards members of the kkk after they tried to lynch you?
> or soldiers of the wehrmacht after your home has been invaded, and you've been beaten and throttled?



You are seriously claiming that this incident is akin to those two things?


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

Captain Hurrah said:


> Police raiding your house and confiscating drugs are burglars.


fyi it's aggravated burglary when you and your family are asleep inside


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> He has an unobstructed view of what is going on before he - the filmer - walks over to the PC and tells him to get out of the way.


Not true. Watch it again. That is not true.

But then you're seeing it through copper eyes, aren't you, copper?


----------



## past caring (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> He has an unobstructed view of what is going on before he - the filmer - walks over to the PC and tells him to get out of the way.



Thought you were better than this, tbh.


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> You are seriously claiming that this incident is akin to those two things?


absolutely not, as you well know. i was explaining why i believe acab. i was referring to what underlies my violent hatred towards the filth. i was referencing the formative experiences that have led me, a basically nice bloke from a good background, to cheer when police are killed or injured.
the reason i've done this is to shed light on the motivations of those who want to attack the police. people like me


----------



## past caring (Aug 12, 2011)

The drugs don't work, clearly.


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

past caring said:


> The drugs don't work, clearly.


not for home invasion ptsd, they don't. not when you've been bullied and beaten your whole life, they don't


----------



## agricola (Aug 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not true. Watch it again. That is not true.
> 
> But then you're seeing it through copper eyes, aren't you, copper?



Please, watch the video again.  For almost all of the clip even the camera (which is of course probably not at the same line of sight as the person filming) has a good view of what is going on, interrupted only by the Inspector standing in front of it a few times.  From 1:06 onwards the person filming had an unobstructed view of the stop, until at 1:21 or so he walks over to the PC and tells him to get out of the way.


----------



## agricola (Aug 12, 2011)

past caring said:


> Thought you were better than this, tbh.



Better than what?  That point is not a moral question, it is what happens on the film.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> Please, watch the video again. For almost all of the clip even the camera (which is of course probably not at the same line of sight as the person filming) has a good view of what is going on, interrupted only by the Inspector standing in front of it a few times. From 1:06 onwards the person filming had an unobstructed view of the stop, until at 1:21 or so he walks over to the PC and tells him to get out of the way.


fss. He says 'mind out of my way man' at 25 seconds. And he says it in the form of a request - that is using a friendly, deliberately non-confrontational intonation. He then starts becoming agitated because the copper doesn't get out of the way.

Like I said. Copper eyes. Push comes to shove and coppers will always stand by other coppers. They'll lie, dissemble and break the law to protect their fellow officers. And you wonder why people think acab?


----------



## treelover (Aug 12, 2011)

*'Dr David Lewis Baker*
_Bath_

• For many years I taught a final-year undergraduate course on the uprisings of the peasants and artisans that swept across large parts of 17th-century France. Buildings were attacked, their contents pillaged, crops destroyed and occasionally a perceived oppressor was killed. Had my students explained it all by simply invoking feral criminality they would have failed.'

Letter in the G..


----------



## past caring (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> Better than what? That point is not a moral question, it is what happens on the film.



Before anything is said - does the officer move over and attempt to obstruct his view whilst he is filming, or not?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

It's classic fucking copper activity. Deliberately, yet carelessly, escalating the situation, and then exploding into violence. Then blame the victim afterwards. Always. Always always.

See, agricola, there are lots of people on here, me included, who have seen all this before. And who have seen other coppers lie and dissemble after the fact to cover up their colleagues' mistakes.


----------



## agricola (Aug 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> fss. He says 'mind out of my way man' at 25 seconds. And he says it in the form of a request - that is using a friendly, deliberately non-confrontational intonation. He then starts becoming agitated because the copper doesn't get out of the way.
> 
> Like I said. Copper eyes. Push comes to shove and coppers will always stand by other coppers. They'll lie, dissemble and break the law to protect their fellow officers. And you wonder why people think acab?



I am seriously beginning to think we are watching two different videos.  For nearly all of the video I was watching, the camera has a good view of that stop as the person filming moves around, or because there arent any police officers or members of the public blocking its view of the stop.  There are one or two bits where the Inspector is stood in front of it.  After 1:06, it has an unobstructed view - ironically enough given your point above because the Inspector has got out of the way - and it remains unobstructed until the person filming walks over to the PC and says what he does.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

past caring said:


> Before anything is said - does the officer move over and attempt to obstruct his view whilst he is filming, or not?


Answer this question.


----------



## agricola (Aug 12, 2011)

past caring said:


> Before anything is said - does the officer move over and attempt to obstruct his view whilst he is filming, or not?



He does.  Does this substantially affect the filmers view of what is going on?  No.  Does the officer move out of the way in the end?  Yes.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's classic fucking copper activity. Deliberately, yet carelessly, escalating the situation, and then exploding into violence. Then blame the victim afterwards. Always. Always always.
> 
> See, agricola, there are lots of people on here, me included, who have seen all this before. And who have seen other coppers lie and dissemble after the fact to cover up their colleagues' mistakes.



They even did it on that reality documentary series where they filmed coppers.  (I'm not sure what it was called, but I've a feeling it was called "Coppers".  Anyway.)  You saw it time and time again -- escalate, escalate, escalate, violence.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2011)

The fact that you can't see what's wrong with behaving like that agricola says it all. That low level use of power to harass and intimidate. Constant petty bothering, day after day, week after week. You lot really need to get that into your heads. And you're one the more reasonable ones. I shudder to think what the reaction would be from other coppers.


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> He does. Does this substantially affect the filmers view of what is going on? No. Does the officer move out of the way in the end? Yes.



does this pass for logic among your lot?

let's consider a video of saddam's execution.
was the man hanging at the beginning of the clip?
was the man hanging at the end of the clip?
qed, he was not hanged

fucktard


----------



## agricola (Aug 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The fact that you can't see what's wrong with behaving like that agricola says it all. That low level use of power to harass and intimidate. Constant petty bothering, day after day, week after week. You lot really need to get that into your heads.



er - where have I said that there was nothing wrong with behaving like that?  All I did was point out what was actually on the video, which some here were claiming was clear evidence of fascism.


----------



## past caring (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> He does. Does this substantially affect the filmers view of what is going on? No. Does the officer move out of the way in the end? Yes.



But not before he's needlessly provoked the lad doing the filming and made himself look a bit of a cunt in the process. And have his behaviour reflect on everyone else wearing the uniform. Great.


----------



## agricola (Aug 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> was the man hanging at the beginning of the clip?
> was the man hanging at the end of the clip?
> qed, he was not hanged
> 
> fucktard



That makes zero sense.


----------



## agricola (Aug 12, 2011)

past caring said:


> But not before he's needlessly provoked the lad doing the filming and made himself look a bit of a cunt in the process. And have his behaviour reflect on everyone else wearing the uniform. Great.



TBF the filmer didnt appear to need that much provocation.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> er - where have I said that there was nothing wrong with behaving like that? All I did was point out what was actually on the video, which some here were claiming was clear evidence of fascism.


Fair enough then -  what _was_ wrong with the police behaviour in that clip in your view?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 12, 2011)

If anybody else behaved like the police did in that video, or even behaved in a way remotely approaching it, they would be judged to be violent and could be expected to be charged.  There is no justification they could possibly give.

So why are the police held to a considerably lower standard than the rest of us?  Shouldn't they be examples of the right way to behave?  How can we be surprised when youths react to minor provocation with violence when the police are demonstrating to them on a daily basis that this is what they should expect, that this is appropriate?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> He does. Does this substantially affect the filmers view of what is going on? No. Does the officer move out of the way in the end? Yes.



Can you make out the legal rationale for them jumping the guy who was filming?

I heard something about wanting to search him for a weapon and 'you wanted a fight didn't you?' but it's not exactly clear what their excuse was to me.

Their *reason* on the other hand, seemed quite clear ... they didn't like being filmed so they escalated the situation until they felt comfortable jumping on the guy filming.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> What is it he says to the police there again? _"Get out of my way man"_, is it?


I'm going to quote this back at you. Explain why you said this without providing the context. How is this not a deliberate attempt to dissemble?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> TBF the filmer didnt appear to need that much provocation.


Here we go. provoke, provoke, escalate the situation. Then BLAME THE VICTIM. Always. Always always.


----------



## shaman75 (Aug 12, 2011)




----------



## agricola (Aug 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Fair enough then - what _was_ wrong with the police behaviour in that clip in your view?



Its difficult to answer that without knowing the background to, and context of, the stop, after all the only bit we have seen is what the person filming it has shown us.  On the basis of the footage alone, it is perhaps wrong to approach the camera and try and block it - but to be fair to the Inspector it appears that once he realises this (that at that stage the person is filming and not trying to disrupt things) he walks off and allows the bloke to continue filming.

One should also point out that for a good proportion of that stop the person filming is not the only witness to what is going on - there is a bloke in the shop doorway, a woman who the officers speak to and a few other passers by who take less notice.


----------



## past caring (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> TBF the filmer didnt appear to need that much provocation.



True. Lucky for the plod he wasn't forced to stand on his toes or give him a sly dig to the ribs to get the reaction he wanted, eh?


----------



## agricola (Aug 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm going to quote this back at you. Explain why you said this without providing the context. How is this not a deliberate attempt to dissemble?



The video is on the thread already, you have stated that you have seen it.  What more context do you need?


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> That makes zero sense.


my point exactly. same logic you were using makes fuck all sense


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> TBF the filmer didnt appear to need that much provocation.


yes he obviously needed to be taken down a peg, didn't he?


----------



## agricola (Aug 12, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Can you make out the legal rationale for them jumping the guy who was filming?
> 
> I heard something about wanting to search him for a weapon and 'you wanted a fight didn't you?' but it's not exactly clear what their excuse was to me.
> 
> Their *reason* on the other hand, seemed quite clear ... they didn't like being filmed so they escalated the situation until they felt comfortable jumping on the guy filming.



As I said in the post above to butchers, without knowing more than what is on the video its difficult to establish what the legal rationale for the stop was - though one again should point out that the person filming the stop had a good view of what was going on after the Inspector walked off (for about twenty seconds), until he chose to approach the PC.  Someone then shouts something about trousers, and then there is a bit of a bundle.


----------



## agricola (Aug 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> my point exactly. same logic you were using makes fuck all sense



This will probably be a waste of effort, but if you want to use the same logic I was using then you would have said:

was the man hanging at the beginning of the clip?
 was the man hanging at the end of the clip?
 why was the man hanged?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> As I said in the post above to butchers, without knowing more than what is on the video its difficult to establish what the legal rationale for the stop was - though one again should point out that the person filming the stop had a good view of what was going on after the Inspector walked off (for about twenty seconds), until he chose to approach the PC. Someone then shouts something about trousers, and then there is a bit of a bundle.



Watching it again, it seems like one of the cops decides to claim, implausibly given the circumstances, that the guy reaching into his pocket for a weapon.

This then provides them with a workable rationale for giving him some quasi-legal "attitude adjustment" for filming them/giving them lip.

Not really a surprise so many people hate the cops when this sort of stuff goes on as a matter of routine eh?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 12, 2011)

QueenOfGoths said:


> How, how are people supposed to do this?



By working. By their own initiative. By not regarding state supported indolence as a right. By not constantly whining about how the rich are rich, and they are poor, and it is soooooooo unfair. By growing a pair and taking responsibility for their own lives.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Watching it again, it seems like one of the cops decides to claim, very implausibly given the circumstances, that the guy reaching into his pocket for a weapon, quite obviously in order to facilitate some attitude adjustment for filming them/giving them lip.


Yep. And the reason this claim is made is because the filmer has had the temerity to walk over to the copper who had previously been deliberately obstructing him.

As butchers said, this is the assertion of low-level power. We can approach you, but if you approach us, you will be taken down.


----------



## agricola (Aug 12, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Watching it again, it seems like one of the cops decides to claim, very implausibly given the circumstances, that the guy is going for a weapon in order to facilitate some attitude adjustment for filming them/giving them lip.



Perhaps, though the one person we cant see in the clip is the person filming, nor do we know who he is, or what he had done prior to the footage starting.  Before the inevitable outcry, that does not mean he is to blame, or that he wasnt assaulted by the police, or that the stop was a perfect example of how a police officer should behave.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> Perhaps, though the one person we cant see in the clip is the person filming, nor do we know who he is, or what he had done prior to the footage starting. Before the inevitable outcry, that does not mean he is to blame, or that he wasnt assaulted by the police, or that the stop was a perfect example of how a police officer should behave.



Seems a *bit* unlikely that the officers on the scene seriously thought he was gonna whip out an Uzi and spray them with bullets while filming using the phone in his off hand though doesn't it?


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 12, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Can you make out the legal rationale for them jumping the guy who was filming?
> 
> I heard something about wanting to search him for a weapon and 'you wanted a fight didn't you?' but it's not exactly clear what their excuse was to me.
> 
> Their *reason* on the other hand, seemed quite clear ... they didn't like being filmed so they escalated the situation until they felt comfortable jumping on the guy filming.



There is no doubt that the police don't like being filmed. If they were unfailingly acting within the law, there would be no reason for them to object to being filmed. One may draw a conclusion from that.

Police behaviour has deteriorated steadily over the last decade. Whether it is poor training, poor leadership, or both, is debatable. I would certainly be unhappy if they were given further powers ( baton rounds and water cannon already within their remit ), even on a temporary basis due to the current situation.


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 12, 2011)

> In response to an inquiry by our correspondent Paul Lewis, the IPCC has sent this statement to the Guardian:
> 
> Analysis of media coverage and queries raised on Twitter have alerted to us to the possibility that we may have inadvertently given misleading information to journalists when responding to very early media queries following the shooting of Mark Duggan by MPS officers on the evening of 4th August.
> The IPCC's first statement, issued at 22:49 on 4th August, makes no reference to shots fired at police and our subsequent statements have set out the sequence of events based on the emerging evidence. However, having reviewed the information the IPCC received and gave out during the very early hours of the unfolding incident, before any documentation had been received, it seems possible that we may have verbally led journalists to believe that shots were exchanged as this was consistent with early information we received that an officer had been shot and taken to hospital.
> Any reference to an exchange of shots was not correct and did not feature in any of our formal statements, although an officer was taken to hospital after the incident.​



http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/aug/12/uk-riots-day-six-aftermath


----------



## past caring (Aug 12, 2011)

Sasaferrato said:


> By working. By their own initiative. By not regarding state supported indolence as a right. By not constantly whining about how the rich are rich, and they are poor, and it is soooooooo unfair. By growing a pair and taking responsibility for their own lives.



That's what I love about you, sas - not only can you be relied on to post the same old unthinking bollocks, but you're a proper doddery old cunt and all - and you'll come on here and start replying to posts on page 1 of a 53 page thread.

What?

What was that you said?


----------



## QueenOfGoths (Aug 12, 2011)

Sasaferrato said:


> By working. By their own initiative. By not regarding state supported indolence as a right. By not constantly whining about how the rich are rich, and they are poor, and it is soooooooo unfair. By growing a pair and taking responsibility for their own lives.



What jobs? A lot of the places where they were rioting/looting has very high youth unemployment.

And why shouldn't people moan that the rich are rich and the poor are poor. I do and it is unfair. Are you saying that having money doesn't make it easier to live. Doesn't make it easier to find and take opportunities whether it be in education, in health, in leisure. And living off the state is not indolent it can be necessary.

And people are taking initiative and they are taking responsibility. It takes an awful lot of both to survive on the minimum wage or on benefits.


----------



## agricola (Aug 12, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Seems a *bit* unlikely that the officers on the scene seriously thought he was gonna whip out an Uzi and spray them with bullets while filming using the phone in his off hand though doesn't it?



Well yes, which is probably why they left him alone after a bit.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> Well yes, which is probably why they left him alone after a bit.


Eh? They wrestled him to the floor.


----------



## agricola (Aug 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Eh? They wrestled him to the floor.



Does your video not contain the section between 1:06 and 1:22, then?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

Clearly your video _only_ contains the section between 1:06 and 1:22. You're dissembling again.

Again, this is behaviour I've seen before and lots of others will have seen before. The decision is taken to take action and a spurious reason is given for that action just before it is taken.


----------



## agricola (Aug 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're dissembling again.



As are you. In any case, in an attempt to prevent this bit of the thread derailing into an argument over a video that everyone can watch for themselves, please forgive me if I just refer people to the video, and to my points to butchers and bernie above. There is not a lot more else that I can say.

(edited to clear up which point I was responding to)


----------



## treelover (Aug 12, 2011)

'I also saw in Ealing a row of torched cars - well mostly torched cars. They left the lowly nissan and Fiats alone and did for the Audi's, Lexus, BMW's, and VW's '

posted on a blog by 'eyewitness', (the politics of envy in his view)


----------



## rekil (Aug 12, 2011)

Sasaferrato said:


> There is no doubt that the police don't like being filmed. If they were unfailingly acting within the law, there would be no reason for them to object to being filmed. One may draw a conclusion from that.


Chilean coppers don't seem to mind being filmed searching a youngster and giving him a wee headbutt in the process.


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> Perhaps, though the one person we cant see in the clip is the person filming, nor do we know who he is, or what he had done prior to the footage starting. Before the inevitable outcry, that does not mean he is to blame, or that he wasnt assaulted by the police, or that the stop was a perfect example of how a police officer should behave.


yes we should clearly ignore what we can see for ourselves in favour of an assumption of criminality not shown on the vid


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

copliker said:


> Chilean coppers don't seem to mind being filmed searching a youngster and giving him a wee headbutt in the process.



the dude filming that had some balls


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

agricola said:


> This will probably be a waste of effort, but if you want to use the same logic I was using then you would have said:
> 
> was the man hanging at the beginning of the clip?
> was the man hanging at the end of the clip?
> why was the man hanged?



thoroughly dishonest post


----------



## treelover (Aug 12, 2011)

''Originally Posted by harvey19 
The Victorians seperated the needy into the deserving and undeserving.I think we are need to consider this concept again. 
The undeserving, anti social section could be moved into workhouses where there would be a strict disciplined regime and hard work. This would be paid for by the unnecessary payment of housing and other benefits. Those who did not improve would have their lot progressively made worse.Those who proved an improvement in their behaviour and attitude would be offered education and training.'

on a local blog: he is just as dangerous as the rioters...


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 12, 2011)

The Workhouse is more or less the British equivilant of gulags for the poor. I bet you wouldn't find too many right wingers going on about how great they were, though.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 12, 2011)

Sasaferrato said:


> There is no doubt that the police don't like being filmed. If they were unfailingly acting within the law, there would be no reason for them to object to being filmed. One may draw a conclusion from that.
> 
> Police behaviour has deteriorated steadily over the last decade. Whether it is poor training, poor leadership, or both, is debatable. I would certainly be unhappy if they were given further powers ( baton rounds and water cannon already within their remit ), even on a temporary basis due to the current situation.


I have to say this: if EVEN someone as r/w as Sass is saying this.....we have a full-blown policing crisis


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I have to say this: if EVEN someone as r/w as Sass is saying this.....we have a full-blown policing crisis


i thought that when i found myself 'liking' a post of his for the first time


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 12, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> That's so blatantly untrue I'm actually a bit hurt.
> 
> Only a completely selfish arsehole could interpret my posts as blaming no-one. In fact I'm saying that we all have a responsibility to accept our share of how this society has ended up.


I'm sorry you're hurt.  I am not, however, the one calling people "selfish arseholes", or telling anyone they can "fuck off" if they don't like it.

I'm afraid I find your posts to be so vague that I have difficulty telling what your message is, other than we're all to blame, and we all have to do something.  And that you were down on me blaming neoliberalism.  "It's always someone else's fault", was the mantra.

Well, I'm sorry, but we're *not* all to blame.  Not everyone supports the neoliberal project.  Not everyone accepts the Thatcherite consensus.  And not everyone sits back while it goes on.  There is, however, a programme that *is* to blame: neoliberalism.  It has it's champions.  *They* are to blame.  Individually, and collectively.  (I can list some of the names if you like).  However, I'm more interested in the programme.  It needs to be hindered, sabotaged, and eventually destroyed.

I'm not sure why you bring up your first thread on Urban75.  However, I agree that it's important to do what you can in your family and local community.  Like what, though?  Vague platitudes?  Or something that has some idea of what it is that's gone wrong?  Something, in other words, that isn't apolitical, ahistoric miasma.  Juggling workshops aren't going to cut it.

I've told you what I think needs to be done. I thought you understood. You seemed to agree.

Well, it looks like we actually disagree.  Which is fine.  I certainly don't require to agree with everyone I converse with.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I bet you've peeled a lot of spuds in your time, you monumental pain in the arse!
> 
> If only you weren't so damned useful....



I'm a champion spud-basher, it's true.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> They do say that's when you learn the true value of "nothingness".



Nothingness is merely an alternate state of somethingness, padawan.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> thank you. ONE person is not enough - it needs people like you - and millions, everywhere, to do the same.
> Join your local anti-cuts group. ditto KONP. ditto eco groups, and anti-war groups. give help to UK uncut. EVERYTHING.



There's a big problem though, that resides in the fact that our system of governance is over-mighty. It's built such a nice nest for itself that it is resistant to the sort of methods of protest that worked in the past. Now protest can be ignored to a far greater extent than, say, 20 years ago. That kind of wears on activists, that awful feeling that however hard you strive, however much local support you have, you're unlikely to be able to make anything but a fleeting difference. Now, that "fleeting difference" may be one that sets some lives straight, brings hope, but how often can activists find it in themselves to keep repeating the same battles time and again, especially when so many new concerns keep springing up that need addressing?


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nothingness is merely an alternate state of somethingness, padawan.


It's also coiled in the heart of being like a worm.

And nobody wants to be like a worm.


----------



## wemakeyousoundb (Aug 12, 2011)

anyone posted this video (originally from sky)?
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/exclusive-teen-gang-reveals-looting-spree-041951519.html


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's a big problem though, that resides in the fact that our system of governance is over-mighty. It's built such a nice nest for itself that it is resistant to the sort of methods of protest that worked in the past. Now protest can be ignored to a far greater extent than, say, 20 years ago. That kind of wears on activists, that awful feeling that however hard you strive, however much local support you have, you're unlikely to be able to make anything but a fleeting difference. Now, that "fleeting difference" may be one that sets some lives straight, brings hope, but how often can activists find it in themselves to keep repeating the same battles time and again, especially when so many new concerns keep springing up that need addressing?


 
Because anything else is unthinkable.


----------



## ddraig (Aug 12, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> Yep, shows some of the shit the police have to put up with just for doing their job...


cunt


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> absolutely not, as you well know. i was explaining why i believe acab. i was referring to what underlies my violent hatred towards the filth. i was referencing the formative experiences that have led me, a basically nice bloke from a good background, to cheer when police are killed or injured.
> the reason i've done this is to shed light on the motivations of those who want to attack the police. people like me



I've been knocked around by coppers (anything you've heard about the coppers in Brixton in the '70s and '80s being mostly thoroughgoing violent racist shitcunts is true), and seen mates (always black) beaten shitless by them, but I don't hate them. I hate the fucking awful institution that employs them and provides such an effective environment for cuntitude to prosper. I also hate the regime that almost slavishly supports the police in return for the police acting politically and effectively policing/defending policy delivery.

Individually, I can't bring myself to hate them. Loathe them for having so little sense of self that they'd join such an institution: Yep. Give one or two of them an offer of some one-on-one full-contact fighting tuition: Absolutely. Smash one particular ex-CID DCI in the face with a shovel for robbing a mate of 17 years: You betcha. I don't think they're all bastards, though. Most of them are too pathetic for that, and for the most part as individuals hating them would be like hating a sack of shit for being a sack of shit, IYSWIM.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> the obligatory 'calm down'. That's the prelude to violence from the police - the suspect was agitated, your honour. I thought he might be armed...


Exactly.  Time and time again.

"Calm down"?  Was the filmer uncalm?  No. So, habitual lies.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 12, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I'm not sure that most insider trading is perpetrated by the poor. But maybe CyberRose has some statistics that prove otherwise.





Maidmarian said:


> No , I'm afraid not. Crimes that "makes them money" isn't a poor person's preserve. Expenses fiddles, corporate crime etc etc ---- see what I'm getting at ?


So you two are saying that those crimes you mention make up the majority of all crimes?

All I'm saying is that imo, the biggest cause of crime is social inequalities. If you disagree with that fine, but you could at least say why you don't believe social inequalities are not the biggest cause of crime (like by saying what you _do _think is the biggest cause of crime?)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

Sasaferrato said:


> There is no doubt that the police don't like being filmed. If they were unfailingly acting within the law, there would be no reason for them to object to being filmed. One may draw a conclusion from that.



Occam's Razor in action. Pity most of the stuffed turkeys in Parliament can't handle such concepts.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 12, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> So you two are saying that those crimes you mention make up the majority of all crimes?
> 
> All I'm saying is that imo, the biggest cause of crime is social inequalities. If you disagree with that fine, but you could at least say why you don't believe social inequalities are not the biggest cause of crime (like by saying what you _do _think is the biggest cause of crime?)


Greedy thugs wanting to maintain their wealth and power.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 12, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Heh Good morning...Sleep well?


No I was up all night worrying about what people in this thread were saying about me!



> You have been pointed in the direction of evidence time and time again by myself and others on this thread


As far as I'm aware, nobody has posted any links? If I've missed something then I'm sorry but you can see how fast this thread is moving so please can you post this evidence up again. I'm giving you opinions here, if they are wrong I have no problem in holding my hands up and saying so, but so far all I've had in response is other peoples' opinions (altho I stand to be corrected...)



> I don't just think you are wrong, I know you are wrong. You have repeated implied that ethnic minorities are disproportionately more likely to be criminals and that this is why they are subject to more police harrassment.


Actually I said ethnic minorities are more likely to be from a deprived background compared to white people (that is proved btw) and _that _is why they are more likely to be stopped (imo, of course. I can't disprove institutional racism as much as you can prove it)


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 12, 2011)

gavman said:


> thanks for that. it's tricky when fascists don't have swastikas carved into their foreheads, however comments like this make it easy to identify you nonetheless





ddraig said:


> cunt


Well thank god for that! I've been worried that people would have said some _really _bad things about me!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Exactly. Time and time again.
> 
> "Calm down"? Was the filmer uncalm? No. So, habitual lies.



I'm afraid this is what annoys me most about apologists like agricola and detective-boy before him. This is police harassment and thuggery by the numbers. It is instantly recognisable to any of us who have experienced it ourselves. It is dishonest not to acknowledge that this kind of thing happens routinely in the way that it appears to be happening in that video - in other words, the highly unlikely scenarios of mitigation that agricola suggests, and d-b would no doubt suggest too were he still here, are simply not the case at all.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 12, 2011)

@ CyberRose :       Can't speak for kabbes , but what I'm saying is that , yes , social inequalities are influential, but it remains true that "the poor" are FAR more likely :
To be detected
To be charged
To be found guilty

This has the effect of over-representation of "the poor" in the stats.

(apols , but my laptop is dying & it's taking ages, so I'm trying to use shorthand).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm sorry you're hurt. I am not, however, the one calling people "selfish arseholes", or telling anyone they can "fuck off" if they don't like it.
> 
> I'm afraid I find your posts to be so vague that I have difficulty telling what your message is, other than we're all to blame, and we all have to do something. And that you were down on me blaming neoliberalism. "It's always someone else's fault", was the mantra.
> 
> ...



We're not all responsible. That much should be glaringly obvious. However, we are all implicated, and we can't, as social beings, avoid being implicated, because there's no neo-liberalism-free Utopia we can escape to.
What then matters is the degree to which we acquiesce to that implication; whether we try to minimise our compliance and/or seek to subvert it; whether we compromise and, if so, to what degree and for what reason(s).


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'I also saw in Ealing a row of torched cars - well mostly torched cars. They left the lowly nissan and Fiats alone and did for the Audi's, Lexus, BMW's, and VW's '
> 
> posted on a blog by 'eyewitness', (the politics of envy in his view)



Back when this part of south London was first being gentrified, you'd see similar, where "posh" cars would be scratched, while "ordinary" cars wouldn't. Then as now, I think it's a question and message to the gentrifiers - "Why are you here? You're not wanted".


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> Because anything else is unthinkable.



Oh, I absolutely agree, I'm just trying to make the point that more and more activists (at least of my acquaintance) are "burning out", because where they might have done most stuff under the aegis of a political party 30 or even 20 years ago, now thy're hopping between half a dozen different and important local causes, and all the time being asked/requested/begged to take on more and more because the state (and, it has to be said, local authorities) has in effect dumped people and projects with no regard to what that means for anyone in the community.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 12, 2011)

Maidmarian said:


> @ CyberRose : Can't speak for kabbes , but what I'm saying is that , yes , social inequalities are influential, but it remains true that "the poor" are FAR more likely :
> To be detected
> To be charged
> To be found guilty
> ...


With all due respect I haven't posted any stats about this. This is my opinion and I have no problem "admitting" that.

All I am saying is that _for me _the biggest contributor to levels of crime is social inequalities (and therefore as a result creates criminals from that section of society). Altho you say social inequalities "influences" crime, you seem to be suggesting that there is another cause that you feel makes a greater contribution, but you haven't said _what _exactly.

Now just let me be perfectly clear, I am _not _saying all poor people are criminals and I am _not _saying all criminals are poor people. But if I believe the biggest contributor to crime is social inequality, then I also have to say that I think _most _criminals come from a poor background (and again pointing out this is for crime for an income). The problem is, I can use crime as a reason to argue that social inequalities must be addressed, but whilst ever you play that factor down, then you give people like the Tories the excuse to ignore it and concentrate on "fake" causes of crime like 'the breakdown of society/family', 'gangsta rap' or 'social networking' which in turn allows them to avoid the real issue (imo) because ideologically they have no interest in addressing social inequalities but have a high stake in maintaining them...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> Exactly. Time and time again.
> 
> "Calm down"? Was the filmer uncalm? No. So, habitual lies.



It's also a provocation, like when a Scouser says it to you, and it makes you want to lamp them.


----------



## Maidmarian (Aug 12, 2011)

Yep ---- true ---- lots of oldies still working on it though. 

(Bugger !!!! --- that was @ VP btw)


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's also a provocation, like when a Scouser says it to you, and it makes you want to lamp them.


Oh it's a calculated way to make someone who clearly is calm less calm. Dismiss what they say, dismiss the manner in which they say it, and instruct them to become something they clearly already are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> So you two are saying that those crimes you mention make up the majority of all crimes?



How would we know? White-collar crime (if you balance company accounts against reports of crime) is notoriously under-reported



> All I'm saying is that imo, the biggest cause of crime is social inequalities. If you disagree with that fine, but you could at least say why you don't believe social inequalities are not the biggest cause of crime (like by saying what you _do _think is the biggest cause of crime?)



The biggest cause of petty theft and burglary in the UK is related to drug addiction. IIRC street robbery, shop-lifting and other forms of petty theft, plus household burglary have consistenty turned up stats showing that 65-70% of the perpetrators we're addicted to a Class A.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> How would we know? White-collar crime (if you balance company accounts against reports of crime) is notoriously under-reported


I'm not asking people _to know_. I'm asking for their opinion. They have clearly stated that they disagree with me that most 'income' crimes are committed by socially disadvantaged people, so I'm asking if they think these white collar criminals actually make up the majority (in their opinion, of course)



> The biggest cause of petty theft and burglary in the UK is related to drug addiction. IIRC street robbery, shop-lifting and other forms of petty theft, plus household burglary have consistenty turned up stats showing that 65-70% of the perpetrators we're addicted to a Class A.


And drug addiction isn't a sign of social inequalities?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm afraid this is what annoys me most about apologists like agricola and detective-boy before him. This is police harassment and thuggery by the numbers.



The problem is that agricola etc are/were taught particular methods of "conflict revolution" that aren't particularly helpful, especially as they're based on reading body language and projecting body language, which is fine and right as ninepence if everyone is calm, but goes out of the window as soon as the blood starts pumping faster. I had a good laugh at a cop who did the "calm down" thing, hand extended, palm down. Guess where his other hand was? On his belt, resting over baton. He totally couldn't understand why I was pissing myself laughing.


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's a big problem though, that resides in the fact that our system of governance is over-mighty. It's built such a nice nest for itself that it is resistant to the sort of methods of protest that worked in the past. Now protest can be ignored to a far greater extent than, say, 20 years ago. That kind of wears on activists, that awful feeling that however hard you strive, however much local support you have, you're unlikely to be able to make anything but a fleeting difference. Now, that "fleeting difference" may be one that sets some lives straight, brings hope, but how often can activists find it in themselves to keep repeating the same battles time and again, especially when so many new concerns keep springing up that need addressing?



how many people on here can relate to going on huge peaceful marches or demos...and not getting a word of coverage?
the lad interviewed t'other night said just the same thing. he'd been on a march three months before, good numbers, well behaved, no media coverage, no response, no point


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 12, 2011)

Well, a quick google reveals some suggestive research, I'd be surprised if a proper search didn't turn up more along these lines.


> Yet the costs of fraud and forgery in Britain in 2000 was £13.8bn, compared to £2.7bn for burglary, she said.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3102800.stm


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 12, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Well, a quick google reveals some suggestive research, I'd be surprised if a proper search didn't turn up more along these lines.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3102800.stm


What do you think that proves? One pound equals one offender?!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> I'm not asking people _to know_. I'm asking for their opinion. They have clearly stated that they disagree with me that most 'income' crimes are committed by socially disadvantaged people, so I'm asking if they think these white collar criminals actually make up the majority (in their opinion, of course)



But you're only really interested in their opinion insofar as you can turn it round on them and say "no, you're wrong. I'm right". 



> And drug addiction isn't a sign of social inequalities?



No, it's a sign of drug addiction, and it's a phenomenon that cuts right across social and cultural boundaries. *Some* cases of addiction may have origins in social inequalities, but to asume that all, or even a majority do, would be crass.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> But you're only really interested in their opinion insofar as you can turn it round on them and say "no, you're wrong. I'm right".


You can't _prove_ that 



> No, it's a sign of drug addiction, and it's a phenomenon that cuts right across social and cultural boundaries. *Some* cases of addiction may have origins in social inequalities, but to asume that all, or even a majority do, would be crass.


Never thought I'd see the day on U75 when _I _would be the one arguing that social inequalities are the main causes of so many of societies ills and the regulars were arguing _against_ that. I am truly shocked by all this.

Now obviously anyone can get addicted to drugs (and do get addicted to drugs), but again I'd argue the problem is worse the more deprived your background. In my opinion...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 12, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> What do you think that proves? One pound equals one offender?!



That's just stupid talk. Why would I think any such thing?

Have some respect for yourself ...


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> We're not all responsible. That much should be glaringly obvious. However, we are all implicated, and we can't, as social beings, avoid being implicated, because there's no neo-liberalism-free Utopia we can escape to.
> What then matters is the degree to which we acquiesce to that implication; whether we try to minimise our compliance and/or seek to subvert it; whether we compromise and, if so, to what degree and for what reason(s).


Absolutely.  We are all part of capital.  (The purchase of labour-power incorporates labour into the commodity).  But that's exactly where our strength lies.

In fact, this discussion is starting to remind me of Cleaver's Reading Capital Politically.  Kizmet, if you haven't read that, you definitely should.  It's available online.  Reading it will help you understand why it is important to analyse current power structures.  In fact, I think I'll reread it.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 12, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> That's just stupid talk. Why would I think any such thing?
> 
> Have some respect for yourself ...


But your link doesn't say anything about how many people are committing these types of crimes or what the person's social background is so it's not particularly useful is it?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Back when this part of south London was first being gentrified, you'd see similar, where "posh" cars would be scratched, while "ordinary" cars wouldn't. Then as now, I think it's a question and message to the gentrifiers - "Why are you here? You're not wanted".



This is one of the reasons I will never buy a posh car, I would worry about it wherever it was parked. And where could you park and it not be posh? Chelsea perhaps.

Actually I did once have a posh car, it was my company car and the very first night I parked it outside my bedsit someone scratched right down one side of it. I enquired at the police station at the bottom of the road only to be told all their cars had been done and the perp probably thought mine was also a policeman's car! You can't win really, it was only a 2L Vauxhall Cavalier!


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 12, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> But your link doesn't say anything about how many people are committing these types of crimes or what the person's social background is so it's not particularly useful is it?


Ok sorry I'm mistaken it does all talk about the middle class but this was a survey _of the middle class _it seems and does not seem to have looked at white coller crime committed by the working classes


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I've been knocked around by coppers (anything you've heard about the coppers in Brixton in the '70s and '80s being mostly thoroughgoing violent racist shitcunts is true), and seen mates (always black) beaten shitless by them, but I don't hate them. I hate the fucking awful institution that employs them and provides such an effective environment for cuntitude to prosper. I also hate the regime that almost slavishly supports the police in return for the police acting politically and effectively policing/defending policy delivery.
> 
> Individually, I can't bring myself to hate them. Loathe them for having so little sense of self that they'd join such an institution: Yep. Give one or two of them an offer of some one-on-one full-contact fighting tuition: Absolutely. Smash one particular ex-CID DCI in the face with a shovel for robbing a mate of 17 years: You betcha. I don't think they're all bastards, though. Most of them are too pathetic for that, and for the most part as individuals hating them would be like hating a sack of shit for being a sack of shit, IYSWIM.



then you're a better man than me

 i've taken digs before. but it was something about the sustained throttling to within an inch of my life whilst unable to free my hands, followed by the sustained torture from the solid bar handcuffs, the public humiliation, and then the later aggravated burglary and strip searches that drove my hatred to a whole different level. i'll admit i'm not the most balanced person anymore, but these were my formative experiences in this regard.
and i excuse no pig because every one of them would be prepared either to invade my home and / or deprive me of my liberty because of my pot smoking. i don't feel the christ-like love you do, having suffered under the brutal tyranny of the mediocre for too long, having been made aware that they drove around me after an rta, whilst a young black man was dying in my arms in the middle of the road. fuck em. fuck them all

 the reason i feel at liberty to post so much on this thread is because i would be there, because of these things that have been done to me and those around me. but don't think i haven't taken my own revenge. you have to, to regain your dignity and self respect after such deep humiliation. that's why i know why there's so much hatred towards them, and that this will continue and get worse if the political response continues the way it is.

once you get organised they don't have a hope, even the looters have tumbled this now

 my response to the throttling incident was to join a collective of people with a militant attitude and engage in open warfare with the police, live in a no-go area for them and cause them to fear and respect us, because our response was intelligent, community driven, cohesive and constructive, everything they weren't.
but without exodus i'd be dead or a cop killer. maybe both


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> You can't _prove_ that



True.

I can air my suspicions, though! 



> Never thought I'd see the day on U75 when _I _would be the one arguing that social inequalities are the main causes of so many of societies ills and the regulars were arguing _against_ that. I am truly shocked by all this.



I don't think people disagree with that _per se_, but it's more that you have to take social inequalities in context to other issues to get a proper handle. Hell, we've arguably had social inequalities even more vile than currently over swathes of the last 100 years, even if you don't include the wars and their aftermaths, but social inequalities in context to other social circumstances that have acted to magnify or solidify the effect of inequality appear to have played an increasing role in the creation and exacerbation of problems over the last 20-30 years.



> Now obviously anyone can get addicted to drugs (and do get addicted to drugs), but again I'd argue the problem is worse the more deprived your background. In my opinion...



I'm not sure I agree. I've net read anything that's convinced me that addiction doesn't have a significant biological component i.e. that one can inherit a predisposition to substance addiction. If you've got that, it doesn't matter whether you're from a deprived background or a "good" one, you're subject to the same forces.

If by "worse", you mean that your behaviour as an addict may have more of an immediate economic and social effect on your family if you're from or in a deprived background, then fair enough - you won't have the resources to subsidise your habit that might be on hand if you're from/in a financially comfortable environment.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 12, 2011)




----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> This is one of the reasons I will never buy a posh car, I would worry about it wherever it was parked. And where could you park and it not be posh? Chelsea perhaps.
> 
> Actually I did once have a posh car, it was my company car and the very first night I parked it outside my bedsit someone scratched right down one side of it. I enquired at the police station at the bottom of the road only to be told all their cars had been done and the perp probably thought mine was also a policeman's car! You can't win really, it was only a 2L Vauxhall Cavalier!



Ah, so you weren't aware that for a long time Vauxhall would give coppers a discount, on account of fleet sales etc? It's why Cavs used to get called "plainclothes cars" in the '80s-'90s.


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

weltweit said:


> This is one of the reasons I will never buy a posh car, I would worry about it wherever it was parked. And where could you park and it not be posh? Chelsea perhaps.
> 
> Actually I did once have a posh car, it was my company car and the very first night I parked it outside my bedsit someone scratched right down one side of it. I enquired at the police station at the bottom of the road only to be told all their cars had been done and the perp probably thought mine was also a policeman's car! You can't win really, it was only a 2L Vauxhall Cavalier!



unfortunately you've mistaken curse of the posh car for curse of the new car.
it happened to both my parents any time they got a new car.
then, whilst driving my first car home after buying it, my mum drove into the back of me

while or whilst


----------



## weltweit (Aug 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Ah, so you weren't aware that for a long time Vauxhall would give coppers a discount, on account of fleet sales etc? It's why Cavs used to get called "plainclothes cars" in the '80s-'90s.



No, I wasn't aware of that. Blooming well pissed me off though. Later my neighbour had the radio nicked out of her Lada (it was nothing special as radios go) not once but twice!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 12, 2011)

Simple rule - always use 'while'. 'Whilst' is fast becoming an archaic form.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's a big problem though, that resides in the fact that our system of governance is over-mighty. It's built such a nice nest for itself that it is resistant to the sort of methods of protest that worked in the past. Now protest can be ignored to a far greater extent than, say, 20 years ago. That kind of wears on activists, that awful feeling that however hard you strive, however much local support you have, you're unlikely to be able to make anything but a fleeting difference. Now, that "fleeting difference" may be one that sets some lives straight, brings hope, but how often can activists find it in themselves to keep repeating the same battles time and again, especially when so many new concerns keep springing up that need addressing?


Oh god absolutely, and it's why am so often gripped by uttger despair. It's so bloody exhausting to go on fighting the same old battles, when the plain truth is that no-one with any power gives a toss about ordinary working people or their problems - even if they ever once did, it's progressively sucked out of them by the time they get to anywhere near the top


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Simple rule - always use 'while'. 'Whilst' is fast becoming an archaic form.


obligados


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 12, 2011)

http://davidharvey.org/2011/08/feral-capitalism-hits-the-streets/#more-962


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> I'm sorry you're hurt.  I am not, however, the one calling people "selfish arseholes", or telling anyone they can "fuck off" if they don't like it.
> 
> I'm afraid I find your posts to be so vague that I have difficulty telling what your message is, other than we're all to blame, and we all have to do something.  And that you were down on me blaming neoliberalism.  "It's always someone else's fault", was the mantra.



Was not a message. Was an observation.



> Well, I'm sorry, but we're *not* all to blame.  Not everyone supports the neoliberal project.  Not everyone accepts the Thatcherite consensus.  And not everyone sits back while it goes on.  There is, however, a programme that *is* to blame: neoliberalism.  It has it's champions.  *They* are to blame.  Individually, and collectively.  (I can list some of the names if you like).  However, I'm more interested in the programme.  It needs to be hindered, sabotaged, and eventually destroyed.



Whether you support the neo-liberal blah blah or not... whether you fight tirelessly or blame endlessly does not tale you out of society. You are part of it.

You are part of the steady drip drop of individualism. Maybe you're the mum at the school play stood up at the front with a camphone not giving a fuck that older ladies in the back couldn't see. Maybe you're the driver who cuts across two lanes to take a sharp turn. Maybe the guy who pushes past everyone else in the dole queue because he's bigger.

Maybe maybe maybe.

Whatever.. we all have some measure of responsibility. The next generation... they watch us and they learn what works.



> I'm not sure why you bring up your first thread on Urban75.  However, I agree that it's important to do what you can in your family and local community.  Like what, though?  Vague platitudes?  Or something that has some idea of what it is that's gone wrong?  Something, in other words, that isn't apolitical, ahistoric miasma.  Juggling workshops aren't going to cut it.
> 
> I've told you what I think needs to be done. I thought you understood. You seemed to agree.



I do understand and agree. But I also know that it's not enough. It won't be enough.

For as long as communities are fractured and atomised they will always be weak.

So to answer your question... "like what?" I'd say it doesn't really matter what. Pretty much anything that involves friends, family and local community. Don't you see why?

Because then communities wouldn't be so weak and atomised.

Then it doesn't matter so much what governments do. The local community polices, funds and supports itself.

They have tried to make us weak... afraid of strangers. Wary of difference... quick to attack. At each others throats.

They want you to hate the police. They tell you to respect them because they know you won't. And they want the police to hate you. That way we can't fight them together.

Divide and conquer. It's a classic.


----------



## gavman (Aug 12, 2011)

who are they?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's a big problem though, that resides in the fact that our system of governance is over-mighty.



It is not overmighty! 

A few kids... a handful at the right time... and they were quaking. Local groups taking action. Not disparate political groups who ultimately don't have much else in common... but people who live with each other everyday.

The public start to ask for their money back and the banks fold like Clapton beach deckchairs!

Overmighty? No.



> It's built such a nice nest for itself that it is resistant to the sort of methods of protest that worked in the past. Now protest can be ignored to a far greater extent than, say, 20 years ago. That kind of wears on activists, that awful feeling that however hard you strive, however much local support you have, you're unlikely to be able to make anything but a fleeting difference. Now, that "fleeting difference" may be one that sets some lives straight, brings hope, but how often can activists find it in themselves to keep repeating the same battles time and again, especially when so many new concerns keep springing up that need addressing?



Exactly.. it is resistant to types of protest that have worked before. It has better coping methods.

It has adapted.


----------



## newharper (Aug 12, 2011)

Well the one thing for sure is it ain't new as this review shows.


> *The London apprentice riots of the 1590s and the fiction of Thomas Deloney.*
> 
> by Mihoko Suzuki The last decade of Elizabeth Tudor's reign has been recognized by, historians as an exceptionally volatile period, characterized by "high prices, food shortages, heavy taxation and major wars against Spain and Ireland."


......



> Experiencing rates of immigration and population growth that far outstripped the rest of the country London saw an eightfold increase of vagrancy in the period 1560-1601.(4) Steve Rappaport describes a London in which a "fabulously wealthy elite liv[ed] cheek by jowl with a thoroughly destitute majority.


.....



> Given this polarization, it is not surprising that the 1590s were especially specially marked by social disorder and protest. The language of Elizabeth's proclamations from 1590 to 1595 against apprentices is instructive in this regard.



.....

http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5001633330


----------



## dynamicbaddog (Aug 12, 2011)

John Mcdonnell speaking last night about the riots


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 12, 2011)

shaman75 said:


>




Poetry.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 12, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> No I was up all night worrying about what people in this thread were saying about me!


 I sincerely hope this is a joke.



> As far as I'm aware, nobody has posted any links? If I've missed something then I'm sorry but you can see how fast this thread is moving so please can you post this evidence up again. I'm giving you opinions here, if they are wrong I have no problem in holding my hands up and saying so, but so far all I've had in response is other peoples' opinions (altho I stand to be corrected...)


 I realise you are giving your opinions. What links do you want exactly, whislt I recognise your reluctance to take other people's word for it, you have been pointed in the right direction in terms of research you could do yourself which would inform you better.



> Actually I said ethnic minorities are more likely to be from a deprived background compared to white people (that is proved btw) and _that _is why they are more likely to be stopped (imo, of course. I can't disprove institutional racism as much as you can prove it)


...and this is where I think you are crossing wires. A 'deprived' background, how do you characterise that? Can you share your _proof_ with me?

Also, it seems that you are linking 'deprived' with being stopped and searched, that tells me that you are not fully understanding that disproportionate police harrassment does not equal poverty, it equals racism when it is done on the basis of someone's skin colour.

Given that Black people/ethnic minorities are still that, minorities, in this country, I am a bit concerned that you are not acknowledging the existance of a significant number of White people who live in so called 'deprived' areas and 'deprivation'.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 12, 2011)

Don't want to carpet bomb this thread, but do want to say, great discussion!


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 12, 2011)

That thick cunt on facebook is still speeking his brAnes:

a mate of mine told me that he knows someone that was selling their car, 3 Polish guys came round to see it, liked the car then said they are going to go get a cheque from the local council for the £4000 to buy the car, when asked how come they were getting the money the answer was " because my Polish freinds cant speak english, they cant use public transport to get to their jobs or job interviews so the council are buying them a car " now that makes me angry !!!![/QUOTE]


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 12, 2011)

That's the reason for the riots btw.


----------



## krtek a houby (Aug 12, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Poetry.


Awesome, this man is a star. Thanks for posting this.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 12, 2011)

krtek a houby said:


> Awesome, this man is a star. Thanks for posting this.


I didn't post it so can't take the credit. It was Shaman, who I too thank and will be sharing it far and wide!


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 12, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> They have tried to make us weak... afraid of strangers. Wary of difference... quick to attack. At each others throats.
> 
> They want you to hate the police. They tell you to respect them because they know you won't. And they want the police to hate you.


It's always someone else's fault.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 12, 2011)

danny la rouge said:


> It's always someone else's fault.



Put it down guys...far more important/hurting stuff going on at the moment? Yeah I know, who the fuck am I to speak, but please, I appreciate you both and your take on things.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 12, 2011)

It's just an exchange, Rutita.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

... it's all a bit pete and dud...

...not only but also.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 12, 2011)

I'm in the other cubicle.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 12, 2011)

I know...and I feel like a right pleb even posting that 'white flag' however I did.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 12, 2011)

The Swiss never get any thanks.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 12, 2011)

They learned to roll with it...


----------



## iswhatitis (Aug 12, 2011)

in case it hasnt been posted already:

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/71/generation-fcked.html

cant see a whole lot wrong with that one


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 12, 2011)

iswhatitis said:


> in case it hasnt been posted already:
> 
> http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/71/generation-fcked.html
> 
> cant see a whole lot wrong with that one



The report in question ...

http://www.unicef.org/media/files/ChildPovertyReport.pdf


----------



## iswhatitis (Aug 12, 2011)

its so depressing. im priced out of the housing market, but tbh, meh....cant say it cuts at my soul. but i have a nephew, my brothers son, they're seperated and he lives with his mum, in the shittiest bit of a small town. we see him a fair bit, do what we can, and he's a great kid, but i think of his future and its on a knife edge, he either goes up, or down, there is no staying the same. his mum is trying to survive, we are trying to guide him up, but everything else around him is quicksand.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 13, 2011)




----------



## Xcrutiate (Aug 13, 2011)

I don't believe british cops can do brutality. They may think they're brutal but they're not really. Goto Brazil to see Police brutality. They have it down to a tee. These rioters thought they looked so cool and radical as they rushed back home with their microwaves and HD Ready TV's tucked under their arms, just to watch themselves on the BBC. They must now look pathetic as they await the dreaded knock on their door. Shaking and sweating as they cower under their duvet. Alcohol has worn off now. Things don't seem as rosy as the night before.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2011)

Thats right, because they don't murder favella children for lolz the met are like kittens. Mug


----------



## Xcrutiate (Aug 13, 2011)

No your the mug. Just cause it's my first post don't think i'm subservient to you. Your posts or reputation on this board mean nothing to me.
I expressed an opinion. This is what this board is about. Opinions. Discussion. Mug.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2011)

A mugs opinion, and you got called on it- no one is asking you to be subservient to me get off your fucking cross. Yes/no question: have you ever been nicked by british police?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 13, 2011)

Xcrutiate said:


> I don't believe british cops can do brutality. They may think they're brutal but they're not really. Goto Brazil to see Police brutality. They have it down to a tee. .



Because british [or other] cops aren't as brutal as Brazil cops, they aren't brutal.

Dumb.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 13, 2011)

Xcrutiate said:


> No your the mug. Just cause it's my first post don't think i'm subservient to you. Your posts or reputation on this board mean nothing to me.
> I expressed an opinion. This is what this board is about. Opinions. Discussion. Mug.



But you're saying something like 'because Brazil cops beat people every day, then the Rodney King beating wasn't police brutality'.

Doesn't follow.


----------



## Xcrutiate (Aug 13, 2011)

Wasn't Rodney King an American? Wasn't he beaten by American police? Don't see where your going with that. Your picking out individuals anyway.
British police aren't brutal. There may have been cases where the police have been brutal. No doubt about it. There have been some terrible cases.
But stop pretending were living in the hood. We're not.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 13, 2011)

Xcrutiate said:


> Wasn't Rodney King an American? Wasn't he beaten by American police? Don't see where your going with that. Your picking out individuals anyway..



I'm making an analogy to show the fallaciousness of your logic.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 13, 2011)

Xcrutiate said:


> But stop pretending were living in the hood. We're not.



Quite likely you don't. But the experience of people of colour in your country might be different from  yours.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 13, 2011)

Xcrutiate said:


> Wasn't Rodney King an American? Wasn't he beaten by American police? Don't see where your going with that. Your picking out individuals anyway.
> *British police aren't brutal. There may have been cases where the police have been brutal. No doubt about it. There have been some terrible cases.*
> But stop pretending were living in the hood. We're not.



so they aren't brutal but there are some terrible cases where they were brutal but that doesn't mean they are brutal cos we do not live in the hood.

You are all over the shop


----------



## Xcrutiate (Aug 13, 2011)

Your all making me laugh now. Fallaciousness of your logic. That's a sentence i didn't expect to hear this morning. Look all i said was the British police aren't brutal. Compared to other countries they're pussies. I didn't say i liked them. I don't. I live in a council estate near Cardiff. Show me any one who lives on a council estate in Britain who likes the police. I don't dislike them though because of their job. That has to be done. It's just the way they go about it. But to call them brutal is overkill. In the majority.


----------



## Xcrutiate (Aug 13, 2011)

Thanks for your opinions. There's nothing like a good debate before breakfast.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 13, 2011)

Xcrutiate said:


> Fallaciousness of your logic. That's a sentence i didn't expect to hear this morning.



It's nighttime here, and not everyone is a monosyllabic moron.


----------



## Xcrutiate (Aug 13, 2011)

Too True. Thank god for online dictionaries.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 13, 2011)

Xcrutiate said:


> Too True. Thank god for online dictionaries.



In fact, I just bought some good Belgian beer, and am ready for a Friday night glass.


----------



## Xcrutiate (Aug 13, 2011)

Hope you enjoy it.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 13, 2011)

Xcrutiate said:


> Wasn't Rodney King an American? Wasn't he beaten by American police? Don't see where your going with that. Your picking out individuals anyway.
> British police aren't brutal. There may have been cases where the police have been brutal. No doubt about it. There have been some terrible cases.
> But stop pretending were living in the hood. We're not.


You're living in your mum's house.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 13, 2011)

Some interesting polling in the Independent this morning.



> The Government's austerity policies are more to blame than police tactics for the recent rioting
> Agree: 35%
> Disagree: 35%
> Don’t know: 29%
> ...



http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/508/the-independent-london-riots-poll.htm


----------



## Batboy (Aug 13, 2011)

Monday a deputation from the parish of Bethnal Green waited upon Mr Peel to request that some measures might be devised to suppress the dreadful riots and outrages that take place every night in the parish, by a lawless gang of thieves, consisting of five or six hundred. The gang rendezvous in a brick-field at the top of Spicer St, Spitalfields, and out-posts are stationed to give an alarm, should any of the civil power approach, and their cry is “Warhawk,” as a signal for retreat.
On the brick kilns in this field they cook whatever meat and potatoes they plunder from the various shops in the neighbourhood, in the open day and in the face of the shopkeeper. Their outrages have been of the daring kind, there are now no less than five individuals lying in the London Infirmary, without hopes of recovery, that have fallen into the hands of the gang. Within the last fortnight upwards of fifty persons have been robbed, and cruelly beaten, and one of the gang was seen one day last week to produce amongst some of his associates, nearly half-a-hat-full of watches.
Mr Peel gave immediate orders for a detachment of Horse Patrol to be stationed day and night in the neighbourhood, and on Friday morning a party of forty men, to be under the jurisdiction of the Magistrates of Worship St Police Office, were mounted, they are a party of able-bodied men who have held situations in the army, accoutred with cutlasses, pistols, and blunderbusses. They will be in constant communication with forty of the dismounted patrol. The dismounted are divided into parties, and are stationed at the following posts, viz – Cambridge Heath Gate, Mile End Gate, Whitechapel Church, London Apprentice Gate, and near the Regent’s Canal in the Mile End Rd. Both parties are to remain on duty till five o’clock in the morning.
On Friday, being market day at Smithfield, the gang were on the look out for beasts, and we hear that, as early as six in the morning, two bullocks were taken from a drove. On Wednesday, a bullock was rescued from them in the Kingsland Rd, and after being secured in Clement’s barn till the gang had been dispersed, it was conveyed home to its owner, Mr Alexander, in Whitechapel market.
It was reported, that Mr Sykes, the proprietor of the ham and beef shop in Winchester St, Hare St fields, had died on Friday in the London Hospital, of the dreadful injuries he received from the gang, but we are happy to say he is still alive. It seems that Mr Sykes had only set up in business a few days, when about eight o’clock in the evening, about twenty fellows came round his shop, armed with sticks, he suspected they intended an attack, and for security got behind the counter, when the whole gang came in, and seizing a buttock of beef and a ham, ran out of the shop. He endeavoured to prevent them by putting out his arm, when one of them, with a hatchet or hammer, stuck him a tremendous blow which broke it in a dreadful manner, it has been since amputated, and he now lies in a very bad state. The gang then went into a baker’s shop and helped themselves to bread, and afterwards adjourned to the brick-field, and ate the provisions in a very short time.
It would be too tedious to state the numerous outrages that have been committed, but there is reason now to hope, that the etablishment of the horse patrol, and the conviction on Thursday of three of them, at the Old Bailey, for attacking and rubbing Mr Fuller will be the means of routing them altogether.
September 24th 1826


----------



## Xcrutiate (Aug 13, 2011)

That reads like a newspaper report from the victorian times.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 13, 2011)

Late georgian


----------



## Xcrutiate (Aug 13, 2011)

@Blagsta
Well you must be living in your nans.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 13, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> Some interesting polling in the Independent this morning.
> 
> http://www.comres.co.uk/poll/508/the-independent-london-riots-poll.htm



Definitely not good figures for Cameron. The question about the cuts is a bit of a mess, given the way it's framed to only give two choices 'cuts vs police tactics' as cause.

Similar problems with the one about confidence in Boris where the majority 'no difference' could very easily mean 'I already thought he was a useless Tory cunt ...'


----------



## Xcrutiate (Aug 13, 2011)

Oops my bad. Late Georgian it is. Should catch up on my history. Antiques roadshow on iplayer for me today.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 13, 2011)

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14509831

I was bruised and battered
And I couldn't tell what I felt
I was unrecognizable to myself
Saw my reflection in a window
I didn't know my own face
Oh brother are you gonna leave me wasting away
On the streets of Philadelphia

I walked the avenue till my legs felt like stone
I heard the voices of friends vanished and gone
At night I could hear the blood in my veins
Just as black and whispering as the rain
On the streets of Philadelphia

Ain't no angel gonna greet me
It's just you and I my friend
And my clothes don't fit me no more
I walked a thousand miles just to slip this skin

The night has fallen, I'm lyin' awake
I can feel myself fading away
So receive me brother with your faithless kiss
Or will we leave each other alone like this
On the streets of Philadelphia


----------



## Xcrutiate (Aug 13, 2011)

Nice poem. Not quite Blake. But who is.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 13, 2011)

The Boss.


----------



## Xcrutiate (Aug 13, 2011)

Never liked Bruce Springsteen myself but each to their own.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 13, 2011)

Seemed appropriate... given the linked article...


----------



## Xcrutiate (Aug 13, 2011)

i never follow links. They tend to generate bad health.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 13, 2011)

That one's high in fat and low in pro-teen.


----------



## dennisr (Aug 13, 2011)

*Con-Dems to blame for anger of youth - Mass, trade union-led response needed*
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/12534

"An onlooker to the riots in Hackney was quoted in the Times as noting: "Unfortunately this is about as empowered as many of these lads have ever felt in their lives and ever will feel".
....
"It is not just the participants in the riots who will suffer the strong arm of the state forces, but trade unionists, anti-cuts campaigners, environment campaigners and others will now be faced with increased police powers and crowd control equipment in future struggles if the government's present plans are carried out."

"Cameron has said water cannon will be available at 24 hours notice. But a feature of the eruptions was "flash riots" - spreading fast through use of Blackberry Messenger and other social networking. Water cannon are useless in this type of situation as they can't be everywhere at once. But they can be used against more static crowds and pre-organised march routes, that are usual in organised demonstrations of the labour movement."


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 13, 2011)

Very interesting and thoughtful piece from Kenan Malik: Moral Poverty and the Riots



> The fact that the right has appropriated the language of morality has led many on the left to ignore moral arguments, indeed often to see such arguments as reactionary. That is a fatal mistake. Morality is as important to the left as it is to the right, though for very different reasons. There is no possibility of a political or economic vision of a different society without a moral vision too. Moral arguments lie at the heart of our understanding of social solidarity, and of the distinction between notions of social solidarity and pious rightwing claims of ‘we’re all in it together’. And that is why it also has to be at the heart of our understanding of the riots.





> As a result, morality has come to be seen not as difficult choices that one has to wrestle with, or as norms that one works through within a collective setting, but as a set of predetermined rules provided as a state hand-out. Morality has ceased to be _ours_.





> Because the right has appropriated the arguments about moral failure, many on the left have rejected moral arguments altogether. The left talks much about the social and economic impact of neo-liberal policies. But little about its moral impact. Such willful blindness is dangerous. The questions about economic and social poverty, about unemployment and the cuts, are closely related to the questions about moral poverty, about the breakdown of social solidarity and the rise of a nihilistic culture. There can be no challenge to mass unemployment and the imposition of austerity without the restoration of bonds of social solidarity. We cannot, in other words, cannot confront economic poverty if we do not also confront moral poverty. We need to remake our own language of morality, reforge our own moral norms.


----------



## rekil (Aug 13, 2011)

gavman said:


> the dude filming that had some balls


I think he's a known journalist but still. Story here about a bloke on the same demo who wasn't so lucky.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Very interesting and thoughtful piece from Kenan Malik: Moral Poverty and the Riots





> There is clearly more to the riots than simple random hooliganism. But that does not mean that the riots, as many have claimed, are protests against disenfranchisement, social exclusion and wasted lives. *In fact, it’s precisely because of disenfranchisement, social exclusion and wasted lives that these are not ‘protests’ in any way*, but a mixture of incoherent rage, gang thuggery and teenage mayhem.


 (my emphasis)

I think this is spot on ...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 13, 2011)

Also ... some good stuff in a similar vein from David Harvey.



> If we are lucky, we will have commissions and reports to say all over again what was said of Brixton and Toxteth in the Thatcher years. I say ‘lucky’ because the feral instincts of the current Prime Minister seem more attuned to turn on the water cannons, to call in the tear gas brigade and use the rubber bullets while pontificating unctuously about the loss of moral compass, the decline of civility and the sad deterioration of family values and discipline among errant youths.
> 
> But the problem is that we live in a society where capitalism itself has become rampantly feral. Feral politicians cheat on their expenses, feral bankers plunder the public purse for all its worth, CEOs, hedge fund operators and private equity geniuses loot the world of wealth, telephone and credit card companies load mysterious charges on everyone’s bills, shopkeepers price gouge, and, at the drop of a hat swindlers and scam artists get to practice three-card monte right up into the highest echelons of the corporate and political world.
> 
> ...



http://davidharvey.org/2011/08/feral-capitalism-hits-the-streets/


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 13, 2011)

Xcrutiate said:


> I don't believe british cops can do brutality. They may think they're brutal but they're not really. Goto Brazil to see Police brutality. They have it down to a tee. These rioters thought they looked so cool and radical as they rushed back home with their microwaves and HD Ready TV's tucked under their arms, just to watch themselves on the BBC. They must now look pathetic as they await the dreaded knock on their door. Shaking and sweating as they cower under their duvet. Alcohol has worn off now. Things don't seem as rosy as the night before.



Brutality is relative. Cops the world over do what their respective national laws let them get away with. I've seen fingers deliberately broken by our lovely coppers, I've seen faces pummelled and an elbow shattered and excused by the mantra of "he resisted arrest". I've seen and experienced horses being used to compress a group of people into a smaller and smaller space, until breathing was impossible.

Now please stop masturbating over your fantasies of looter existential angst. They're pathetic.


----------



## gavman (Aug 13, 2011)

Xcrutiate said:


> No your the mug. Just cause it's my first post don't think i'm subservient to you. Your posts or reputation on this board mean nothing to me.
> I expressed an opinion. This is what this board is about. Opinions. Discussion. Mug.


and your opinion on this is vacuous


----------



## treelover (Aug 13, 2011)

I'm just glad to see new posters on P/P...


----------



## Xcrutiate (Aug 13, 2011)

if my opinion was so empty why make such a fuss. I beleive my first post was valid. You lot made it seem vacuous.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Aug 13, 2011)

Not sure that this is the most appropriate thread for this, but it will do.

Years ago, back in 1998, I read and kept Neal Ascherson's last column in the Independent on Sunday, in which he warned that the rampant capitalism that has taken over the world since the fall of Communism can't last: "Within a generation, it will be challenged."

Now it has been challenged, but not in the way Ascherson expected. He anticipated an organised political movement, not riots. But he was half right. Rampant capitalism may not be what the rioters themselves were consciously challenging, but plenty of people are blaming exactly that for the riots.

Here is the vintage article:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/we-live-under-the-most-arrogant-of-all-world-orders-but-it-will-not-last-1140730.html


----------



## treelover (Aug 14, 2011)

http://london.indymedia.org/articles/9963

2000 on unity march in Tottenham

any media coverage?

or doesn't it fit the agenda..


----------



## dennisr (Aug 14, 2011)

treelover said:


> 2000 on unity march in Tottenham


don't know if it was quite 2000 - but not bad. usual strange hackney mix


----------



## Gmart (Aug 14, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'm not sure I agree. I've net read anything that's convinced me that addiction doesn't have a significant biological component i.e. that one can inherit a predisposition to substance addiction. If you've got that, it doesn't matter whether you're from a deprived background or a "good" one, you're subject to the same forces.



Sadly it is difficult to imagine a society being run where one is able to declare that they are not responsible for their actions. Addiction can be dealt with by the individual in the vast majority of cases and help should be available at the doctors, but everyone is responsible for their actions from the bankers to the politicians to the rioters and they should be punished if they break them, without exception.

I am reminded again of an interview a few days ago with a young lady who claimed to be drinking looted wine. She stated that the aims of the riots were to show the rich that they could also get away with doing what they wanted too.



Batboy said:


> <snip>
> September 24th 1826



Shows that we have had this problem for a long time. During the victorian age there were many disturbances demanding a better life but the relative strength of the British Enpire meant that there was a policy not unlike the current policy of Saudi Arabia - just throw money at it and don't change the basic causes.



ViolentPanda said:


> Brutality is relative. Cops the world over do what their respective national laws let them get away with. I've seen fingers deliberately broken by our lovely coppers, I've seen faces pummelled and an elbow shattered and excused by the mantra of "he resisted arrest". I've seen and experienced horses being used to compress a group of people into a smaller and smaller space, until breathing was impossible.



I have also been on the sharp end of police violence, and have seen them remove their numbers so that I couldn't report them. Their existance is predicated on protecting parliament not protecting the people.

Cost of riots - 100m
Cost of bailing out the bankers - 800 bn

There are yobs at all levels of society. We need to have a discussion about what values we can agree on in the UK social contract.


----------



## Ibn Khaldoun (Aug 14, 2011)

dennisr said:


> *Con-Dems to blame for anger of youth - Mass, trade union-led response needed*
> http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/12534
> 
> "An onlooker to the riots in Hackney was quoted in the Times as noting: "Unfortunately this is about as empowered as many of these lads have ever felt in their lives and ever will feel".



This is the most negative thing about the rioting, that it testifies to the weakness of leftist forces in organizing opposition to the government as well as taking on issues like the police brutality. All these years. It's been locals and individual campaigners protesting and marching. Seems like they've been entirely overlooked by others, like the Socialist Party themselves, for example.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 14, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I sincerely hope this is a joke.


Half the things I say on here are a joke, including the above. Why, were you concerned for me?!



> I realise you are giving your opinions. What links do you want exactly, whislt I recognise your reluctance to take other people's word for it, you have been pointed in the right direction in terms of research you could do yourself which would inform you better.
> 
> ...and this is where I think you are crossing wires. A 'deprived' background, how do you characterise that? Can you share your _proof_ with me?
> 
> ...


It's hard for me to explain myself clearly on here, especially a heated thread like this. Little snippets of my original post get a lot of attention then 10 pages later we are a million miles away from the point I was trying to make. I have made errors, like not taking into account white collar crime when saying most people who commit crime will come from a poor background (I still think that is correct, but not _as _correct as I had originally made out) and I hold my hands up to that now. I see from the above that I still haven't managed to explain what exactly I mean so I shall try again to simplify it having had a bit of time to think the best way how, but first a few points just so you know where I stand on some issues...

First, I accept that some policemen will be racist. I accept that institutionalised racism exists and will have had an impact on SAS stats (altho I do believe we have made good strides to resolving this problem over the last decade or so but obviously still work to do). If somebody is stopped on the basis of skin colour then that is racist and I do not support that.

So, my original point...The police will concentrate their resources on high crime areas. These high crime areas are likely (in general terms) to correspond to areas of high deprivation. That means people stopped by the police are likely to be from these areas (as that is the most likely explanation for somebody to be in that area), and if ethnic minorities are more likely to be from a deprived background than a white person then they are also more likely to be from the areas that the police are concentrating their resources on (inc stop searches) which I am saying could provide one reason why ethnic minorities turn up in greater proportions on stop search stats compared with white people. Also, if there is a link between deprivation and (certain types of) crime, then if certain groups are more likely to be suffering deprivation then it is not out of the question that members of that group may turn up in a greater proportion compared to their population. All I wanted to say is that if we lay the blame for all this _only _on racism, then I think we can miss a trick in also highlighting the social inequalities that can lead to areas suffering high crime rates or some people becoming involved in crime.

Anyway, I think I have said all I can on this issue...


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 14, 2011)

What's a "high-crime area" though? You seem to think the total number of crimes/perpetrators is more important than the total impact of the crimes. That may be so, but it definitely doesn't go without saying ...

In terms of amount of money stolen and overall misery and suffering generated, it's by no means impossible that 'high crime area' would mean the City of London above all.

ETA this is kind of why I got a bit snippy with you the other day, for which I apologise.


----------



## CyberRose (Aug 14, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> What's a "high-crime area" though? You seem to think the total number of crimes/perpetrators is more important than the total impact of the crimes. That may be so, but it definitely doesn't go without saying ...


I'm just saying that police concentrate their resources in certain areas, so in this respect, they are the ones that decide what a high crime area is (ie which area they want to concentrate on)



> In terms of amount of money stolen and overall misery and suffering generated, it's by no means impossible that 'high crime area' would mean the City of London above all.


Heh if we were deciding on what high crime areas were then I'd be right behind you on that one! But hopefully the above explains what I mean?



> ETA this is kind of why I got a bit snippy with you the other day, for which I apologise.


No worries. I'm not really saying this is how things _should be, _rather, this is how I think things _are_


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 14, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> I'm just saying that police concentrate their resources in certain areas, so in this respect, they are the ones that decide what a high crime area is (ie which area they want to concentrate on)
> 
> <snip>



This is a very political decision I think.


----------



## Dr Dolittle (Aug 14, 2011)

I don't agree with Kenan Malik's view (quoted by Butcher's Apron) that the left have ignored the right's moral posturing. A lot of them have accused the right of moral hypocracy.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 14, 2011)

Over the morals that that they've constructed.

The question is whose morals organise society and how can we construct them/how are they constructed.


----------



## scalyboy (Aug 14, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Poetry.


Blimey! Impassioned and enthralling speech, I wish I could speak like him!


----------



## treelover (Aug 14, 2011)

Read new poster Shaun Balls's experiences of people's reactions to the riots, he works for the NHS, its terrifying...


----------



## kabbes (Aug 15, 2011)

CyberRose said:


> So, my original point...The police will concentrate their resources on high crime areas. These high crime areas are likely (in general terms) to correspond to areas of high deprivation. That means people stopped by the police are likely to be from these areas (as that is the most likely explanation for somebody to be in that area), and if ethnic minorities are more likely to be from a deprived background than a white person then they are also more likely to be from the areas that the police are concentrating their resources on (inc stop searches) which I am saying could provide one reason why ethnic minorities turn up in greater proportions on stop search stats compared with white people.


When we say that black people are affected by a disproportionate degree by SAS, we _mean_ that it is disproportionate compared with the make-up of the resident population.   Black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched.  For every 1000 black people, over 100 will be stopped per year.  That's a hell of a lot of criminality being assigned to one sector of the population.  Far more than can be explained by resident demographics in certain areas.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 15, 2011)

Only 13% lead to arrests, incidentally.  So of those 100 stopped in every 1000, 87 are done so on the basis of nothing whatsoever.  That's a lot of people you're pissing off.


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Very interesting and thoughtful piece from Kenan Malik: Moral Poverty and the Riots


 
That really sums up a lot about what I have been thinking about and puts it together in one place


----------



## The39thStep (Aug 15, 2011)

Dr Dolittle said:


> I don't agree with Kenan Malik's view (quoted by Butcher's Apron) that the left have ignored the right's moral posturing. A lot of them have accused the right of moral hypocracy.



Perhaps the message in the article was a little too subtle Doc. Its not so much accusing the right of moral hypocracy its actually about defining our own and activity to strengthen it within our communities that is one of the conclusions that flow.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

Xcrutiate said:


> British police aren't brutal. There may have been cases where the police have been brutal. No doubt about it. There have been some terrible cases.
> But stop pretending were living in the hood. We're not.


I lived in tottenham for some time, worked in wood green, and - trust me - there have been many times when the differences betweeen Tottenham and the bronx aren't that great; similar brutal, racist cops (but with fewer guns) same gangs, poverty and despair


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

Xcrutiate said:


> Your all making me laugh now. Fallaciousness of your logic. That's a sentence i didn't expect to hear this morning. Look all i said was the British police aren't brutal. Compared to other countries they're pussies. I didn't say i liked them. I don't. I live in a council estate near Cardiff. Show me any one who lives on a council estate in Britain who likes the police. I don't dislike them though because of their job. That has to be done. It's just the way they go about it. But to call them brutal is overkill. In the majority.


It's not just 'brutality'; it's the neverending petty harassment of people, especially young people, and their compulsive urge, when an op goes wrong, to cover-up and lie and smear their way through it


----------



## shaman75 (Aug 15, 2011)

extract from the Miliband speech...



> Children's ideas of right and wrong don't just come from their parents. And we can't honestly say the greed, selfishness and gross irresponsibility that shocked us all so deeply is confined to the looters or even to their parents.





> It's not the first time we've seen this kind of me-first, take what you can culture.​The bankers who took millions while destroying people's savings: greedy, selfish, and immoral. The MPs who fiddled their expenses: greedy, selfish, and immoral. The people who hacked phones to get stories to make money for themselves: greedy, selfish and immoral. People who talk about the sick behaviour of those without power, should talk equally about the sick behaviour of those with power.​



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...cameron-miliband-speeches?CMP=twt_gu#block-31​


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 15, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> extract from the Miliband speech...
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/...cameron-miliband-speeches?CMP=twt_gu#block-31​


Notice how he presents greed and selfishness as recent phenomena that occurred in isolation from history. If he had any guts (which he doesn't) he'd have linked these words to 30 years of neoliberalism. He's chock full of platitudes and guff this morning - as usual.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

At least he's saying it. But will he have the guts (or even inclination) to criticise the government's response to the riots - the disgusting sentences, etc? I doubt it.


----------



## London_Calling (Aug 15, 2011)

He's talking about cause, not punishment. Jesus, if he didn't ever want to get elected he'd mention the sentencing tariffs.


----------



## nino_savatte (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> At least he's saying it. But will he have the guts (or even inclination) to criticise the government's response to the riots - the disgusting sentences, etc? I doubt it.


In a word? No.


----------



## love detective (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> At least he's saying it. But will he have the guts (or even inclination) to criticise the government's response to the riots - the disgusting sentences, etc? I doubt it.



the government has acted in a reckless and provocative manner, and it's time for both sides to put aside the rhetoric and get round the negotiating table


----------



## treelover (Aug 15, 2011)

'http://www.demotix.com/news/789530/give-our-kids-future-march-peacefully-crowds-streets-london

pictures of the Unity Rally 'give our kids a future' in North London

of course there were some cranks on it, but I'm very angry indeed this got no media coverage, there were for instance, hundreds of kids on it and it happened when the media were in the area in numbers,,,


----------



## shaman75 (Aug 15, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'http://www.demotix.com/news/789530/give-our-kids-future-march-peacefully-crowds-streets-london
> 
> pictures of the Unity Rally 'give our kids a future' in North London
> 
> of course there were some cranks on it, but I'm very angry indeed this got no media coverage, there were for instance, hundreds of kids on it and it happened when the media were in the area in numbers,,,



Yeah.  But nothing got smashed... 

Shame how a few hundred can dominate coverage with some broken windows and burnt cars, but a few thousand peacefully protesting gets practically nothing.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

Following the 80s riots w/c communities, esp in the inner cities saw a deliberate planned construction of a sort of group between the state/police etc and the people, a policy of professional community mediators, based around the principle of multi-culturalism, to sort of damp down unrest and offer a ladder to the black petty bourgoise Given that this sort of layer has had its funding removed over last year and isn't going to be put back any time soon, what on the ground options are there? Heavier policing? How, when they're cutting them, and the risk of aggravating the situation even  further. What can they do?


----------



## Fuchs66 (Aug 15, 2011)

Just a comment on something I've noted, I'm not sure if it's been mentioned yet here, but I have noticed a couple of TV commentators coming up with the comparison between the UK and the Netherlands along the lines of "If a liberal multi-cultural society is to blame for these riots why dont we see similar riots in the Netherlands?"

Just look at this report I thought it may underline a major difference when it comes to public perception of the police here:



> The police were involved in 25 shooting incidents which resulted in death or injury last year and 18 so far this year, according to new police figures, quoted by the Telegraaf.
> In the first seven months of 2011, two people have been shot dead by police and 18 injured. The police say the increase - in 2006 there were just 14 shootings - is due to a hardening of attitudes in society.
> 'Research shows that all 25 cases in 2010 were handled properly and justified because it was an emergency situation,' a police spokesman told the paper.



http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2011/08/police_involved_in_more_shooti_1.php

Bad comparison IMO.


----------



## Zabo (Aug 15, 2011)

"When order is unjust, disorder is the beginning of justice."

_Romain Rolland in his Le Quatorze Juillet_


----------



## belboid (Aug 15, 2011)

Do you actually have anything to say, or do you you just want to look like an intellectual?

If its the latter, I'm afraid you're failing badly


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Following the 80s riots w/c communities, esp in the inner cities saw a deliberate planned construction of a sort of group between the state/police etc and the people, a policy of professional community mediators, based around the principle of multi-culturalism, to sort of damp down unrest and offer a ladder to the black petty bourgoise Given that this sort of layer has had its funding removed over last year and isn't going to be put back any time soon, what on the ground options are there? Heavier policing? How, when they're cutting them, and the risk of aggravating the situation even further. What can they do?



Sorry, who are "they" in that last sentence?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

The state, local and national.


----------



## Zabo (Aug 15, 2011)

Do you mean me? I much prefer concepts that are short and profound. Little nuggets of gold. What Rolland says certainly beats the 20,000 word turgid waffle posts on here that say exactly the same thing but in a very clumsy way. Ask Dylans. I'm sure he'll be happy to oblige with some assorted pick and mix theories.

You should read Prevert, it might open up your mind and assist you in being a little less bigoted.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The state, local and national.



Right, cheers.


----------



## agricola (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Following the 80s riots w/c communities, esp in the inner cities saw a deliberate planned construction of a sort of group between the state/police etc and the people, a policy of professional community mediators, based around the principle of multi-culturalism, to sort of damp down unrest and offer a ladder to the black petty bourgoise Given that this sort of layer has had its funding removed over last year and isn't going to be put back any time soon, what on the ground options are there? Heavier policing? How, when they're cutting them, and the risk of aggravating the situation even further. What can they do?



What they _should_ do is ensure (if necessary by taking it out of the local councils control) that the country gets improvements in education that allow and incentivize kids to better themselves (if necessary by banding in order to at least help some kids, but also full grants for further education), in social care (including youth clubs, childcare etc), and that the youth criminal justice system (which I think everyone agrees is clearly not working) gets seriously looked at and fixed. Encouraging private sector job creation (especially in terms of local business, rather than yet more Tesco Express) and genuinely local (ie: not filtered via a few selected individuals) scrutiny of the police (and the rest of local government) would help as well.

I think we all know what they will do though.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

agricola said:


> What they _should_ do is ensure (if necessary by taking it out of the local councils control) that the country gets improvements in education that allow and incentivize kids to better themselves (if necessary by banding in order to at least help some kids, but also full grants for further education), in social care (including youth clubs, childcare etc), and that the youth criminal justice system (which I think everyone agrees is clearly not working) gets seriously looked at and fixed. Encouraging private sector job creation (especially in terms of local business, rather than yet more Tesco Express) and genuinely local (ie: not via a few selected individuals) scrutiny of the police (and the rest of local government) would help as well.
> 
> I think we all know what they will do though.



Kinda evades butchers' question, as far as I understand it he's asking "whither police-community relations"?


----------



## flutterbye (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Following the 80s riots w/c communities, esp in the inner cities saw a deliberate planned construction of a sort of group between the state/police etc and the people, a policy of professional community mediators, based around the principle of multi-culturalism, to sort of damp down unrest and offer a ladder to the black petty bourgoise Given that this sort of layer has had its funding removed over last year and isn't going to be put back any time soon, what on the ground options are there? Heavier policing? How, when they're cutting them, and the risk of aggravating the situation even further. What can they do?



Maybe this bunch will get 5 minutes of fame

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Group


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Kinda evades butchers' question, as far as I understand it he's asking "whither police-community relations"?


I wasn't really. I was more after what options they realistically have given their wider program. The police bit was just demonstrating how their options are limited or likely to prove counterproductive if used.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Kinda evades butchers' question, as far as I understand it he's asking "whither police-community relations"?


I don't think it does. I agree with agricola that police-community relations can only be improved within a wider context of changes. You can't wage economic warfare on a community and then expect that community to have good relations with the police.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't think it does. I agree with agricola that police-community relations can only be improved within a wider context of changes. You can't wage economic warfare on a community and then expect that community to have good relations with the police.



Fair enough, but in that sense bettering the socio-economic standing of all communities (barring those already rich of course) is an answer to almost any societal ill. I thought you were after more specific ideas. Anyway, carry on!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Fair enough, but in that sense bettering the socio-economic standing of all communities (barring those already rich of course) is an answer to almost any societal ill. I thought you were after more specific ideas. Anyway, carry on!


Agricola gave a whole list of specific ideas, some of which were directly to do with police-community relations, such as genuine local accountability, others of which were to do with creating the social conditions in which such meaningful dialogue might be possible.

There's been a lot in the last week from all kinds of quarters (not a dig at you btw) attempting to address particular issues without talking about the wider context, which ends up just so much meaningless hot air.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Fair enough, but in that sense bettering the socio-economic standing of all communities (barring those already rich of course) is an answer to almost any societal ill. I thought you were after more specific ideas. Anyway, carry on!


I'm not after ideas to help them. I'm asking how they are going to manage the crisis. In the 80s it was through the stuff i outlined. Today they can't do that. They've limited their options.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Agricola gave a whole list of specific ideas, some of which were directly to do with police-community relations, such as genuine local accountability, others of which were to do with creating the social conditions in which such meaningful dialogue might be possible.
> 
> There's been a lot in the last week from all kinds of quarters (not a dig at you btw) attempting to address particular issues without talking about the wider context, which ends up just so much meaningless hot air.



Maybe I was a bit unfair to agricola... Of course specific issues divorced from the wider context is meaningless at best or misdirection at worst.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not after ideas to help them. I'm asking how they are going to manage the crisis. In the 80s it was through the stuff i outlined. Today they can't do that. They've limited their options.



OK! My admittedly underinformed gut feeling is that they'll broadly try and go with the zero-tolerance approach, taking ideas from that American chief of police that led NYPD and LAPD. So, more heavy-handedness is my guess.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not after ideas to help them. I'm asking how they are going to manage the crisis. In the 80s it was through the stuff i outlined. Today they can't do that. They've limited their options.


Ok. In that case, fuck knows. As you say, their options are limited.

Worst case scenario sees the UK sliding ever further towards US-style inequality and social deprivation, bulging jails and frankly brutal policing methods.

Best case scenario sees a quiet u-turn on some of the cuts, which I still think is a possible eventual outcome to this, or at least part of the eventual outcome.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

TruXta said:


> OK! My admittedly underinformed gut feeling is that they'll broadly try and go with the zero-tolerance approach, taking ideas from that American chief of police that led NYPD and LAPD. So, more heavy-handedness is my guess.


I'm not just on about the police  -the stuff i outlined above was driven by and through local councils (which again are getting cut t fuck in these areas). They have removed all fire dampeners.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not just on about the police -the stuff i outlined above was driven by and through local councils (which again are getting cut t fuck in these areas). They have removed all fire dampeners.


In the fantasy land of the 'big society', charities, churches, local volunteer groups, step in.

In reality, these kinds of groups can only really flourish in already ok areas. That's why I think there is a chance some of the cuts will be reversed. This might even be an excuse to reverse some of the austerity measures where the real reason for doing so is because it would be economic suicide to continue with them. They can blame next quarter's bad news on the economy on the riots. But what about the quarter after that, and the quarter after that?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not just on about the police -the stuff i outlined above was driven by and through local councils (which again are getting cut t fuck in these areas). They have removed all fire dampeners.



Right. Fuck knows really. I'm not keeping as up to speed on this as I suspect you are.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Right. Fuck knows really. I'm not keeping as up to speed on this as I suspect you are.


Thing is, you think they know what to do? I doubt it.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Thing is, you think they know what to do? I doubt it.



If you mean Camedrone et al, I think they genuinely believe that zero-tolerance is a good policy. They've not drafted in that US plod-bod for nothing. FFS, they even wanted to hand him the Scotland Yard a while back!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

OK, you're talking about short term immediate stuff here. Keeping a lid on things. Is that all they can do? The stuff in the 80s took a decade to work and it was understood at inception that it would. It was a long term political strategy. That's really what i'm on about. What possibility is there for a long term strategy  under austerity?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> OK, you're talking about short term immediate stuff here. Keeping a lid on things. Is that all they can do? The stuff in the 80s took a decade to work and it was understood at inception that it would. It was a long term political strategy. That's really what i'm on about. What possibility is there for a long term strategy under austerity?



Other than a possible retreat to 0-tolerance and heavy-handedness in reaction to a perceived populist outrage at the rioters? Not much I'd think. However, one of the things that's been interesting to see over the last week is the resistance emerging from the coppers themselves to some of the moves proposed by Cameron. Some of it is of course merely ring-fencing and rote resistance to change, but it seems like a few senior bods at least have taken to heart the changes originating in the post-80s policing landscape.

I don't think the police wants to go back to a rule by kosh, they've seen that it doesn't work in the long-term.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

Isn't that the wrong question? What possibility is there for this government to survive the economic clusterfuck that austerity will cause? Thatcher u-turned on monetarism. Why would Cameron not u-turn on austerity.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

TruXta said:


> If you mean Camedrone et al, I think they genuinely believe that zero-tolerance is a good policy.


Really? I think they might think that it is a politically expedient policy. I'm not sure their thinking ever extends to the thought 'is this a good policy or not'. I don't think they think like that.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Really? I think they might think that it is a politically expedient policy. I'm not sure their thinking ever extends to the thought 'is this a good policy or not'. I don't think they think like that.



I don't agree. Sure they're populist, but they're still driven by ideology.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Isn't that the wrong question? What possibility is there for this government to survive the economic clusterfuck that austerity will cause? Thatcher u-turned on monetarism. Why would Cameron not u-turn on austerity.


What followed her u-turn? The riots. And no, it's not the wrong question, there's not a singular right question. I'm interested in how the state responds to these events compared to how they did last time.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

They wouldn't be u-turning on austerity because of the riots. They would be doing it to avoid an economic meltdown that would see them booted out of power. Same reason Thatcher u-turned on monetarism.

The tories may be economically illiterate, but they're not politically illiterate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Isn't that the wrong question? What possibility is there for this government to survive the economic clusterfuck that austerity will cause? Thatcher u-turned on monetarism. Why would Cameron not u-turn on austerity.



Because he and his party have left themselves with nowhere else to go but onward.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They wouldn't be u-turning on austerity because of the riots. They would be doing it to avoid an economic meltdown that would see them booted out of power. Same reason Thatcher u-turned on monetarism.
> 
> The tories may be economically illiterate, but they're not politically illiterate.


No - there's more than economic logic at work, there's political logic at work too.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No - there's more than economic logic at work, there's political logic at work too.


There is, yes. But the two are not unlinked.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is, yes. But the two are not unlinked.


I know, that's what i was saying.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I know, that's what i was saying.


ok, yes. What I said wasn't quite right. But I think you can see what I meant by it - I genuinely think that Osbourne, for instance, doesn't really understand what the deficit is, what has caused it, why it is necessary, and what the consequences are of trying to reduce it. I might be wrong, but that is my distinct impression.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ok, yes. What I said wasn't quite right. But I think you can see what I meant by it - I genuinely think that Osbourne, for instance, doesn't really understand what the deficit is, what has caused it, why it is necessary, and what the consequences are of trying to reduce it. I might be wrong, but that is my distinct impression.



Could well be true - the man's not an economist by any stretch after all. That said he's surely got much more clued up people advising him.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Could well be true - the man's not an economist by any stretch after all. That said he's surely got much more clued up people advising him.


I'm not an economist, but I've made a semi-structured effort to understand economics in the last couple of years, and to me the biggest realisation anyone doing that has to reach is a proper understanding of why there is no such thing as economics as a 'science'. It can only be understood in terms of the kind of society you're trying to produce. In that sense, I'm afraid a lot of professional economists simply don't understand the nature of the subject they are supposed to be experts in. To understand that requires a wider historical, political and moral perspective.

Thatcher was surrounded by so-called 'experts' who thought monetarism was a good idea, for instance. And let's face it, he is going to surround himself with people who will be telling him what he wants to hear. He is necessarily going to be surrounding himself with the kind of clueless economists that I refer to.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Following the 80s riots w/c communities, esp in the inner cities saw a deliberate planned construction of a sort of group between the state/police etc and the people, a policy of professional community mediators, based around the principle of multi-culturalism, to sort of damp down unrest and offer a ladder to the black petty bourgoise Given that this sort of layer has had its funding removed over last year and isn't going to be put back any time soon, what on the ground options are there? Heavier policing? How, when they're cutting them, and the risk of aggravating the situation even further. What can they do?


There is sweet FA they can do IF they continue with the current full steam ahead on the cuts.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not an economist, but I've made a semi-structured effort to understand economics in the last couple of years, and to me the biggest realisation anyone doing that has to reach is a proper understanding of why there is no such thing as economics as a 'science'. It can only be understood in terms of the kind of society you're trying to produce. In that sense, I'm afraid a lot of professional economists simply don't understand the nature of the subject they are supposed to be experts in. To understand that requires a wider historical, political and moral perspective.
> 
> Thatcher was surrounded by so-called 'experts' who thought monetarism was a good idea, for instance.



You try and tell that to them . Jokes aside, you can easily castigate the economist orthodoxy (focus on equilibrial individual utility-maximising as axiomatic premise), but that doesn't mean there's no science in economy or that economy cannot be a science - at least as long as science is not seen as equivalent to physics. Economic history and economic sociology both have many valuable hard-nosed empirical results and insights as does of course parts of the orthodoxy as well.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I'm not just on about the police -the stuff i outlined above was driven by and through local councils (which again are getting cut t fuck in these areas). They have removed all fire dampeners.


It was also driven through by the '3rd sector' (NGOs, charities) - and they've also had their funding slashed to the bone


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Really? I think they might think that it is a politically expedient policy. I'm not sure their thinking ever extends to the thought 'is this a good policy or not'. I don't think they think like that.


they do, because cameron is preprogrammed by generations of privilege to equate inner city underclass youth with 'vermin'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

No, I disagree. In this, I agree wholeheartedly with Marx. There is no such thing as an economy. There is only a political economy. Economics is not a science. Economics is just a way of turning social relations into numbers as a means to understand them. Economics is the 'science' of society in the same way that musical notation is the 'science' of music. It's just a way of writing certain stuff down.

There are a lot of 'orthodox' neoclassical economists who don't have the first idea what they are talking about, and who are constantly surprised when their predictions fall flat on their faces.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, I disagree. In this, I agree wholeheartedly with Marx. There is no such thing as an economy. There is only a political economy. Economics is not a science. Economics is just a way of turning social relations into numbers as a means to understand them. Economics is the 'science' of society in the same way that musical notation is the 'science' of music. It's just a way of writing certain stuff down.
> 
> There are a lot of 'orthodox' neoclassical economists who don't have the first idea what they are talking about, and who are constantly surprised when their predictions fall flat on their faces.



I think we might mean different things when we talk of "science".


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ok, yes. What I said wasn't quite right. But I think you can see what I meant by it - I genuinely think that Osbourne, for instance, doesn't really understand what the deficit is, what has caused it, why it is necessary, and what the consequences are of trying to reduce it. I might be wrong, but that is my distinct impression.


by his lights, he doesn't need to, all he cares about is the slash n burn mission  on the welfare state and public services


----------



## shaman75 (Aug 15, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Could well be true - the man's not an economist by any stretch after all. That said he's surely got much more clued up people advising him.



crikey.  this got me thinking about that 'The Shock Doctrine' book again, which heavily features people from the USA, IMF, Chicago School of Economics etc... advising governments about the best way to make their country more accessible to private (often foreign) investment, often to the detriment of ordinary people, in return for debt aid.

i wonder who's really advising Osborne and what their real goals are?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

shaman75 said:


> crikey. this got me thinking about that 'The Shock Doctrine' book again, which heavily features people from the USA, IMF, Chicago School of Economics etc... advising governments about the best way to make their country more accessible to private (often foreign) investment, often to the detriment of ordinary people, in return for debt aid.
> 
> i wonder who's really advising Osborne and what their real goals are?


He doesn't need advising. At least in the sense of convincing him to do something. He knows what he's doing and why.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I think we might mean different things when we talk of "science".


Put it this way: Would a professional physicist be able to reach any position in academia without understanding that Newton's laws aren't the last word on the nature of the universe? The lack of understanding I see in what some economists write is equivalent in scale to that kind of lack, imo.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> He doesn't need advising. At least in the sense of convincing him to do something. He knows what he's doing and why.


Does he? Are you sure you're not giving him too much credit?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 15, 2011)

Cameron is going to sort things out by getting rid of human rights laws and loosening up health and safety regulations. That will really put the wind up the rioters.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Put it this way: Would a professional physicist be able to reach any position in academia without understanding that Newton's laws aren't the last word on the nature of the universe? The lack of understanding I see in what some economists write is equivalent in scale to that kind of lack, imo.


So there are laws? There are or there ain't. If there ain't the whole game is up.

By political economy marx meant the emerging science of economics. Very clearly and very deliberately. He didn't mean economics perverted by economics. PE ws just the term used at that point.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Does he? Are you sure you're not giving him too much credit?


Yeah, i'm quite sure. I'm 100%

Do you really think this happens by accident?

An eton educated oxbridge chancellor doesn't need advisors. He might be a public calamity, but come the fuck on. He knows what to do and why. He's not just sitting there waiting to be told what to do.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So there are laws? There are or there ain't. If there ain't the whole game is up.
> 
> By political economy marx meant the emerging science of economics. Very clearly and very deliberately. He didn't mean economics perverted by economics. PE ws just the term used at that point.


There aren't laws in the same way as there are laws in physics, no. That doesn't mean the whole game is up, though. It just means that the 'science' is and can only ever be 'social' - so any judgement needs to have an asterisk next to it, basically, to show that human behaviour needs to be taken into account, and that economic policy can depend as much on the power of a person's rhetoric as on the power of their number-crunching.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There aren't laws in the same way as there are laws in physics, no. That doesn't mean the whole game is up, though. It just means that the 'science' is and can only ever be 'social' - so any judgement needs to have an asterisk next to it, basically, to show that human behaviour needs to be taken into account, and that economic policy can depend as much on the power of a person's rhetoric as on the power of their number-crunching.


That's not what economics is based on. It's based on a fundamental axiomatic judgment. That it's not social. On human behaviour.

You're a bit messy here. Are you defending economics or attacking it? Defending the discipline despite some wrong readings? And Marx?


----------



## love detective (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Does he? Are you sure you're not giving him too much credit?



not in the slightest and to suggest otherwise is pretty naive (i.e. as if we are in this crisis of austerity simply because someone like lbj isn't there to explain to him what a deficit is)


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

Better advisors is the cry!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

I'm defending the discipline, but saying that some readings of it are indeed wrong - in that some economists think what they're doing is scientific in a way that I don't think it is. That doesn't mean that there aren't mechanisms that need to be understood, but I would say that economics is scientific only in the same way as history is scientific - in that something akin to a scientific method is needed to study it. That's a bit different from calling it a science, although that's a bit of a semantic point, I admit.

RE: Osbourne, I've just looked him up (St Paul's, not Eton, btw). He got a 2:1 in Modern History. That's absolutely no guarantee of any level of political or economic understanding, sad to say.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm defending the discipline, but saying that some readings of it are indeed wrong - in that some economists think what they're doing is scientific in a way that I don't think it is. That doesn't mean that there aren't mechanisms that need to be understood, but I would say that economics is scientific only in the same way as history is scientific - in that something akin to a scientific method is needed to study it. That's a bit different from calling it a science, although that's a bit of a semantic point, I admit.
> 
> RE: Osbourne, I've just looked him up (St Paul's, not Eton, btw). He got a 2:1 in Modern History. That's absolutely no guarantee of any level of political or economic understanding, sad to say.


His qualifications are so not the point.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

love detective said:


> not in the slightest and to suggest otherwise is pretty naive (i.e. as if we are in this crisis of austerity simply because someone like lbj isn't there to explain to him what a deficit is)


Did Thatcher understand what she was doing with Monetarism?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

Maybe if we had better qualified people for the jobs this wouldn't happen.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did Thatcher understand what she was doing with Monetarism?


She shouyld have done it right, better qualified advisors.

This is the political bit i mentioned earlier. It's quite important.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Maybe if we had better qualified people for the jobs this wouldn't happen.


That's not what I'm saying. Not at all. But what level is his understanding at? That's my question. Anyway. I give up on this.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

Maybe a lawyer for home sec, a trained economist for treasury - what could go wrong?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not what I'm saying. Not at all. But what level is his understanding at? That's my question. Anyway. I give up on this.


Clearly not at your level. Seems to me he knows what he's doing and why. Maybe there could be some test though?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

It is thoroughly unpleasant to try to make this personal. If you don't like me or the way I post, I'd far rather you just left me alone. You seem to manage to misunderstand me pretty much every time.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It is thoroughly unpleasant to try to make this personal. If you don't like me or the way I post, I'd far rather you just left me alone. You seem to manage to misunderstand me pretty much every time.


Wtf? I'm following the logic of your own posts. Stand by them.


----------



## love detective (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did Thatcher understand what she was doing with Monetarism?



politically and from a class struggle point of view absolutely

Alan Budd economic adviser to the treasury at the time sums it up fairly neatly imo:-



> The nightmare I sometimes have about this whole experience runs as follows: I was involved in making a number of proposals which were partly at least adopted by the government and put in play by the government. My worry is as follows; that there may have been people making the actual policy decisions, or people behind them, or people behind them, who never believed for a moment that this was the correct way to bring down inflation. They did however see that this would be a very very good way to raise unemployment.
> 
> And raising unemployment was an extremely desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes; if you like, that what was engineered there - in Marxist terms - was a crisis of capitalism which recreated the reserve army of labour, and has allowed the capitalist to make high profits ever since


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

love detective said:


> politically and from a class struggle point of view absolutely
> 
> Alan Budd economic adviser to the treasury at the time sums it up fairly neatly imo:-


But it went against the science so she should have been advised differently.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> ok, yes. What I said wasn't quite right. But I think you can see what I meant by it - I genuinely think that Osbourne, for instance, doesn't really understand what the deficit is, what has caused it, why it is necessary, and what the consequences are of trying to reduce it. I might be wrong, but that is my distinct impression.


I don't agree. I'm fairly certain that he knows perfectly well what the deficit is, what caused it, and the effects of trying to reduce it, but that, like many of his class, he has no empathy or sympathy for those that will suffer because of his ideologically-driven deficit-reduction strategy.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Put it this way: Would a professional physicist be able to reach any position in academia without understanding that Newton's laws aren't the last word on the nature of the universe? The lack of understanding I see in what some economists write is equivalent in scale to that kind of lack, imo.



Now you're assuming that there is a True State of Affairs which economists have failed to get, hence they're not scientists. Again, economy can be seen as a science only if you leave that picture of science behind where science is more or less what physicists do.

edit - I see you've been over this already, serves me right for not reading the whole rest of the thread before replying.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I'm not an economist, but I've made a semi-structured effort to understand economics in the last couple of years, and to me the biggest realisation anyone doing that has to reach is a proper understanding of why there is no such thing as economics as a 'science'. It can only be understood in terms of the kind of society you're trying to produce. In that sense, I'm afraid a lot of professional economists simply don't understand the nature of the subject they are supposed to be experts in. To understand that requires a wider historical, political and moral perspective.
> 
> Thatcher was surrounded by so-called 'experts' who thought monetarism was a good idea, for instance. And let's face it, he is going to surround himself with people who will be telling him what he wants to hear. He is necessarily going to be surrounding himself with the kind of clueless economists that I refer to.



Thatcher's "experts" weren't, though, they were, rather, ideologues attempting to sell Thatcher an adjunct "new right" policy to the neo-liberal prescription.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Thatcher's "experts" weren't, though, they were, rather, ideologues attempting to sell Thatcher an adjunct "new right" policy to the neo-liberal prescription.



Wasn't Friedman one of them? He got a Nobel, so by all accounts that would make him an expert.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Wasn't Friedman one of them? He got a Nobel, so by all accounts that would make him an expert.



Friedmanites, anyway. Mostly Walters and Minford, both of whom were strictly "junior" members of the Chicago School, and went the think-tank route once Thatcher veered away from monetarist orthodoxy.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Isn't that the wrong question? What possibility is there for this government to survive the economic clusterfuck that austerity will cause? Thatcher u-turned on monetarism. Why would Cameron not u-turn on austerity.


I don't think they ever intended to survive, or rather ; they knew their policies would make them massively unpopular, so they took a gamble on the economy turning round in time, with the back-up that even if theirs was just a one-term govt, they had got too far with their massive onslaught on the welfare state and public services for Labour to reverse it all (or to give labour the most convenient of excuses not to, alternatively)


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Friedmanites, anyway. Mostly Walters and Minford, both of whom were strictly "junior" members of the Chicago School, and went the think-tank route once Thatcher veered away from monetarist orthodoxy.



Right, I must've gotten the wrong end of the stick on that one. I see Minford is now a Prof at Cardiff Uni.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Right, I must've gotten the wrong end of the stick on that one. I see Minford is now a Prof at Cardiff Uni.



Poor bloody Cardiff!

IIRC Friedman actually retired from academic and public life in the mid-'70s (although he sat on a few review boards at Reagan's request), shortly before his Prize was awarded, but of course his theories, as drawn on by others, carried on "working", here as well as Chile and selected other locations.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did Thatcher understand what she was doing with Monetarism?


you bet she did


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Poor bloody Cardiff!
> 
> IIRC Friedman actually retired from academic and public life in the mid-'70s (although he sat on a few review boards at Reagan's request), shortly before his Prize was awarded, but of course his theories, as drawn on by others, carried on "working", here as well as Chile and selected other locations.



He went to the Hoover Institution.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> you bet she did


Perhaps. I think it is easy to underestimate the role of incompetence in such things, though. See also: Wall Street Crash, the Credit Crunch.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

TruXta said:


> He went to the Hoover Institution.



If fate were kind, the Hoover Institution would have been a sanitorium for the helplessly insane, but...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Perhaps. I think it is easy to underestimate the role of incompetence in such things, though. See also: Wall Street Crash, the Credit Crunch.



Both of which came about because they were too big and complex for any one person or group of people to control (if you read up on the Crash, you'll see that some of the best minds of the time, plus some bankers , put a great amount of effort into controlling the Crash and then its consequences), so if there is/was incompetence, it is/was as systemic as some of us believe sheer bloody callousness about the fate of "the lower orders" to be.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

Alright, well if you'd like a purely political decision, see also: the Poll Tax.

I think it is very dangerous to assume that those in power know what they are doing. Naive, in fact, the very thing I'm accused of being.


----------



## love detective (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Perhaps. I think it is easy to underestimate the role of incompetence in such things, though. See also: Wall Street Crash, the Credit Crunch.



crisis is an inherent and an essential part of capitalism - it's frequent & regular occurence is nothing to do with incompetence (whether that be from regulators, politicians, bankers etc..)

and once crisis strikes (to irrationaly rationalise and irrational system)  - you can rest assured that the political exploitiation of the situation will be done with ruthless competence


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

Did Ted Heath exploit the 1973 Oil Crisis with ruthless competence?

Are last week's riots an example of this govt's ruthlessly competent exploitation?

I don't think I could disagree more with that analysis.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

TBF I think we should be cautious of giving too much credit to politicians and their so-called competence. They're as likely to bungle shit as the rest of us.


----------



## Sasaferrato (Aug 15, 2011)

past caring said:


> That's what I love about you, sas - not only can you be relied on to post the same old unthinking bollocks, but you're a proper doddery old cunt and all - and you'll come on here and start replying to posts on page 1 of a 53 page thread.
> 
> What?
> 
> What was that you said?


When I want advice from what can only be described as a social deviant, I'll ask for it. Don't hold your breath.


----------



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

Sasaferrato said:


> Don't hold your breath.


i wish you would. and to make it easier on yourself, why not drape a plastic bag over your head first.

or secure a ligature around your trachea.


----------



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

TruXta said:


> TBF I think we should be cautious of giving too much credit to politicians and their so-called competence. They're always going to bungle shit.


*corrected for you*


----------



## kabbes (Aug 15, 2011)

I don't know if it is relevant to what you're saying or not, but I fully believe Friedman _et al _knew _exactly_ what their aims were and what they were doing to achieve those aims.  And those aims were to reverse the post-war trend of a narrowing between rich and poor, which was eroding the power base of the rich.

In the 1970s, an organisation of CEOs known as the "Business Roundtable" started spending almost $1,000,000,000 (that's $1bn) -- _in the 1970s_ -- per _year_ with the aim of "the aggressive pursuit of political power for the corporation".  Friedman was bought and paid for by people like this.  They knew _exactly_ what they were fucking well doing.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Alright, well if you'd like a purely political decision, see also: the Poll Tax.



In my experience, the Tories already knew exactly the effect that the Poll Tax would have across the UK when they rolled it out, because they'd already piloted it in Scotland and seen the havoc it wrought there, the social damage it did, the families it fractured.



> I think it is very dangerous to assume that those in power know what they are doing. Naive, in fact, the very thing I'm accused of being.



Well, I'm as  convinced as I can be that they know/are intimately aware of the consequences of what they're doing, but that they don't care/believe that they can insulate them and theirs from the consequences.

Don't you think it might be equally dangerous to assume that this is all somehow the consequence of the Tories not quite knowing what they're doing, even though they had so long to work on their plans?


----------



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

kabbes said:


> I don't know if it is relevant to what you're saying or not, but I fully believe Friedman _et al _knew _exactly_ what their aims were and what they were doing to achieve those aims. And those aims were to reverse the post-war trend of a narrowing between rich and poor, which was eroding the power base of the rich.
> 
> In the 1970s, an organisation of CEOs known as the "Business Roundtable" started spending almost $1,000,000,000 (that's $1bn) -- _in the 1970s_ -- per _year_ with the aim of "the aggressive pursuit of political power for the corporation". Friedman was bought and paid for by people like this. They knew _exactly_ what they were fucking well doing.


if only they'd known something about business.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did Ted Heath exploit the 1973 Oil Crisis with ruthless competence?
> 
> Are last week's riots an example of this govt's ruthlessly competent exploitation?
> 
> I don't think I could disagree more with that analysis.



You're making the mistake of conflating politicians with "the establishment", IMO.

You're also conflating the short-term (politicians scoring political points) with the long-term (using the unrest to justify policy positions etc).


----------



## past caring (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did Ted Heath exploit the 1973 Oil Crisis with ruthless competence?
> 
> Are last week's riots an example of this govt's ruthlessly competent exploitation?
> 
> I don't think I could disagree more with that analysis.



Ted Heath's room for manoeuvre was somewhat circumscribed by a self-confident and combatitive working class. Not something that need presently trouble Cameron and Osbourne. Neither did the Oil Crisis begin in '73 and end with Heath leaving office - the fall out was still playing out when Thatcher came to power.


----------



## past caring (Aug 15, 2011)

.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 15, 2011)

past caring said:


> Ted Heath's room for manoeuvre was somewhat circumscribed by a self-confident and combatitive working class. Not something that need presently trouble Cameron and Osbourne.


And, indeed, not a state of affairs that has come about by accident.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Did Ted Heath exploit the 1973 Oil Crisis with ruthless competence?
> 
> Are last week's riots an example of this govt's ruthlessly competent exploitation?
> 
> I don't think I could disagree more with that analysis.


See what i said yesterday about your shit method of arguing? You don't even know that you're doing it anymore.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> See what i said yesterday about your shit method of arguing? You don't even know that you're doing it anymore.


I was giving what I considered to be counterexamples to illustrate why I thought that statement by ld was wrong. Tell me my counterexamples are no good by all means, and preferably why, but I will continue to make points on occasion by giving what I consider to be counterexamples.

The term 'ruthlessly competent exploitation' is very specific. I think it is wrong to think in these terms.


----------



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

this will end badly


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 15, 2011)

It's ended already as far as I'm concerned.


----------



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

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's ended already as far as I'm concerned.


badly


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> *corrected for you*



Well, that doesn't bode well for their calculating cynical competence at exploiting crises, does it?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 15, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I don't know if it is relevant to what you're saying or not, but I fully believe Friedman _et al _knew _exactly_ what their aims were and what they were doing to achieve those aims. And those aims were to reverse the post-war trend of a narrowing between rich and poor, which was eroding the power base of the rich.
> 
> In the 1970s, an organisation of CEOs known as the "Business Roundtable" started spending almost $1,000,000,000 (that's $1bn) -- _in the 1970s_ -- per _year_ with the aim of "the aggressive pursuit of political power for the corporation". Friedman was bought and paid for by people like this. They knew _exactly_ what they were fucking well doing.



Quite. Monetarism isn't a technical exercise in economic governance narrowly defined, it's an explicitly moral, ideological and political movement moreso than a scientific theory in the proper sense of the word.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Quite. Monetarism isn't a technical exercise in economic governance narrowly defined, it's an explicitly moral, ideological and political movement moreso than a scientific theory in the proper sense of the word.



I think that is true of neo-liberalism, but not so much so of monetarism. Monetarism has been typically presented by its advocates (who are usually neo-liberals) as a strictly technical doctrine concerned with the prioritisation of inflation reduction. Of course it is _part_ of an ideological political movement, but by no means _explicitly_. In fact one of the central tenants of neo-liberalism (and classical liberalism) is that the "economic" can be understood as "a scientific theory in the proper sense" rather than a value laden subjective domain of social relations.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I think that is true of neo-liberalism, but not so much so of monetarism. Monetarism has been typically presented by its advocates (who are usually neo-liberals) as a strictly technical doctrine concerned with the prioritisation of inflation reduction. Of course it is _part_ of an ideological political movement, but by no means _explicitly_. In fact one of the central tenants of neo-liberalism (and classical liberalism) is that the "economic" can be understood as "a scientific theory in the proper sense" rather than a value laden subjective domain of social relations.


Indeed, Friedman's classic - Capitalism & Freedom puts great emphasis of the freedom part, and the need to create good systems. Sadly he, and others, have been hijacked by a significant minority who believe that the government should be completely omitted from democracy.

As far as the riots are concerned, everything is calming down and Parliament can breathe a sigh of relief. Hardly anyone pointed out that the parliamentary sovereignty system left over from the fall of the Monarchy centuries ago is the root cause, and because few people understand this, the needed changes will not be effected - instead we will have ineffectual changes to the details and a lot of guff from people peddling other ineffectual agendas.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Indeed, Friedman's classic - Capitalism & Freedom puts great emphasis of the freedom part, and the need to create good systems. Sadly he, and others, have been hijacked by a significant minority who believe that the government should be completely omitted from democracy.



Friedman's conceptions of "freedom" and "good systems" are very different to mine however. And as for hijacking, Friedman and his ilk did quite a good job of doing that to Adam Smith.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 16, 2011)

I'm no longer so sure I can so easily separate monetarism from neo-liberalism. A good start would be: can you have one without the other? I think monetarism is a necessary part of neo-liberalism -- what is neo-liberalism, after all, without a mechanism for establishing the pre-eminance of enterprise? And I think monetarism without a neo-liberal philosophy to underpin why you are doing it, whilst technically possible, in practice would make so sense.

I used to think that they were separate and divisible but now I'm pretty convinced that it only makes sense to think of these things in the context of the underlying philosophies that give them context, and that the underlying contexts for monetarism and neo-liberalism are pretty much identical.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I think that is true of neo-liberalism, but not so much so of monetarism. Monetarism has been typically presented by its advocates (who are usually neo-liberals) as a strictly technical doctrine concerned with the prioritisation of inflation reduction. Of course it is _part_ of an ideological political movement, but by no means _explicitly_. In fact one of the central tenants of neo-liberalism (and classical liberalism) is that the "economic" can be understood as "a scientific theory in the proper sense" rather than a value laden subjective domain of social relations.



Horses for courses maybe. I'd disagree that classical Adam Smith type liberalism presents itself as merely scientific, it's deeply embedded in a moral analysis of what ought to be, societally as well as economically. As for monetarism, yeah, maybe you have a point.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 16, 2011)

The _riots_ were predicted 6 days before they started in Harringey, by a young man who was commenting on what he thought would be the consequences of closing 8 out of 13 youth clubs in that area:

http://gu.com/p/3vyad


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

I think that monetarism has an aspect of marketising as much as possible, while the de-regulation of neo-liberalism opens up the markets to anyone who has the capital to invest in them. To all intensive purposes they are two methods towards the same aim. It comes up against the basic public services which an area needs.

Liberalism is just ever improving systems and an accordance with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.. As Gladstone said:

Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.

I am always surprised when people use it in the pejorative.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

wtf did you just say? 

Monetarism is a macroecomic process of using control of the money supply to attempt to achieve certain aims ( classically inflation vs unemployment). It's not about the market as such - though the unstated assumptions that drive it are market based. This is classic liberalism. It';s not opposed to either monetarism or neo-liberalism. In fact they are both end products of that approach.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> wtf did you just say?
> 
> Monetarism is a macroecomic process of using control of the money supply to attempt to achieve certain aims ( classically inflation vs unemployment). It's not about the market as such - though the unstated assumptions that drive it are market based. This is classic liberalism. It';s not opposed to either monetarism or neo-liberalism. In fact they are both end products of that approach.



The end products for me always seem to be either a straight monopoly or an oligopoly - both result in market control and poor customer service. Without competition there is no incentive for good service.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> The end products for me always seem to be either a straight monopoly or an oligopoly - both result in market control and poor customer service. Without competition there is no incentive for good service.


The end product of what? I'm arguing that neo-liberalism (economic individualism and so on) and monetarism are both responses of classical liberalism to changing conditions. What are you arguing?


----------



## audiotech (Aug 16, 2011)

Clearly A level economics.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

(Slightly OT post but worth a try - i compiled a dossier of stuff about the French riots in 2005 that i sent to loads of people on here, does anyone still have a copy?)


----------



## audiotech (Aug 16, 2011)

Oh and fuck competition.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The end product of what? I'm arguing that neo-liberalism (economic individualism and so on) and monetarism are both responses of classical liberalism to changing conditions. What are you arguing?



I am arguing for liberalism because it is just ever improving systems and an accordance with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. We need a system and that sounds about right.

On the riots it is down to parliamentary sovereignty as opposed to popular sovereignty - ie putting the people first with a modern, secular democracy and a proper constitution. As I am sure I don't need to tell you, when we had our civil war, the sovereignty was passed from monarchy to parliament without reference to the people or subjects - thus our revolution is and was propaganda and thus we remain in an oppressive regime - an elected dictatorship. It is not surprising that the poorer section of society suffers more and so reacts more. There are yobs at all levels of society.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I am arguing for liberalism because it is just ever improving systems and an accordance with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties. We need a system and that sounds about right.
> 
> On the riots it is down to parliamentary sovereignty as opposed to popular sovereignty - ie putting the people first with a modern, secular democracy and a proper constitution. As I am sure I don't need to tell you, when we had our civil war, the sovereignty was passed from monarchy to parliament without reference to the people or subjects - thus our revolution is and was propaganda and thus we remain in an oppressive regime - an elected dictatorship. It is not surprising that the poorer section of society suffers more and so reacts more. There are yobs at all levels of society.


You're not arguing for it, you're stating a self-serving tautology. In essence you're just saying that you support good things because they are good. Tell me how and why liberalism does the things that you claim and why monetarism and neo-liberalism are not not modern variations its core themes.

Next par...er...


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Oh and fuck competition.



Competition cannot be easily thrown away - it is a driving emotion which people freely choose to engage in - I don't see the victim...


----------



## audiotech (Aug 16, 2011)

I heard on the radio today that Clegg has a conviction for arson?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You're not arguing for it, you're stating a self-serving tautology. In essence you're just saying that you support good things because they are good. Tell me how and why liberalism does the things that you claim and why monetarism and neo-liberalism are not not modern variations its core themes.
> 
> Next par...er...



In what way did I describe liberalism 'doing' things?

It is just a general principle that most people agree with, the more precise problem is where the marketisation agenda of government comes up against existing systems which work.

The more important issue is whether you argue for parliamentary sovereignty or not?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Competition cannot be easily thrown away - it is a driving emotion which people freely choose to engage in - I don't see the victim...


You don't do you. You cannot just use competition in such an absolutist manner. In terms of social services competition has proven to significantly worsen provision whilst allowing money to flow out of the system and into private pockets. Spot any victims?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

"Ever improving systems". That's a good one.


----------



## danny la rouge (Aug 16, 2011)

audiotech said:


> I heard on the radio today that Clegg has a conviction for arson?


See thread here: http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/nick-clegg-arsonist.279231/

[/pf]


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

I support "Ever improving systems" into infinity.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You don't do you. You cannot just use competition in such an absolutist manner. In terms of social services competition has proven to significantly worsen provision whilst allowing money to flow out of the system and into private pockets. Spot any victims?



The only victims probably had it coming anyway right? Right?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I support "Ever improving systems" into infinity.



It would be nice, wouldn't it? Lend us a hand guv? Won't take a second.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 16, 2011)

Competition, aka "race to the bottom", "winner-takes-all" and "winners and losers", has no victims?  Blimey.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You don't do you. You cannot just use competition in such an absolutist manner. In terms of social services competition has proven to significantly worsen provision whilst allowing money to flow out of the system and into private pockets. Spot any victims?



Competition can only be for markets which cater to luxury goods, not public services. There are many examples where it can be constructive and the idea of throwing 'competition' out of say sport, or education is not feasible.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Competition, aka "race to the bottom", "winner-takes-all" and "winners and losers", has no victims? Blimey.



Well, the winners are all lovely altruists who will spend their deserved winnings on goods and services which the losers will provide them with, so everyone wins! HOORAY!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Competition can only be for markets which cater to luxury goods, not public services. There are many examples where it can be constructive and the idea of throwing 'competition' out of say sport, or education is not feasible.


So why give it a blanket approval? If not in provision of public services why in the provision of lifes essentials? Why in how society is organised?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Competition, aka "race to the bottom", "winner-takes-all" and "winners and losers", has no victims? Blimey.


I thought I made it clear that markets should not impose on public services. The problem is that the public services don't work even when we do fund them...


----------



## audiotech (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Competition cannot be easily thrown away - it is a driving emotion which people freely choose to engage in - I don't see the victim...



Competition leads to wars and will see many more victims, who are far from free to choose their fate.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So why give it a blanket approval? If not in provision of public services why in the provision of lifes essentials? Why in how society is organised?


I didn't give it blanket approval...


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I thought I made it clear that markets should not impose on public services. The problem is that the public services don't work even when we do fund them...



Last time I checked the NHS worked pretty well. Conversely, privatised rail services are more expensive and less well functioning than under public ownership. You're talking out of your ass.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I didn't give it blanket approval...


Ok, fair enough. The other questions though? If not in provision of public services why in the provision of lifes essentials? Why in how society is organised?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Competition leads to wars and will see many more victims, who are far from free to choose their fate.


The planet has resources that are worth money - different groups will therefore compete for them - difficult to stop them...


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Competition leads to wars and will see many more victims, who are far from free to choose their fate.



Now you're being just as absolutist as Gmart. Competition can be good in certain proscribed areas.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> The planet has resources that are worth money - different groups will therefore compete for them - difficult to stop them...


What does compete mean mart?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Now you're being just as absolutist as Gmart. Competition can be good in certain proscribed areas.


 
name these areas.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Ok, fair enough. The other questions though? If not in provision of public services why in the provision of lifes essentials? Why in how society is organised?



I am in favour of having life's essentials VAT free.

As far as organising society I would like a proper liberal constitution etc


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

County cricket


----------



## love detective (Aug 16, 2011)

football


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I am in favour of having life's essentials VAT free.
> 
> As far as organising society I would like a proper liberal constitution etc



What a bizarre post roger.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What does compete mean mart?



Are you offering to stop them?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Are you offering to stop them?


Do what rog? What - to you - does _compete_ mean? What is _competition_?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What a bizarre post roger.



We will never get anywhere until we get rid of parliamentary sovereignty.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> We will never get anywhere until we get rid of parliamentary sovereignty.


I too love the blue admiral.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Do what rog? What - to you - does _compete_ mean? What is _competition_?


Two teams working to maximise market share/profits through customer service.

Imagine two hotels next to each other competing to serve their customers the best...


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> name these areas.



Bin dun. Sports is an obvious one. Science and technology R&D is another (with caveats). Education.... hmmm. On 6 out of 7 days I'd say it's led to more good than bad, but I can also see the point of some kind of selection other than self-selection.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I too love the blue admiral.



I presume you agree with this, or are you happy for the UK to continue with its current constitutional set up?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Two teams working to maximise market share/profits through customer service.
> 
> Imagine two hotels next to each other competing to serve their customers the best...


It's gareth cheeseman. Ok, what do i imagine next?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Two teams working to maximise market share/profits through customer service.
> 
> Imagine two hotels next to each other competing to serve their customers the best...



Narrow definition much?


----------



## audiotech (Aug 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Now you're being just as absolutist as Gmart. Competition can be good in certain proscribed areas.



What are these?

Call me old fashioned, but I'm for monopoly and centralisation.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 16, 2011)

Even in the case of luxury goods, competition results in exploitative working practices, a plethora of pointless options for consumers (whilst the fundamentals remain the same in each case), misleading marketing, environmental damage and a consolidation of wealth into the hands of ever-fewer people.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

audiotech said:


> What are these?
> 
> Call me old fashioned, but I'm for monopoly and centralisation.



See above.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Imagine two hotels next to each other competing to serve their customers the best...



OK.  I'm also imagining these hotels' staff having to face ever-more constrained wages and working practices, as each hotel attempts to undercut the other.


----------



## audiotech (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> The planet has resources that are worth money - different groups will therefore compete for them - difficult to stop them...



Which groups?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Two teams working to maximise market share/profits through customer service.
> 
> Imagine two hotels next to each other competing to serve their customers the best...


Ok, this is an example of idealised competition. I asked What - to you - does compete mean? What is competition?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 16, 2011)

'A benefit cheat who's not behind bars'

http://www.fleetstreetfox.com/2011/08/43-and-never-been-spanked.html?spref=fb

Not too sure about rioting, but i'd have no problem smacking the Tory cunt in the face.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Bin dun. Sports is an obvious one. Science and technology R&D is another (with caveats). Education.... hmmm. On 6 out of 7 days I'd say it's led to more good than bad, but I can also see the point of some kind of selection other than self-selection.



sport is irrelevant to humanity as a driver of anything worth having. It's games.


----------



## audiotech (Aug 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> See above.



You're in the competitive camp. Fair enough.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 16, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> sport is irrelevant to humanity as a driver of anything worth having. It's games.



Indeed, how much damage has been done over the years by people thinking sport is some kind of metaphor for anything in real life.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> OK. I'm also imagining these hotels' staff having to face ever-more constrained wages and working practices, as each hotel attempts to undercut the other.



I am at a loss here - yes this happens... also some hotels are a success and pay their staff well...


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> sport is irrelevant to humanity as a driver of anything worth having. It's games.



Spoken by a man who's never liked sports. What about the rest - sci&tech, education? Or would you rather have Lysenkoism on a grand scale?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Indeed, how much damage has been done over the years by people thinking sport is some kind of metaphor for anything in real life.



Sports is real life.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I am at a loss here - yes this happens... also some hotels are a success and pay their staff well...


Genius. Why do some do the former? Because they're genetically bad?


----------



## kabbes (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I am at a loss here - yes this happens... also some hotels are a success and pay their staff well...


Then they won't be a success for long, because the hotel next door will pay less and offer the same service cheaper.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

audiotech said:


> What are these?
> 
> Call me old fashioned, but I'm for monopoly and centralisation.



By the by, monopoly and/or centralisation does not exclude all forms of competiton.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Genius. Why do some do the former? Because they're genetically bad?


Are you hoping to create a world where no one ever goes out of business?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> By the by, monopoly and/or centralisation does not exclude all forms of competiton.


Tell that to Tesco and London...


----------



## kabbes (Aug 16, 2011)

Or maybe a world where there _are_ no "busineses"?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Are you hoping to create a world where no one ever goes out of business?


Seriously, i appreciate you've made some effort, but wtf?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Aug 16, 2011)

Burn the world?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Then they won't be a success for long, because the hotel next door will pay less and offer the same service cheaper.


But the cheaper hotel will be full and the other hotel may well have a special offer on Mondays etc etc...


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

Great trolling Gmart. You had me going there.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Tell that to Tesco and London...


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Seriously, i appreciate you've made some effort, but wtf?



You are arguing against a world where employees have to face ever-more constrained wages and working practices so what would you expect a business owner to do if faced with falling profits?


----------



## audiotech (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> But the cheaper hotel will be full and the other hotel may well have a special offer on Mondays etc etc...



Doss-house?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Spoken by a man who's never liked sports. What about the rest - sci&tech, education? Or would you rather have Lysenkoism on a grand scale?


 
competition is to divert energies- it is a waste. A hangover, we don't need to strive to be better than the other fellow. It's individualist, even when team based. We can argue that it is a valuable dynamic that produces results I suppose- but then you can also point to how war drives technology. And how much waste therein?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> You are arguing against a world where employees have to face ever-more constrained wages and working practices so what would you expect a business owner to do if faced with falling profits?


It's called competition.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's called competition.



Is that what you would say to him? A bit harsh


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Is that what you would say to him? A bit harsh


To who?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> competition is to divert energies- it is a waste. A hangover, we don't need to strive to be better than the other fellow. It's individualist, even when team based. We can argue that it is a valuable dynamic that produces results I suppose- but then you can also point to how war drives technology. And how much waste therein?



A waste? Also you can't have it both ways, either it's individualistic or it ain't. Lastly the point about war is a total non-sequiteur.


----------



## audiotech (Aug 16, 2011)

game over


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> To who?


The business owner - there he is upset that his business is not doing as well as next door, so he has to cut a valued employee - a sad occasion - a moment for sensitivity...


----------



## kabbes (Aug 16, 2011)

What the...?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> A waste? Also you can't have it both ways, either it's individualistic or it ain't. Lastly the point about war is a total non-sequiteur.


 
actually I can. Even within a team the driver of competition leads individuals to strive against their own team members- discard and recruit based on likelihood of that members value to himself or the conception of self he finds through a team identity in competition. Cut the dead wood etc. Even if the dead wood might well have something but not something immediately valuable to the self/team identity.

This has nothing to do with how the pickings went during PE either, it is essentially true- competition is viable during resource abundance but otherwise is a dangerous waste.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> What the...?



Trollololololo!


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> actually I can. Even within a team the driver of competition leads individuals to strive against their own team members- discard and recruit based on likelihood of that members value to himself or the conception of self he finds through a team identity in competition. Cut the dead wood etc. Even if the dead wood might well have something but not something immediately valuable to the self/team identity.
> 
> This has nothing to do with how the pickings went during PE either, it is essentially true- competition is viable during resource abundance but otherwise is a dangerous waste.



So you're conceding that competition can be a good thing then - at least in times of abundance? Re your first point, you simply can't make that sweeping call. Teams aren't teams for nothing - in a good team each member fights for every other member in order to reach a collective goal. While there can certainly be a degree of internal competition this is of lesser importance the the competition with other teams.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2011)

audiotech said:


> game over



hmm hmm. War is the grand game of competition, the animal fight raised to stupidity levels. It produces tech innovations on the back of dead players


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Trollololololo!


I stand by my statement that competition is fine for luxuries but not for public services - though I maintain that the UK society will never stop having riots every few years until we get ourselves a proper, modern, secular constitutional democracy and get rid of parliamentary sovereignty.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> hmm hmm. War is the grand game of competition, the animal fight raised to stupidity levels. It produces tech innovations on the back of dead players


Although to be fair I enjoy competitive sports - nothing better than a pub with mates watching England get beaten by Germany


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> The business owner - there he is upset that his business is not doing as well as next door, so he has to cut a valued employee - a sad occasion - a moment for sensitivity...


A moment to celebrate the dynamic value of competition surely?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> hmm hmm. War is the grand game of competition, the animal fight raised to stupidity levels. It produces tech innovations on the back of dead players



Everything is produced on the back of dead players. It's a simple physical fact that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Trollololololo!


No, he's not a troll. Check his past threads - the liberal vs libertarianism for example. He's just thick.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I stand by my statement that competition is fine for luxuries but not for public services - though I maintain that the UK society will never stop having riots every few years until we get ourselves a proper, modern, secular constitutional democracy and get rid of parliamentary sovereignty.


Why? And what - to you - does compete mean? What is competition? What is inbetween public services and luxuries?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No, he's not a troll. Check his path threads - the liberal vs libertarianism for example. He's just thick.



Could be, could be.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> A moment to celebrate the dynamic value of competition surely?


Or a moment for hard work and innovation - maybe a marketing campaign of some sort?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> So you're conceding that competition can be a good thing then - at least in times of abundance? Re your first point, you simply can't make that sweeping call. Teams aren't teams for nothing - in a good team each member fights for every other member in order to reach a collective goal. While there can certainly be a degree of internal competition this is of lesser importance the the competition with other teams.


 
Nope, I concede no such thing- I state that as a productive dynamic it is viable in a resource rich environment.  That doesn't make it a good thing, merely something that is capable of producing results during a resource rich environ. The wastage there remains. Only those balls deep in plenty can afford that waste.

and I can make that sweeping statement so long as you want to talk about the idealised 'greater than the sum of its parts' team. The one that bears little relation to actual team interactions and the individualised backstabbing and politics that goes on within them.


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Why? And what - to you - does compete mean? What is competition? What is inbetween public services and luxuries?


I have stated that life's essentials must be VAT free.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Everything is produced on the back of dead players. It's a simple physical fact that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.


 
Heh, human nature yes? Do not pass go, do not collect 200 pounds


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I have stated that life's essentials must be VAT free.


Yes, twice now. In what way does that answer my questions of what - to you - does compete mean? What is competition?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Nope, I concede no such thing- I state that as a productive dynamic it is viable in a resource rich environment. That doesn't make it a good thing, merely something that is capable of producing results during a resource rich environ. The wastage there remains. Only those balls deep in plenty can afford that waste.
> 
> and I can make that sweeping statement so long as you want to talk about the idealised 'greater than the sum of its parts' team. The one that bears little relation to actual team interactions and the individualised backstabbing and politics that goes on within them.



Wastage how? You're simply repeating an ideological point. Back it up with data. As for team dynamics, they can be as you say, but they can also be as I say. I've experienced both. Have you not?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Nope, I concede no such thing- I state that as a productive dynamic it is viable in a resource rich environment. That doesn't make it a good thing, merely something that is capable of producing results during a resource rich environ.



True - it is one of those things that are not easily got rid of, but which people look down on. Works well in education if you have classes with a narrow variance of abilities.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> Heh, human nature yes? Do not pass go, do not collect 200 pounds



I never mentioned human nature. I was merely objecting to the implicit assumption you are making that _things _can be made without wastage of some sort. Entropy - physics, that kinda shit.


----------



## audiotech (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Or a moment for hard work and innovation - maybe a marketing campaign of some sort?



Or perhaps even a spark to creating a process with no plundering and exploitation?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, twice now. In what way does that answer my questions of what - to you - does compete mean? What is competition?



You asked what is inbetween public services and luxuries? I answered.

The competition bit has finished - I even gave an example of when it is a positive force and where I think it finishes being useful.

And why do I have to answer you questions just because you ask? You continue to ignore my comments on parliamentary sovereignty...

Maybe you don't have an opinion?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Or perhaps even a spark to creating a process with no plundering and exploitation?


Yes, maybe a change in industry if all avenues have been explored.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Wastage how? You're simply repeating an ideological point. Back it up with data. As for team dynamics, they can be as you say, but they can also be as I say. I've experienced both. Have you not?



if the drive is to beat the other fellow then the drive to achieve the goal is secondary- if the goal is the means of defeating the other fellow then how much must be guarded and solely pursued at the expense of the goal. Don't call on me for data on a philosophical point regarding game theory Truxta. That's the fannies call of 'hold on! I must be right'. Convince me otherwise if you will.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> You asked what is inbetween public services and luxuries? I answered.
> 
> The competition bit has finished - I even gave an example of when it is a positive force and where I think it finishes being useful.
> 
> ...



Well, first off, it was a repeat of your earlier answer to my totally different question. How you imagined that an attack on VAT would ever be an adequate response to my question is genuinely baffling. The mass of social organisation is done between public services and public goods. Should competition be the keynote there?

The competition bit has not finished until you answer the questions put to you. What - to you - does compete mean? What is competition?

You don't have to answer my questions. Your posts mean you must though.

On parliamentary sovereignty? Couldn't give a fuck.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I never mentioned human nature. I was merely objecting to the implicit assumption you are making that _things _can be made without wastage of some sort. Entropy - physics, that kinda shit.


 
and that is a far cry from the point you were responding to about war production driving tech off the backs of dead men.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Them riots then? Competition in action.


----------



## audiotech (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Yes, maybe a change in industry if all avenues have been explored.



Haven't you heard, there's no such thing as benevolent capitalism?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Well, first off, it was a repeat of your earlier answer to my totally different question. How you imagined that an attack on VAT would ever be an adequate response to my question is genuinely baffling. The mass of social organisation is done between public services and public goods. Should competition be the keynote there?
> 
> The competition bit has not finished until you answer the questions put to you. What - to you - does compete mean? What is competition?
> 
> ...



I have already stated that competition should not be part of public provision.

And if you don't give a fuck, then why should I give a fuck about your questions - if you are not up for a discussion and prefer to railroad a lecture on what you wish to discuss only then I will bid you farewell


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

I pointed out that there is a huge gap between public services and luxuries. You argued that competition should reign in the latter. What happens in the non-public sector, non-luxury gap - given that it's the largest part of society.

Me not giving  fuck about your roger irrelevant question is not the same as you not answering a question about your own posts. Not even close.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> and that is a far cry from the point you were responding to about war production driving tech off the backs of dead men.



I was responding to a broader point than that. FWIW I disagree that war is or should be the archetypal expression of competition, or innovation for that matter.



> if the drive is to beat the other fellow then the drive to achieve the goal is secondary- if the goal is the means of defeating the other fellow then how much must be guarded and solely pursued at the expense of the goal.



Is this in relation to warfare? Let me interpret it very broadly. Competition defined abstractly in terms of motivation can come in at least two broad shapes. One is the drive to defeat the other guy regardless of the goal. The other is to enter into competition as a purely structural effect of entering into the pursuit of a goal that is also pursued by other guys. In the latter case the motivation is to reach the goal foremost and beat the other guys secondly. I suppose a more realistic assessment is that motivations are usually mixed, it's both about beating the other guy *and* reaching the goal per se.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> I was responding to a broader point than that. FWIW I disagree that war is or should be the archetypal expression of competition, or innovation for that matter.



I know. I'm saying that the logical extension of the productivity of competition is ably demonstrated by war, the ultimate competition. And it does produce, we wouldn't be swapping messages on this board without the technological drives of ww2 through enigma cracking and cryptography in general. BUT it relies , as a dynamic on losers and winners- at the extreme end 'loser' means 'dead man'. The dynamic that produces while relying on the loser is not necessary- in fact when resources are short it is downright harmful to a polity. Keep it to the football field. Thus it should be clear that competition is reliant on losers and winners- total hoo-hoo I got the biggest tree stuff. We should be better than that.



> Is this in relation to warfare? Let me interpret it very broadly. Competition defined abstractly in terms of motivation can come in at least two broad shapes. One is the drive to defeat the other guy regardless of the goal. The other is to enter into competition as a purely structural effect of entering into the pursuit of a goal that is also pursued by other guys. In the latter case the motivation is to reach the goal foremost and beat the other guys secondly. I suppose a more realistic assessment is that motivations are usually mixed, it's both about beating the other guy *and* reaching the goal per se.



That is the problem with competition based motivations, they rarely manage to become unentangled. The goal becomes the trophy for the individual and his team/identity. Rather than the goal being for its own sake, as you might hope for from r&d.

I see where you and I diverge on this, you see the element of competition as healthy within a limited sphere whereas I see it as wasteful prick waving even within the spheres you mentioned (barring sports, who is going to watch a football match where they are running co-op tactics).


----------



## 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/


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Not being rude and i know that you're only passing it on, but what is expert speakers? (General and genuine  question - i saw lewisham council had a thing trying to co-opt already)


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not being rude and i know that you're only passing it on, but what is expert speakers? (General and genuine question - i saw lewisham council had a thing trying to co-opt already)



Well, I suppose people that the organisers think are 'experts'/speakers/aware of the matters/issues under discussion?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Well, I suppose people that the organisers think are 'experts'/speakers/aware of the matters/issues under discussion?


Again, not your fault, built the speaker list doesn't suggest that.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Again, not your fault, built the speaker list doesn't suggest that.



Fair enough Butch, that is your opinion, no it's not my fault, you are right.

I imagine the organisers are keen to invite well known, reasonably aware and interested people to speak as they want to achieve _something_. Whether you or I respect the 'expertise' of the speakers is to me a secondary point to wanting to create a platform for discussion and network/share ideas about what can be done now. I think it's better than doing nothing.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I see where you and I diverge on this, you see the element of competition as healthy within a limited sphere whereas I see it as wasteful prick waving even within the spheres you mentioned (barring sports, who is going to watch a football match where they are running co-op tactics).



I still say it's an empirical as much as a philosophical point, unless you think competition is bad full stop. The moral as well as pragmatic question should be _In which contexts is it good (_for some value of good, not going there now_) to compete?_, not _Is it good to compete?_ It's a question about both means and ends. Which is evidently where we disagree.This is perhaps getting a bit abstract and off-topic now...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 16, 2011)

Surely the whole debate about 'competition' dissolves when you accept that there is no competition if the playing field is 'biased' in favour of one party to begin with. Otherwise we would have feather weight boxers fighting heavy weights...the odds are stacked.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Surely the whole debate about 'competition' dissolves when you accept that there is no competition if the playing field is 'biased' in favour of one party to begin with. Otherwise we would have feather weight boxers fighting heavy weights...the odds are stacked.



The odds are indeed stacked, and this is obvious as long as you move away from a radical tabula rasa paradigm. Places as well as people are created differently. The odds of Stephen Hawking becoming the striker for St. Albans City FC were alway gonna be slim, wouldn't you agree?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Surely the whole debate about 'competition' dissolves when you accept that there is no competition if the playing field is 'biased' in favour of one party to begin with. Otherwise we would have feather weight boxers fighting heavy weights...the odds are stacked.


Got to be careful in case you end up arguing for fair competition. Then you're into defending meritocracy and so on.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Got to be careful in case you end up arguing for fair competition. Then you're into defending meritocracy and so on.


I wasn't. I was pointing out why a debate about 'competition' in this context is a bit silly given that we know that things are far from fair to begin with.

I am for a fairer, more egalitarian system. That includes the 'value' given to different things/skills/interests etc.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 16, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I wasn't. I was pointing out why a debate about 'competition' in this context is a bit silly given that we know that things are far from fair to begin with.
> 
> I am for a fairer, more egalitarian system. That includes the 'value' given to different things/skills/interests etc.



Are you arguing that fairness is or should be a necessary part of competition? Your first sentence reads a bit like that to me, but please clarify.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Horses for courses maybe. I'd disagree that classical Adam Smith type liberalism presents itself as merely scientific, it's deeply embedded in a moral analysis of what ought to be, societally as well as economically. As for monetarism, yeah, maybe you have a point.


 
I didn’t say that classical liberalism was not a normative project but I do think that what both classical liberalism and particular variants of neo-liberalism such as the Chicago school share in common is the (self serving) treatment of the economic sphere as a natural or quasi natural realm which could be mastered through the correct application of scientific doctrine. The key difference between classical liberalism and neo-liberalism with regard to moral doctrine is that whilst the former recognized tensions between the self interested behavior of the market place and higher moral values of empathy, kindness etc, the neo-liberals collapsed the division by arguing that the self interested drive of the market place embodied the highest moral values of self reliance and prudence and therefore such market rationality should be extended to all aspects of social life. Foucault’s late 70s lectures on this are very interesting.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 16, 2011)

TruXta said:


> Are you arguing that fairness is or should be a necessary part of competition? Your first sentence reads a bit like that to me, but please clarify.


When 'competition' exists it should be fair IMO.

Having said that, being 'competative' and the value given to such things is a big part of the problem. If things were 'fairer' in terms of the way that people/skills/ideas etc are valued...I believe there would be less 'desire' to compete and become the 'best/most valued'.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> Indeed, Friedman's classic - Capitalism & Freedom puts great emphasis of the freedom part, and the need to create good systems. Sadly he, and others, have been hijacked by a significant minority who believe that the government should be completely omitted from democracy.


Sadly? Even those who were Friedmanites, and attempted to use his prescription as an economic orthodoxy came unstuck, not just those who cherry-picked those parts of his work that fitted with their preconceptions.
Friedman's "freedom" was always biased towards "freedom to" rather than "freedom from".



> As far as the riots are concerned, everything is calming down and Parliament can breathe a sigh of relief. Hardly anyone pointed out that the parliamentary sovereignty system left over from the fall of the Monarchy centuries ago is the root cause, and because few people understand this, the needed changes will not be effected - instead we will have ineffectual changes to the details and a lot of guff from people peddling other ineffectual agendas.



Actually, some of us have been saying that "parliamentary democracy" is the problem for years, but you haven't noticed.


----------



## peterkro (Aug 16, 2011)

Jeff Robinson said:


> I didn’t say that classical liberalism was not a normative project but I do think that what both classical liberalism and particular variants of neo-liberalism such as the Chicago school share in common is the (self serving) treatment of the economic sphere as a natural or quasi natural realm which could be mastered through the correct application of scientific doctrine. The key difference between classical liberalism and neo-liberalism with regard to moral doctrine is that whilst the former recognized tensions between the self interested behavior of the market place and higher moral values of empathy, kindness etc, the neo-liberals collapsed the division by arguing that the self interested drive of the market place embodied the highest moral values of self reliance and prudence and therefore such market rationality should be extended to all aspects of social life. Foucault’s late 70s lectures on this are very interesting.


I believe most of the problem is down to a misunderstanding of self interest,in both economics (as presently interpreted  it's neither a science of even a social science) and evolutionary theory. Many academics both present and past see cooperation as the best path for self interest something the most economists and social Darwinists have totally missed.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 16, 2011)

peterkro said:


> I believe most of the problem is down to a misunderstanding of self interest,in both economics (as presently interpreted it's neither a science of even a social science) and evolutionary theory. Many academics both present and past see cooperation as the best path for self interest something the most economists and social Darwinists have totally missed.



I guess it's a matter of how we define these terms but I think rightwingers tend to mean "the pursuit of one's happiness" in and of itself with little regard for anybody else.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I think that monetarism has an aspect of marketising as much as possible...



Monetarism is monetarism. It's a mode of manipulating macro-economic factors via money supply. It has no primary connection to the market, although it's purpose - control of inflation and employment, has an obvious secondary effect.



> while the de-regulation of neo-liberalism opens up the markets to anyone who has the capital to invest in them. To all intensive purposes



Intents and purposes.



> they are two methods towards the same aim.



Nope, monetarism is a pre-condition of neo-liberalism. Without the control it allowed to be exercised, and especially without the discourse that accompanied it, neo-liberalism would have withered on the vine. Once monetarism, of whatever degree or stripe, became an economic orthodoxy, neo-liberalism could build on the "belief system" that monetarist discourse had produced, and the stage was set for the "reserve army of labour" to be resurrected.



> It comes up against the basic public services which an area needs.
> 
> Liberalism is just ever improving systems and an accordance with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.. As Gladstone said:
> 
> ...



You're talking about classic liberalism and neo-liberalism as if they're remotely the same thing. They're not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2011)

kabbes said:


> OK. I'm also imagining these hotels' staff having to face ever-more constrained wages and working practices, as each hotel attempts to undercut the other.



Kitchen implements clasped in their etiolated hands, the bleak acceptance of the need for battle etched into their hunger-worn faces.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 16, 2011)

Gmart said:


> I have already stated that competition should not be part of public provision.



Yes, so you have.

You haven't explained what you mean by either competition or (to my mind more importantly) public provision, though. Without explanation, all you're doing is farting out commonplaces.


----------



## peterkro (Aug 16, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Kitchen implements clasped in their etiolated hands, the bleak acceptance of the need for battle etched into their hunger-worn faces.


Little personal anecdote my mother (whilst working as a cook,she would have been a chef if not for the fact she was female) witnessed a mental patient beat a supervisor to death with a potato masher in the mental hospital she worked in ( Sunnyside ) the patient being forced labour,she was well impressed.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Aug 16, 2011)

Cameron STFU (please send this viral)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v​=7iWKulQzeYw


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 16, 2011)

(from an email so not linking)



> The following is from a Ford Foundation study of looting during the 1977 New York blackout. They are in turn summarizing a 1968 article entitled "Looting in Civil Disorders: An Index of Social Change," from _The American Behavioral Scientist_, Vol. 2, No. 4 (March-April 1968) by E. L. Quarantelli and Russell R. Dynes,
> 
> The Ford book is by Robert Curvin and Bruce Porter, and has the lurid title of _Blackout Looting!_, but is the usual measured Ford Foundation prose within:
> 
> ...



And the last lot get nicked - hence the last few days pics/stroies.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 16, 2011)

Yes I think that looks about right


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 16, 2011)

I would also factor into the first 'physical confrontation with the manifestations of the Authority of the State (ok, dibble in plain language)


----------



## TruXta (Aug 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> (from an email so not linking)
> 
> And the last lot get nicked - hence the last few days pics/stroies.



Nice stuff butchers, I think I've read that paper and a good few more (not on looting) by the same two authors, two doyens of US disaster studies. If anyone wants more I suggest you use this search engine, the Disaster Research Center's digital repository - http://dspace.udel.edu:8080/dspace/handle/19716/35


----------



## treelover (Aug 17, 2011)

'Little personal anecdote my mother (whilst working as a cook,she would have been a chef if not for the fact she was female) witnessed a mental patient beat a supervisor to death with a potato masher in the mental hospital she worked in ( Sunnyside ) the patient being forced labour,she was well impressed. '

Are you for real?


----------



## TruXta (Aug 17, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'Little personal anecdote my mother (whilst working as a cook,she would have been a chef if not for the fact she was female) witnessed a mental patient beat a supervisor to death with a potato masher in the mental hospital she worked in ( Sunnyside ) the patient being forced labour,she was well impressed. '
> 
> Are you for real?



Sounds pretty real to me.


----------



## peterkro (Aug 17, 2011)

treelover said:


> Are you for real?


No I made it up to entertain people like you,you fucking daft cunt.
(in case your wondering, in bins like the one involved the only way for patients to get out of their cells was to agree to take part in some menial work and be ordered around by some authoritarian supervisor like the one who pushed the patient to retaliate in the clearest way possible)


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> (from an email so not linking)
> 
> And the last lot get nicked - hence the last few days pics/stroies.



Thanks for that...have shared.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 17, 2011)

Turkish spokesman in Dalston gives his views on the riots, funny enough, I haven't seen much of the slavish press attention given to this rather acerbic address, which attacks the biggest gang on the streets, warns against the dangers of making this an inter ethnic issue and of vigilantes forming (it's worth pointing out that the swappies and CPGB were big organisers of this event, but all the same.....)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIr0ES-gwhc&sns=fb


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 17, 2011)

Apols if posted already but here's a new map of unemployment/riots  - clicking the markers brings up further info. (Note: this isn't the one based on the deprivation index that was around earlier)


----------



## dylans (Aug 17, 2011)

Good article here by Naomi Klein. "looting with the lights on" in which she questions this idea that these riots were somehow "unpolitical" because they were primarily about looting. She gives a couple of examples of similar looting based riots in recent years. Most obviously in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam. She points out that when Baghdad was reduced to an orgy of looting (that even sacked the national museum) Noone questioned the political nature of events.



> There was Baghdad in the aftermath of the US invasion – a frenzy of arson and looting that emptied libraries and museums. The factories got hit too. In 2004 I visited one that used to make refrigerators. Its workers had stripped it of everything valuable, then torched it so thoroughly that the warehouse was a sculpture of buckled sheet metal.
> 
> Back then the people on cable news thought looting was highly political. They said this is what happens when a regime has no legitimacy in the eyes of the people. After watching for so long as Saddam Hussein and his sons helped themselves to whatever and whomever they wanted, many regular Iraqis felt they had earned the right to take a few things for themselves.



To refute the idea that Iraq was "different" because it wasn't a democracy, she also gives the example of Argentina 2001 after the economic collapse there



> How about a democratic example then? Argentina, circa 2001. The economy was in freefall and thousands of people living in rough neighbourhoods (which had been thriving manufacturing zones before the neoliberal era) stormed foreign-owned superstores. They came out pushing shopping carts overflowing with the goods they could no longer afford – clothes, electronics, meat. The government called a "state of siege" to restore order; the people didn't like that and overthrew the government.
> 
> Argentina's mass looting was called _el saqueo_ – the sacking. That was politically significant because it was the very same word used to describe what that country's elites had done by selling off the country's national assets in flagrantly corrupt privatisation deals, hiding their money offshore, then passing on the bill to the people with a brutal austerity package. Argentines understood that the _saqueo_ of the shopping centres would not have happened without the bigger _saqueo_ of the country, and that the real gangsters were the ones in charge.


 
The claims that these riots were not political is itself a political message. When people are blatantly robbed of what little they have by those in power, it is no surprise when the reaction is looting.


> Of course London's riots weren't a political protest. But the people committing night-time robbery sure as hell know that their elites have been committing daytime robbery. Saqueos are contagious. The Tories are right when they say the rioting is not about the cuts. But it has a great deal to do with what those cuts represent: being cut off. Locked away in a ballooning underclass with the few escape routes previously offered – a union job, a good affordable education – being rapidly sealed off. The cuts are a message. They are saying to whole sectors of society: you are stuck where you are, much like the migrants and refugees we turn away at our increasingly fortressed borders.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/17/looing-with-lights-off


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 17, 2011)

So... this is now the propaganda thread?

Shame.


----------



## Garek (Aug 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Apols if posted already but here's a new map of unemployment/riots - clicking the markers brings up further info. (Note: this isn't the one based on the deprivation index that was around earlier)



Always the same pattern, be it unemployment, smoking related deaths, heart disease, crime etc.


----------



## dylans (Aug 17, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> So... this is now the propaganda thread?
> 
> Shame.


What a stupid comment. The thread asks what the reason is for rioting? How does attempting to answer that question turn this thread into propaganda?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 17, 2011)

If you are not very careful that's exactly what always happens.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2011)

peterkro said:


> Little personal anecdote my mother (whilst working as a cook,she would have been a chef if not for the fact she was female) witnessed a mental patient beat a supervisor to death with a potato masher in the mental hospital she worked in ( Sunnyside ) the patient being forced labour,she was well impressed.



How on earth do you beat someone to death with a spud-basher?


----------



## dylans (Aug 17, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> If you are not very careful that's exactly what always happens.



But what does this dismissal of posts as "propaganda" mean anyway? There is no such thing as a neutral political view. People's answers are always going to be ideologically based. Your dismissal of political opinions of others as "propaganda" itself reveals an ideological perspective. Therefore, the charge of propaganda could apply to you just as much as anyone else. In fact you are saying nothing of substance at all. Your charge of "propaganda" (whatever the fuck that means) is meaningless because you are merely questioning the validity of those you disagree with as a substitute for engaging with the content of their posts. Pretty transparent really


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> So... this is now the propaganda thread?
> 
> Shame.



You need to put more effort into projecting yourself as smug and self-righteous. This current effort is under par.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 17, 2011)

I bow to your superior expertise on this subject..


----------



## dylans (Aug 17, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You need to put more effort into projecting yourself as smug and self-righteous. This current effort is under par.


I don't know. I thought he came across as an unbelievably smug and self righteous twat. If that was the purpose of his post, he  succeeded very well.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I bow to your superior expertise on this subject..



Nice try,, but we both know that you're the one with several years' worth of smugness trophies on the mantlepiece, not me.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2011)

dylans said:


> I don't know. I thought he came across as an unbelievably smug and self righteous twat. If that was the purpose of his post, he succeeded very well.



Nah, it's not up to snuff with some of his other ego-stroking gnomic utterances, believe me.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 17, 2011)

dylans said:


> But what does this dismissal of posts as "propaganda" mean anyway? There is no such thing as a neutral political view. People's answers are always going to be ideologically based. Your dismissal of political opinions of others as "propaganda" itself reveals an ideological perspective. Therefore, the charge of propaganda could apply to you just as much as anyone else. In fact you are saying nothing of substance at all. Your charge of "propaganda" (whatever the fuck that means) is meaningless because you are merely questioning the validity of those you disagree with as a substitute for engaging with the content of their posts. Pretty transparent really



So you're defending propaganda by saying that everything is propaganda? 

It's not. That would suggest a pre-defined opinion and agenda.

Not everyone has one of those... some people are genuinely interested in the reasons for the riots. All the reasons... not just selected links and quotes from barely relevant examples.

I enjoyed reading the discussions... where people posts their own opinions... that's why I have read this thread and left others alone for the folk who like to trawl the net for links that back them up and share them. 

I dispute that cutting and pasting part of an article and a link constitutes 'content'.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 17, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nah, it's not up to snuff with some of his other ego-stroking gnomic utterances, believe me.



Ego stroking?

How so?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 17, 2011)

dylans said:


> I don't know. I thought he came across as an unbelievably smug and self righteous twat. If that was the purpose of his post, he  succeeded very well.



You're making the classic mistake of assuming that... because I think you're a dick, I must think I'm not.

That's not true. I am too.. only much less so.


----------



## dylans (Aug 17, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> So you're defending propaganda by saying that everything is propaganda?
> 
> It's not. That would suggest a pre-defined opinion and agenda.
> 
> ...



No. i'm suggesting that you are using the term propaganda as a term of abuse to smear anything you don't agree with and that you are doing so because you are fucking idiot.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 17, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You're making the classic mistake of assuming that... because I think you're a dick, I must think I'm not.
> 
> That's not true. I am too.. only much less so.


so you're somewhat lacking in the trouser department i suppose.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 17, 2011)

So back on topic:


Not the most sophisticated documentary style but does a good job of joining the dots! Education for those who think these issues are not their own and/or have not managed to make the links themselves.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 17, 2011)

dylans said:


> No. i'm suggesting that you are using the term propaganda as a term of abuse to smear anything you don't agree with and that you are doing so because you are fucking idiot.



Whatever gives you the impression that I don't agree with some of it? There's much I agree with and much that is obvious. That doesn't stop it from being propaganda. There are other angles and perspectives that get sidelined when that's all it becomes.

You have the unsubtle opinions of a simpleton. Get some better ones.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> So you're defending propaganda by saying that everything is propaganda?



In the final analysis, nothing being truly neutral, everything will incorporate some degree of propaganda, wittingly or unwittingly.

It's whether it is witting or unwitting that's important, IMO.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Ego stroking?
> 
> How so?



You take your hand and you stroke, *just so*.

See?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Again, not your fault, built the speaker list doesn't suggest that.


If it's CoR, "expert speakers" are bound to be the usual glammy-left 'great and good', parachuted in; not one of the names on that list has any grassroots track record in tottenham itself. I know of NO 'concerned tottenham residents' connected with that meeting, and a quick vox pop yesterday met with a collective 'you what? never heard of this'.
The ONLy people who can genuinely claim to be represntative in the way CoR are claiming are HSG, HAPS, the local TUs, bodies like SHYC and Friends Of the Parks, and the local greens, as they are the ones who've done the local activism (you can possibly include the SP in there as well).


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 17, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> If it's CoR, "expert speakers" are bound to be the usual glammy-left 'great and good', parachuted in; not one of the names on that list has any grassroots track record in tottenham itself. I know of NO 'concerned tottenham residents' connected with that meeting, and a quick vox pop yesterday met with a collective 'you what? never heard of this'.
> The ONLy people who can genuinely claim to be represntative in the way CoR are claiming are HSG, HAPS, the local TUs, bodies like SHYC and Friends Of the Parks, and the local greens, as they are the ones who've done the local activism (you can possibly include the SP in there as well).



There is a striking lack of overlap between the listed speakers for that meeting and the organisers of the Unity March on Saturday, (which included HSG) although I think BARAC were invited.

Perhaps it's because everything has been organised at such short notice. (Cough)


----------



## dylans (Aug 17, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Whatever gives you the impression that I don't agree with some of it? There's much I agree with and much that is obvious. That doesn't stop it from being propaganda. There are other angles and perspectives that get sidelined when that's all it becomes.



Your use of the term "propaganda" in order to undermine the validity of an argument is merely a way of avoiding criticising its content. Indeed, you claim to agree with some of its content. if you had accused me of holding an ideological standpoint I would agree with you, I do and that standpoint is explicit in all my posts What is the difference between posting an opinion, drawing attention to an article or opinion piece by someone I agree with and posting "propaganda"? I would suggest the difference is in presentation of an argument or opinion. A political polemic becomes propaganda when it's ideological source (you would say bias) is hidden or when such an argument is presented as "factual" or somehow "neutral" and it's ideological basis is denied. I make no such claim to neutrality, indeed I have argued that the very claim of "neutrality" itself masks its ideological agenda and is therefore far closer to what you claim to be propaganda.

But of course, you are not interested in any of this are you? Because you are not really claiming that I have hidden my ideological position, you simply object to me posting one. As for your objection to my linking to an article. I was simply drawing peoples attention to an article that I agreed with and considered worthy of people reading. Are you really claiming that this is invalid? I have made no claim that the Klein article in question is anything but an opinion piece. So be consistant at least, If your objection is not to the content of the article I quoted but to the fact that I quoted an article at all, then you should object to any poster linking to or quoting any source whatsoever. This is the logic of your argument. You object to any poster drawing attention to any article whatsoever, including news reports (which after all are no less ideological in their perspectives) If we were to follow your logic that would reduce this forum to a list of unsubstantiated, "personal opinions" along the lines of " I think". Is this what you really want? There are indeed other angles and perspectives, and you are free to post them and link to articles that put them forward. I see no reason why I am obliged to do so just to attempt some non existant neutrality or to avoid the spurious and frankly meaningless label of "propaganda" by an idiot who clearly doesn't understand what the word means.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 17, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> If it's CoR, "expert speakers" are bound to be the usual glammy-left 'great and good', parachuted in; not one of the names on that list has any grassroots track record in tottenham itself. I know of NO 'concerned tottenham residents' connected with that meeting, and a quick vox pop yesterday met with a collective 'you what? never heard of this'.
> The ONLy people who can genuinely claim to be represntative in the way CoR are claiming are HSG, HAPS, the local TUs, bodies like SHYC and Friends Of the Parks, and the local greens, as they are the ones who've done the local activism (you can possibly include the SP in there as well).



Why not organise something yourself then? It has been organised at short notice following the march last Saturday. There is also an open mic part as there was at the end of the march last Saturday. Many people spoke, why not come down yourself and speak?

Just because you don't know of any Tottenham residents connected with the meeting doesn't mean there won't be any there.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 17, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Why not organise something yourself then? It has been organised at short notice following the march last Saturday. There is also an open mic part as there was at the end of the march last Saturday. Many people spoke, why not come down yourself and speak?
> 
> Just because you don't know of any Tottenham residents connected with the meeting doesn't mean there won't be any there.


I have been, and always do; however, I no longer work in LB Haringey, so I work with the equivalent organisations in LB waltham forest (i.e. WFACU and the local KONP).
WRT this meeting, I - like many others - are wary of having anything to do with CoR, since it's redolent of the same 'usual suspects' top-downism that ended so badly with STWC and WESPECK. I mean, Lee bloody jasper....
Unfortunately, my nieces are over from Argentina atm, for their once-a-year visit, so I've spent as much time as poss with them, and so I missed the march. had it been any other time, i'd've been there straight away on Saturday.


----------



## treelover (Aug 17, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHzOG4mJ0PA

Can't believe how apposite this song/video is still, Matt johnson, The The

Come back Matt, we need your voice...


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 17, 2011)

The problem as I see it is people letting their personal dislikes of individuals and organisations get in the way of supporting or attending things that have similar aims. If folk don't like the approach of CoR, they should attend and make suggestions as to how it can become more representative and inclusive. I did to the organisers of the march on Saturday.


----------



## treelover (Aug 17, 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8KQmps-Sog

'Rise up and take the power back, it's time that
The fat cats had a heart attack, you know that
Their time is coming to an end
We have to unify and watch our flag ascend

They will not force us
They will stop degrading us
They will not control us
We will be victorious'


Btw, won't Muse be in trouble if they sing 'Uprising'


----------



## beatrix (Aug 17, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> So back on topic:
> 
> zip
> 
> Not the most sophisticated documentary style but does a good job of joining the dots! Education for those who think these issues are not their own and/or have not managed to make the links themselves.



Do you seriously think an unsophisticated documentary that joins no dots whatsoever is what is required or would you prefer to patronise those whom you deem unable to do so ? As Darcus Howe said 'please have a little respect'


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 17, 2011)

beatrix said:


> Do you seriously think an unsophisticated documentary that joins no dots whatsoever is what is required or would you prefer to patronise those whom you deem unable to do so ? As Darcus Howe said 'please have a little respect'



Eh? Respect for whom? 

I posted that doc because I think it is worth watching. Where's your contribution to relevant info?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 17, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> The problem as I see it is people letting their personal dislikes of individuals and organisations get in the way of supporting or attending things that have similar aims. If folk don't like the approach of CoR, they should attend and make suggestions as to how it can become more representative and inclusive. I did to the organisers of the march on Saturday.


broadly I agree, but there is a problem that so many of us felt so utterly shafted by the swappies over STWC, that their heavy involvement in CoR makes us wonder 'oh gawd, here we go again, is it really worth it?' But yes, I prolly will attend future events of theirs and TUSC, as it is -n as you say - better to get involved than whinge on the sidelines


----------



## beatrix (Aug 17, 2011)

My contribution and your respect are very much at odds in that my contribution are my humble posts and experience of life and your relevent info is nothing a sentient being does not already know.
I could and often do cry when I see my children and the children I work with being patronised by systematic robots such as yourself thank you.
Relevent info .. you think these young kids being fast tracked into prison are going to seek out your relevent info ?
I sincerely doubt it Rutita1


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 17, 2011)

beatrix said:


> My contribution and your respect are very much at odds in that my contribution are my humble posts and experience of life and your relevent info is nothing a sentient being does not already know.
> I could and often do cry when I see my children and the children I work with being patronised by systematic robots such as yourself thank you.
> Relevent info .. you think these young kids being fast tracked into prison are going to seek out your relevent info ?
> I sincerely doubt it Rutita1



For a start I am not patronising _you_ or _your_ children. Why do you think I am?

There are people who do not know, some refuse to accept what is going on, why you think I included you in that I have no clue.

You calling me a _systematic robot_ cleary tells me you know nothing about who I am, what I do, where I'm coming from or more importantly, what my contribution has been to this thread.


----------



## beatrix (Aug 17, 2011)

I have a very clear radar when it comes to being patronised thank you very much. I also know bullshit when I read it. You know nothing about me either and you obviously have no idea regarding the future as to what to tell our children re these riots.
I have scant inclination to read all your postings on this thread to find out who you are, what it is about you, your credentials etc
Maybe you'd care to share them with the community ? If you already have done I apologise but frankly I cannot help but ask 'who the hell do you think you are'?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 17, 2011)

beatrix said:


> I have a very clear radar when it comes to being patronised thank you very much. I also know bullshit when I read it. You know nothing about me either and you obviously have no idea regarding the future as to what to tell our children re these riots.
> I have scant inclination to read all your postings on this thread to find out who you are, what it is about you, your credentials etc
> Maybe you'd care to share them with the community ? If you already have done I apologise but frankly I cannot help but ask 'who the hell do you think you are'?


seriously, wtf are you ON? rutita hasn't been patronising *at all* - your comments are frankly bizarre


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 17, 2011)

beatrix said:


> I have a very clear radar when it comes to being patronised thank you very much. I also know bullshit when I read it. You know nothing about me either and you obviously have no idea regarding the future as to what to tell our children re these riots.


 No, your radar is not clear. Nor was/is your understanding of why I posted that documentary above and my words with it.



> I have scant inclination to read all your postings on this thread to find out who you are, what it is about you, your credentials etc
> Maybe you'd care to share them with the community ? If you already have done I apologise but frankly I cannot help but ask 'who the hell do you think you are'?



So exactly what are you attacking me for then? You haven't read my posts, you have imagined yourself as so kind of 'victim' of mine, and you have no clue whether I do or do not share my skills/ideas/energies with 'the community'

Perhaps you could have asked me who the hell I am and what I meant before launching into an assumption-athon?

My 'credentials', I imagine, to be similar to your own, lived and experienced.


----------



## beatrix (Aug 17, 2011)

So what are your credentials ?
Mine are that I


Streathamite said:


> seriously, wtf are you ON? rutita hasn't been patronising *at all* - your comments are frankly bizarre



Shut up Streathamite !


----------



## beatrix (Aug 17, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> No, your radar is not clear. Nor was/is your understanding of why I posted that documentary above and my words with it.
> 
> So exactly what are you attacking me for then? You haven't read my posts, you have imagined yourself as so kind of 'victim' of mine, and you have no clue whether I do or do not share my skills/ideas/energies with 'the community'
> 
> ...



I am far from attacking you but merely attempting to post the frustration that many feel when they read the likes of your posts.
I should leave it there as I have work to do also.
Thank you


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 17, 2011)

beatrix said:


> Shut up Streathamite !


I'll say what I like, where and when I like, thanks - it's a free country, and that's what online debate fora are for.
as for



> I am far from attacking you but merely attempting to post the frustration that many feel when they read the likes of your posts.


errmm....how do you KNOW many feel that? mind-reader, are you?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 17, 2011)

beatrix said:


> So what are your credentials ?



My _credentials_ for what exactly? Having an interest and an opinion in the things that caused these riots and what the situation is now?

Or my _credentials_ for :

1. Knowing that some around here might find the style of the documentary unsophisicated, hence me making that comment.

2. Having an awareness that many people at the moment are not 'joining the dots' and are believing what is being fed to them by the mainstream media, perhaps because they don't see the issues as their own and/or the reality of what is going on seems much more scary than to 'educate' themselves by reading critically and widely.

Quite frankly I don't believe I need credentials and still have no clue why you have imagined yourself or your children as those people I was referring to.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 17, 2011)

beatrix said:


> I am far from attacking you but merely attempting to post the frustration that many feel when they read the likes of your posts.



But you didn't understand my post and have imagined it to be something it isn't. 

Anyway, I'm happy to leave it there also, am off out to get involved a little more in the ways I can. That's what I do with my _frustrations_.

Also, _'what to tell  children/young people about these riots'_ is a great question. Please start a thread about that, I will happily contribute!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2011)

beatrix said:


> My contribution and your respect are very much at odds in that my contribution are my humble posts



Sorry, I shouldn't laugh,, but this seems like an excellent example of unintentional hubris!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 17, 2011)

beatrix said:


> So what are your credentials ?
> Mine are that I
> 
> Shut up Streathamite !



"Zu befehl, mein Führer!"

*Clicks heels in Prussian manner and kills Streathamite. Hopes beatrix has not committed the sin of poor punctuation*


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 17, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Zu befehl, mein Führer!"
> 
> *Clicks heels in Prussian manner and kills Streathamite. Hopes beatrix has not committed the sin of poor punctuation*


 I LOVE the irony of you imitating a Nazi....


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 17, 2011)

Nice piece by Brooker:



> If preventing further looting is our aim, then as well as addressing the gulf between the haves and the have-nots, I'd take a long hard look at MTV Cribs and similar TV shows that routinely confuse human achievement with the mindless acquisition of gaudy bling bullshit. The media heaves with propaganda promoting sensation and consumption above all else.
> 
> Back in the 80s the pioneering aspirational soap opera Dallas dangled an unattainable billionaire lifestyle in front of millions, but at least had the nous to make the Ewing family miserable and consumed with self-loathing. At the same time, shows aimed at kids were full of presenters cheerfully making puppets out of old yoghurt pots, while shows aimed at teens largely depicted cheeky urchins copping off with each other in the dole queue. Today, whenever my world-weary eyes alight on a "youth show" it merely resembles a glossily edited advert for celebrity lifestyles, co-starring a jet-ski and a tower of gold. And regardless of the time slot, every other commercial shrieks that I deserve the best of everything. I and I alone. I'd gladly introduce a law requiring broadcasters to show five minutes of footage of a rich man dying alone for every 10 minutes of fevered avarice. It'd be worth it just to see them introduce it on T4.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/14/charlie-brooker-prevent-more-riots


----------



## beatrix (Aug 17, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> My _credentials_ for what exactly? Having an interest and an opinion in the things that caused these riots and what the situation is now?
> 
> Or my _credentials_ for :
> 
> ...



By reading critically and widely ?
You so miss the point it's incredible .. were you on the streets during the riots ?
Did you speak with any of these young kids ?
Can you not see the irony of your attempt to join the dots for posters on this site ?
Get to work and do it properly !


----------



## ska invita (Aug 17, 2011)

Just watched a bit of 8 out of 10 cats and Peter Serafinowicz was laughing at someone posing with a bag of tesco rice in a post-riot photo. There were quite a few cases I've seen in the media (photos and video) of people steeling big bags of rice. I think its telling that people think they just 'lucked out' and ended up with rice - if you're living on fuck all a big bag of rice is a staple and costs a lot - sums up the reality divide i think.











Posting this on this thread to reiterate that of course poverty is a key part of these riots.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 17, 2011)

beatrix said:


> By reading critically and widely ?
> You so miss the point it's incredible ..


 Make the point you think I am missing please, I figure that's a good place to start.



> were you on the streets during the riots ? Did you speak with any of these young kids ?



For a time yes. I successfully convinced a few from my estate/around not to go and by-stand or join in and then I stopped the mother of one of them from giving him a beating because he had even considered going anywhere near what was going on.



> Can you not see the irony of your attempt to join the dots for posters on this site ?


 Not sure what you mean here so again I think it's best if you make your point more clearly.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 18, 2011)

Leave her/him alone Rutita, either they're on a wind-up or they're arrogant bastards barging in on page 65 of a thread demanding the world on a plate.


----------



## rorymac (Aug 18, 2011)

Go fuck yourself truxta .. who the fuck do you think you are ?
Go and swim in your cosy little bowl ya fuckin halfwit dingaling !


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 18, 2011)

Is it full moon or something?


----------



## rorymac (Aug 18, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Make the point you think I am missing please, I figure that's a good place to start.
> 
> For a time yes. I successfully convinced a few from my estate/around not to go and by-stand or join in and then I stopped the mother of one of them from giving him a beating because he had even considered going anywhere near what was going on.
> 
> Not sure what you mean here so again I think it's best if you make your point more clearly.



Right .. here is where I start.

(1) You are a moron, completely missing the point luvvy

(2) You are a liar

(3) People like you make me sick


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 18, 2011)

rorymac said:


> Right .. here is where I start.
> 
> (1) You are a moron
> 
> ...



Please don't stop there Rory. I think this is the first time you and I have actually ever interacted so I am of course intrigued.

Some explanations would be helpful/make more sense.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 18, 2011)




----------



## rorymac (Aug 18, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Please don't stop there Rory. I think this is the first time you and I have actually ever interacted so I am of course intrigued.
> 
> Some explanations would be helpful/make more sense.



Yeah well I attempted to have dialogue with you before but you rejected it in offensive manner and I ended up banned as you know .. see the bin
Cheers treacle


----------



## rorymac (Aug 18, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


>



Piss off mate !


----------



## TruXta (Aug 18, 2011)

rorymac said:


> Go fuck yourself truxta .. who the fuck do you think you are ?
> Go and swim in your cosy little bowl ya fuckin halfwit dingaling !



 Hello ROOOOORY! Wazzamatta?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 18, 2011)

rorymac said:


> Yeah well I attempted to have dialogue with you before but you rejected it in offensive manner and I ended up banned as you know .. see the bin
> Cheers treacle



Eh? I am sorry I don't remember that and haven't owned it! I'll have a look in the bin then...perhaps you can look at the grudge you are holding?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 18, 2011)

Okay...I have looked. We disagreed on something. You then posted a call out thread/one with my name in the title. Why is this my fault?

ETA: the original disagreement between you and I started because you were throwing the term 'Uncle Tom' about. Do it again and I will call you on it.

I haven't remembered it Rory because, well, more important things to think about. You got banned because you posted a call out thread even if your motives were 'positive discourse'. You are holding a grudge, I understand, I do sometimes too.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 18, 2011)

Rutita, rory's having a bit of a laugh/meltdown. Same as beatrix, just ignore the bastard.


----------



## rorymac (Aug 18, 2011)

Erm ok .. fuckin nora 
I vowed I'd never waste my fucking time again
What a twat !!

Fuck off Truxta .. Jesus Christ .. surrounded by halfwits all my life !!!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 18, 2011)

.


----------



## rorymac (Aug 18, 2011)

Yeah .. go and fuck off ya cowardly bastard

Full stop .


----------



## TruXta (Aug 18, 2011)

rorymac said:


> Erm ok .. fuckin nora
> I vowed I'd never waste my fucking time again
> What a twat !!
> 
> Fuck off Truxta .. Jesus Christ .. surrounded by halfwits all my life !!!



Really, rory? What has got you so upset?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 18, 2011)

rorymac said:


> Yeah .. go and fuck off ya cowardly bastard
> 
> Full stop .



No Rory, bring it to me, state your case or fuck off yourself. I am not a coward or intimidated by your bad language and grudge holding.

You got banned because you fucked up, don't blame me for it!


----------



## rorymac (Aug 18, 2011)

Go away Truxta please
I don't think I want to partake with my knowledge pertaining to the recent riots on here for two reasons

(1) the editor and his moderating staff are incapable of receiving it
(2) they are unworthy and disrespectful from the off


----------



## TruXta (Aug 18, 2011)

FFS, feeling a bit narcissistic/megalomaniac today are we? Fucking pipe down and take a couple of breaths you mad bastard.


----------



## rorymac (Aug 18, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> No Rory, bring it to me, state your case or fuck off yourself. I am not a coward or intimidated by your bad language and grudge holding.
> 
> You got banned because you fucked up, don't blame me for it!



It was you that told me to fuck off and informed me that I was part of the problem just prior to my banning .. let's have some discourse but you better start imo

ps .. Truxta .. go and fuck off mate


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 18, 2011)

rorymac said:


> It was you that told me to fuck off and informed me that I was part of the problem just prior to my banning .. let's have some discourse but you better start imo



I don't have to start anything  However, okay:

The term 'uncle tom' is inappropriate and anyone who uses it is part of a greater/wider problem in my opinion.

Happy to take this to PM also. Up to you.


----------



## TruXta (Aug 18, 2011)

Nah. Don't jump in with personal shit like that in a thread like this. As I said above, take a deep breath or two. This is another call-out, and you don't need to go there.

At rory ffs.


----------



## sunnysidedown (Aug 18, 2011)

ska invita said:


> Just watched a bit of 8 out of 10 cats and Peter Serafinowicz was laughing at someone posing with a bag of tesco rice in a post-riot photo. There were quite a few cases I've seen in the media (photos and video) of people steeling big bags of rice. I think its telling that people think they just 'lucked out' and ended up with rice - if you're living on fuck all a big bag of rice is a staple and costs a lot - sums up the reality divide i think.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They are clearly the Avant-garde.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 18, 2011)

Communism begins when you start being nice to your comrades.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 18, 2011)

"At the risk of seeming ridiculous, let me say that the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality." 
 — Ernesto Guevara


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 18, 2011)

sunnysidedown said:


> They are clearly the Avant-garde.



Or hungry?


----------



## rorymac (Aug 18, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I don't have to start anything  However, okay:
> 
> The term 'uncle tom' is inappropriate and anyone who uses it is part of a greater/wider problem in my opinion.
> 
> Happy to take this to PM also. Up to you.



I don't regret for one second using the term 'uncle tom' .. I know exactly what it means Rutita1
I already apologised pre banning in case the terminology caused offence .. I know exactly what it means and I stand by it.
I also rubberstamp what I posted re Diane Abbott .. that is where our problems lay imo


----------



## rorymac (Aug 18, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Or hungry?





TruXta said:


> Nah. Don't jump in with personal shit like that in a thread like this. As I said above, take a deep breath or two. This is another call-out, and you don't need to go there.
> 
> At rory ffs.


 
Like I said .. shut up and piss off Truxta
As per when it comes down to it it's the usual script .. as can be seen in the bin when I wanted dialogue with Rutita1 I was either going to be banned or she'd just go to bed .. good for her but I aint going away.
I'll post what the fuck I like and I'll never give a shit if it causes offence to luvvies such as her!
She can label me racist, sexist, offensive all she likes
pffffft


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 18, 2011)

rorymac said:


> Like I said .. shut up and piss off Truxta
> As per when it comes down to it it's the usual script .. as can be seen in the bin when I wanted dialogue with Rutita1 I was either going to be banned or she'd just go to bed .. good for her but I aint going away.
> I'll post what the fuck I like and I'll never give a shit if it causes offence to luvvies such as her!
> She can label me racist, sexist, offensive all she likes
> pffffft



You are calling me a luvvie now? 



> I don't regret for one second using the term 'uncle tom' .. I know exactly what it means Rutita1. I already apologised pre banning in case the terminology caused offence .. I know exactly what it means and I stand by it.I also rubberstamp what I posted re Diane Abbott .. that is where our problems lay imo



Go away Rory. I don't care what you think you know or what you rubberstamp/standby. Until you find a way of expressing yourself without using racialised insults the conversation you say you want will not happen.

You are also derailing this thread, when again like the time you got yourself banned, if you wanted to discuss something with me you could have done it in private.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2011)

41% of those charged with riot linked offences live in the most deprived 10% of areas in England


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2011)

ska invita said:


> Just watched a bit of 8 out of 10 cats and Peter Serafinowicz was laughing at someone posing with a bag of tesco rice in a post-riot photo. There were quite a few cases I've seen in the media (photos and video) of people steeling big bags of rice. I think its telling that people think they just 'lucked out' and ended up with rice - if you're living on fuck all a big bag of rice is a staple and costs a lot - sums up the reality divide i think.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That looks like Tesco value as well. Almost as depressing as people looting poundland  I mean if you're going to risk looting you might as  well take something worth it!


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 18, 2011)

quality stat butchers


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 18, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> That looks like Tesco value as well. Almost as depressing as people looting poundland  I mean if you're going to risk looting you might as well *take something worth it!*



I know what you mean but at the same time we may be underestimating the 'worth' of a bag of rice.


----------



## Fruitloop (Aug 18, 2011)

ha ha, look at those crazy poor people, stealing food.

disgusting


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> 41% of those charged with riot linked offences live in the most deprived 10% of areas in England



That's useful - do you have a source for it (people will ask if I pass it on...)?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2011)

Fozzie Bear said:


> That's useful - do you have a source for it (people will ask if I pass it on...)?


Certainly do, thought i'd included a link, must've forgot.Taken from this article which took it from here.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 18, 2011)

Many thanks.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2011)

Transcript of an interesting talk by Paul Gilroy here - sort of emphasises the difference i suggested earlier between the 80s response and today:



> When you look at the layer of political leaders from our communities, the generation who came of age during that time thirty years ago, many of those people have accepted the logic of privatization. They've privatized that movement, and they've sold their services as consultants and managers and diversity trainers. They've sold their services to the police, they've sold them to the army, they've sold them to the corporate world...go to some of their websites and you'll see how proud they are of their clients. And that means that, in many areas, the loss of experience, the loss of the imagination is a massive phenomenon. So that the young people in the courts today don't have a defence campaign. They don't have one yet, but I hope that one will develop.
> 
> So a lot of that leadership has been channeled into the local government, and has formed a kind of "consultariat." And if you want to understand what that means, you have to look at places like South Africa, where, in the process after the end of apartheid, a whole layer of militants, a whole layer of people went over, and they got their pensions, and they sold this, and they sold that, because the government, in changing that society, thought that having a Black middle class was going to be the way to do it. Well, that's not the way it's going to work here. [applause]


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 18, 2011)

Yes that's good.

Rutita1 - is that a speech Gilroy gave at the meeting the other night?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 18, 2011)

rorymac said:


> Jesus Christ .. surrounded by halfwits all my life !!!



Look at it this way - at least you felt "at home", mate.

BTW, defending your missus - very chivalrous, but not on - gives people the idea that the Dorises can't look after themselves, know what I mean?

TBF she'll make you pay for it later. Probably glass you or something.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 18, 2011)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Yes that's good.
> 
> Rutita1 - is that a speech Gilroy gave at the meeting the other night?



Not sure what you are referring to here.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 18, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Not sure what you are referring to here.



Sorry. This link: http://dreamofsafety.blogspot.com/2011/08/paul-gilroy-speaks-on-riots-august-2011.html?spref=fb that Butcher's posted.

It says it's a speech given by Paul Gilroy in Tottenham. I was wondering if it was something he said at the Coalition of Resistance bash, which I had assumed you had attended based on your comments about the prioritisation of a defence campaign being set up?

Apols for crossed wires if not.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 18, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Not sure what you are referring to here.



The Gilroy piece you posted the other day.


----------



## _angel_ (Aug 18, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I know what you mean but at the same time we may be underestimating the 'worth' of a bag of rice.


I don't know, I think people might be reading too much into it. I can't imagine an awful lot of thought goes on when people are looting, it's just grab grab grab.
Except for that woman that was pictured trying on some trainers!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 18, 2011)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Sorry. This link: http://dreamofsafety.blogspot.com/2011/08/paul-gilroy-speaks-on-riots-august-2011.html?spref=fb that Butcher's posted.
> 
> It says it's a speech given by Paul Gilroy in Tottenham. I was wondering if it was something he said at the Coalition of Resistance bash, which I had assumed you had attended based on your comments about the prioritisation of a defence campaign being set up?
> 
> Apols for crossed wires if not.



I unfortunately didn't attend the meeting that Prof Gilroy spoke at but was at the one that took place last night, which is what informed my post above 

I did though post something coming from Gilroy the other day on this thread:

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...looting-aug-2011.278879/page-24#post-10361886


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> The Gilroy piece you posted the other day.



Yeah, I was in the process of searching that out as you posted. Don't think Fozzie was referring to that though.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Aug 18, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I unfortunately didn't attend the meeting that Prof Gilroy spoke at but was at the one that took place last night, which is what informed my post above
> 
> I did though post something coming from Gilroy the other day on this thread:
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...looting-aug-2011.278879/page-24#post-10361886



Ah ok, thanks. He's obviously keeping busy - he was on the march on Saturday as well.

VP - they are two different pieces by Gilroy...


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 18, 2011)

The key to understanding rory is to get to grips with the idea that he sincerely believes that if anyone claims to have done something he hasn't then they must be lying. This is because he is a sad and boring individual leading a dull life, but with an ego so enormous that he can't believe he isn't the most interesting person on the planet. Best thing is to simply read his dafter posts for the laughs and never attempt to communicate with the twat.


----------



## rorymac (Aug 18, 2011)

You must be joking eric .. your post doesn't even make sense. Forget about me or my ego and your silly appreciation of it as giant I was directly attempting to communicate my ire when I saw Diane Abbot's comments the day after I was on the streets of Enfield. Because I used the term 'Uncle Tom' which is how I felt about her I was told to 'fuck off' by the esteemed Rutita 1.
I wasn't about to do that and I attempted to communicate with her in straight forward fashion. I am still incensed by Diane Abbott's comments which after all show the measure of the person in that they were her first reactions to something that is now over a week old.
You can stick your twat comment right up your arse as well you dullard.
As for Rutita1 I express myself how I see fit and care little how you view the same .. got that ?
Thank you very much !!


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 18, 2011)

rorymac said:


> You must be joking eric .. your post doesn't even make sense. Forget about me or my ego and your silly appreciation of it as giant I was directly attempting to communicate my ire when I saw Diane Abbot's comments the day after I was on the streets of Enfield. Because I used the term 'Uncle Tom' which is how I felt about her I was told to 'fuck off' by the esteemed Rutita 1.
> I wasn't about to do that and I attempted to communicate with her in straight forward fashion. I am still incensed by Diane Abbott's comments which after all show the measure of the person in that they were her first reactions to something that is now over a week old.
> You can stick your twat comment right up your arse as well you dullard.
> As for Rutita1 I express myself how I see fit and care little how you view the same .. got that ?
> Thank you very much !!



Me too, got that? 



> I attempted to communicate with her in straight forward fashion.



Anyone that uses terms like 'uncle tom' is not attempting to communicate in a straight forward fashion. IMO, the fact you can't see that is further evidence to me that you have absolutely no 'business' using it.

We are not gonna agree on this Rory. I can accept that. I am therefore done discussing it with you.


----------



## rorymac (Aug 18, 2011)

Oh you are ? Well that's excellent thanks.
I know exactly what the term 'Uncle Tom' means which is why I used it.
You can dismiss my point of view all you like but you make yourself look extremely silly (if not on this site) when you look down your nose at a sentient being purely because they use terminology you have deemed incorrect. Of course in the full knowledge that you will be mightily supported.
I don't care about skin colour, ethnicity nor race .. I am entitled to post my views .. and Diane Abbott made my blood boil.
I've served my ban despite repeated requests to communicate with you but you are above doing that so be it.
However when you declared that I was part of the problem it did make me think so I guess I ought to appreciate your little snippet of communiqué
Thanks


----------



## Voley (Aug 18, 2011)

Well, Noel Gallagher has spoken out and explained the reasons for the riots: it's TV and videogames, apparently.



> We live in this age of violence - and I don't care what other people say: Brutal TV and brutal videogames are a reason for this pointless violence as well. The people are immune to violence, they are used to it. And if they get caught they aren't punished the right way. The prisons are already full? Then build new ones!



Also:



> The people who are at these riots aren't poor. These are kids with fucking mobile phones and all sorts of shit.



Thanks for that, Noel.

Source


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 18, 2011)

David Harvey:



> [T]he problem is that we live in a society where capitalism itself has become rampantly feral. Feral politicians cheat on their expenses, feral bankers plunder the public purse for all its worth, CEOs, hedge fund operators and private equity geniuses loot the world of wealth, telephone and credit card companies load mysterious charges on everyone’s bills, shopkeepers price gouge, and, at the drop of a hat swindlers and scam artists get to practice three-card monte right up into the highest echelons of the corporate and political world.
> 
> A political economy of mass dispossession, of predatory practices to the point of daylight robbery, particularly of the poor and the vulnerable, the unsophisticated and the legally unprotected, has become the order of the day. Does anyone believe it is possible to find an honest capitalist, an honest banker, an honest politician, an honest shopkeeper or an honest police commisioner any more? Yes, they do exist. But only as a minority that everyone else regards as stupid. Get smart. Get Easy Profits. Defraud and steal! The odds of getting caught are low. And in any case there are plenty of ways to shield personal wealth from the costs of corporate malfeasance.
> 
> ...But there are various glimmers of hope and Light around the world. The _indignados_ movements in Spain and Greece, the revolutionary impulses in Latin America, the peasant movements in Asia, are all beginning to see through the vast scam that a predatory and feral global capitalism has unleashed upon the world. What will it take for the rest of us to see and act upon it? How can we begin all over again? What direction should we take? The answers are not easy. But one thing we do know for certain: we can only get to the right answers by asking the right questions.



http://davidharvey.org/2011/08/feral-capitalism-hits-the-streets/


----------



## rorymac (Aug 18, 2011)

The glimmers of hope are with young people who don't understand how their parents have put up with the shit that we have for so long .. they don't even want to question us about it and quite rightly so.
They are the future and not us bunch of useless retarded ineffectual faux intellectual wastes of space.

Footnote in history .. buncha knobs end of !


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 18, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> The key to understanding rory is to get to grips with the idea that he sincerely believes that if anyone claims to have done something he hasn't then they must be lying. This is because he is a sad and boring individual leading a dull life, but with an ego so enormous that he can't believe he isn't the most interesting person on the planet. Best thing is to simply read his dafter posts for the laughs and never attempt to communicate with the twat.



I'm sorry, Eric, but I have to disagree. Rory is in no way similar to phildwyer.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 18, 2011)

NVP said:


> Well, Noel Gallagher has spoken out and explained the reasons for the riots: it's TV and videogames, apparently.
> 
> Also:
> 
> ...



Truly Noel is a fount of wisdom.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 18, 2011)

rorymac said:


> The glimmers of hope are with young people who don't understand how their parents have put up with the shit that we have for so long .. they don't even want to question us about it and quite rightly so.
> They are the future and not us bunch of useless retarded ineffectual faux intellectual wastes of space.
> 
> Footnote in history .. buncha knobs end of !



Tis true, but tbf there's always been a sort of generational thing were the younger wonder why the fuck the older put up with shit, and rightly so. No fucker wants to repeat the mistakes of their parents if they can help it.


----------



## rorymac (Aug 18, 2011)

Thanks ViolentPanda (re phil) .. I'd have to say having met him that I am though.
He's a seriously knowledgeable person  .. and someone I wouldn't hesitate to seek advice from should I ever need it.
He's as sound as it gets imo


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Aug 18, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Truly Noel is a fount of wisdom.



Like Noel doesn't know anything about looting, eh?  Look at the amount of other people's ideas, riffs etc he's half-inched over the years.  "How Sweet To Be An Idiot", eh Noel?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 18, 2011)

NVP said:


> Well, Noel Gallagher has spoken out and explained the reasons for the riots: it's TV and videogames, apparently.
> 
> Also:
> 
> ...



still chained to the mirror and the razor blade eh noel?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 18, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> The key to understanding rory is to get to grips with the idea that he sincerely believes that if anyone claims to have done something he hasn't then they must be lying. This is because he is a sad and boring individual leading a dull life, but with an ego so enormous that he can't believe he isn't the most interesting person on the planet. Best thing is to simply read his dafter posts for the laughs and never attempt to communicate with the twat.


you've actually got him quite wrong.


----------



## rorymac (Aug 18, 2011)

Thanks Streathamite

<shakes hands>


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 18, 2011)

rorymac said:


> Thanks ViolentPanda (re phil) .. I'd have to say having met him that I am though.
> He's a seriously knowledgeable person .. and someone I wouldn't hesitate to seek advice from should I ever need it.
> He's as sound as it gets imo



So if you are similar to him, you've just bigged yourself up in your own post by citing all his good points. 

You egomaniac!!


----------



## rorymac (Aug 18, 2011)

No one else is gonna big me up are they
I just have scant regard for our generation VP .. love ya lots and I know there's no love lost between you and phil

((((vp))))

Back on topic it makes me genuinely feel ill to see our so called leaders .. the fucking bastards make me puke and cry my arse off! I'd call myself a cissy tbf


----------



## teahead (Aug 18, 2011)

rorymac said:


> I'd call myself a cissy tbf


I'd call you a cissy too but the whole vitality seems to have fallen out of this department, usually astutely arguing fools tying themselves in knots, slapping eachother on the back like a bunch of performing seals and so on. It's a bit grim really. I carefully planted a seed this morning so a good full-on arguement could get brewing and they all fell over within an hour. Must be getting flacid in their blowhard cheeks or something...


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 19, 2011)

So he's just an aggressive twat who accuses everyone else of being liars or morons pretty much at random for absolutely no reason?


----------



## Gmart (Aug 19, 2011)

Good article here from Al Jazeera.

Of course any solution will be rebelled against unless executed with a shift from parliamentary sovereignty to popular sovereignty. Until that happens then the idealistic side of this article will be dismissed and ridiculed. Would be nice though if the UK were a modern, secular, progressive and representative democracy, instead of an oppressive elected dictatorship which refuses to even aim at the ideal of meritocracy. It will not change until those in power finally recognise that it is they who need to change, not those without the power in the underclass.


----------



## chazegee (Aug 19, 2011)

Riot in cell block UK


----------



## teahead (Aug 19, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> So he's just an aggressive twat who accuses everyone else of being liars or morons pretty much at random for absolutely no reason?


Nah. He's more like the gimp in Pulp Fiction. When I think of Rory, the mental image is something like this


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 19, 2011)

Not sure that isn't too much personal information, man...


----------



## teahead (Aug 19, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Not sure that isn't too much personal information, man...


Oh but I could say so much more...

Maybe this will have to suffice on a fucking exuberant morning (for various reasons)


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 19, 2011)

What is it?

Us phone browsers tend not to click links or follow video clips.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 19, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> What is it?
> 
> Us phone browsers tend not to click links or follow video clips.


haha


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 19, 2011)

Usually it's a bit of a waste of data usage. And navigating through multiple pages is clumsy.

Interesting, really, how different access methods mean different reading habits.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 19, 2011)

On a related note..



dylans said:


> But of course, you are not interested in any of this are you? Because you are not really claiming that I have hidden my ideological position, you simply object to me posting one. As for your objection to my linking to an article. I was simply drawing peoples attention to an article that I agreed with and considered worthy of people reading. Are you really claiming that this is invalid? I have made no claim that the Klein article in question is anything but an opinion piece. So be consistant at least, If your objection is not to the content of the article I quoted but to the fact that I quoted an article at all, then you should object to any poster linking to or quoting any source whatsoever. This is the logic of your argument. You object to any poster drawing attention to any article whatsoever, including news reports (which after all are no less ideological in their perspectives) If we were to follow your logic that would reduce this forum to a list of unsubstantiated, "personal opinions" along the lines of " I think". Is this what you really want? There are indeed other angles and perspectives, and you are free to post them and link to articles that put them forward. I see no reason why I am obliged to do so just to attempt some non existant neutrality.



I wasn't going to bother answering this since dylans nearly disappeared up his own backside writing it and I don't think he could hear me.

But, actually dylans, it wasn't particularly you I had in mind when I posted that this thread was becoming a propaganda thread. Was a specific comment about this thread.

"This is the logic of your argument. You object to any poster drawing attention to any article whatsoever, including news reports (which after all are no less ideological in their perspectives) If we were to follow your logic that would reduce this *forum* to a list of unsubstantiated, "personal opinions" along the lines of " I think". Is this what you really want?"

I said thread and you changed it to forum. Cheeky.

I really don't give a damn if you want to have threads where all you post is other people's opinions and soundbites that you agree with. I don't read them, they bore me.

I like threads where people post their own opinions. That stuff you called "a list of unsubstantiated, "personal opinions"" that other people might call a conversation.

Partly because of the logical reasons I just explained to pickmans, but mainly because they are way more interesting.

That doesn't mean that I object to any poster linking to articles... but that just linking to articles kills conversations.

If I was interested in what Gilroy had to say I would read his blog. I'm not.

I might be, however, interested in what you think of him and what he said.

I'm not asking you to be more neutral... I'm telling you that trying to be makes you more believable.

That may not matter to you, but it almost goes without saying that it is no great achievement to be believed by those who want to believe... but to be believed by those who don't... is.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 19, 2011)

And finally...


... what do you think of Gilroy, rutita?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Aug 19, 2011)

Coke addled multimillionaire rock star lectures the yoot on their morals - what a bell end.

And weren't the gallagher brothers little burgler scrotes in their youth?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 19, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Coke addled multimillionaire rock star lectures the yoot on their morals - what a bell end.
> 
> And weren't the gallagher brothers little burgler scrotes in their youth?



So they reckoned, although their mam said they were always good boys, and that they were fibbing.


----------



## phildwyer (Aug 19, 2011)

rorymac said:


> Thanks ViolentPanda (re phil) .. I'd have to say having met him that I am though.
> He's a seriously knowledgeable person .. and someone I wouldn't hesitate to seek advice from should I ever need it.
> He's as sound as it gets imo



Thank you Rory!

Thıs ıs probably a good tıme to say that anyone who belıeves Rory to be anythıng other than an ımmensely amusıng, ıntellıgent and ınterestıng chap who has enjoyed a full and fascınatıng lıfe ıs barkıng up totally the wrong tree.  He ıs a dıamond geezer and a half.


----------



## phildwyer (Aug 19, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Anyone that uses terms like 'uncle tom' is not attempting to communicate in a straight forward fashion.



Huh?  What's wrong wıth the term 'uncle Tom?'

Serıous questıon.


----------



## phildwyer (Aug 19, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Rory is in no way similar to phildwyer.



Yes he ıs, I'm honored to say.  I recognıze a kındred spırıt when I meet one.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 19, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I'm not asking you to be more neutral... I'm telling you that trying to be makes you more believable.


There is no such thing as 'neutral' in political debate, or any debate really; nor should there be


> That may not matter to you, but it almost goes without saying that it is no great achievement to be believed by those who want to believe... but to be believed by those who don't... is


That has got to be the most obvious, banal and pointless statement of the decade.
breaking news;  wheels work best when they're round, and bears shit in the woods


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 19, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> There is no such thing as 'neutral' in political debate, or any debate really; nor should there be



That has got to be the most obvious, banal and pointless statement of the decade.



> That has got to be the most obvious, banal and pointless statement of the decade.
> breaking news;  wheels work best when they're round, and bears shit in the woods



That's why I said 'almost' goes without saying.

Almost....because maybe people like you need reminding.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 19, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> That has got to be the most obvious, banal and pointless statement of the decade.


don't you actually read _your_ own posts, the ones you're so in love with? YOU are the one who said that meaningless guff anout 'being neutral makes you more believable - I merely pointed out no such thing is possible. Ergo, why waste time trying? not hard to grasp, I'd've thought



> That's why I said 'almost' goes without saying.
> 
> Almost....because maybe people like you need reminding


 
No, we don't, we need people like you to stop posting such empty, gnomic "look-at-me-aren't-i-the-intellectual" meaningless, pointless drivel


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 19, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> And finally...
> 
> ... what do you think of Gilroy, rutita?



It seems to me that a more pertinent question would be; What do you think of Gilroy/want me to think of Gilroy?


----------



## miktheword (Aug 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Transcript of an interesting talk by Paul Gilroy here - sort of emphasises the difference i suggested earlier between the 80s response and today:


 
Not sure if Gilroy mentions it elsewhere, but whilst agreeing with the privatization bit he writes about, 'that time 30 years ago' was not long after the defeat of the miners, and Militant in Lambeth and Liverpool...the defeat (temporariliy hopefully) of class politics, or at least its eminence on the mainstream political agenda.
That time of the early 80s then, saw (Old) Labour's few remaining power bases in the metropolitan areas, GLC uppermost.  Thus began the increasingly racialisation of politics by 'The Left', 'minority concerns' to the fore; and there were careers to be had for those who sought such a path.
Move forward, Lawrence and then Macpherson, there were a host of institutions not just the Met, who wanted to look at their institutionalised racism, and buy in their services as advisors etc.
There was money to be had from even provoking events to highlight and exasperate racial tensions - definte suspicions over Jasper's  motives to march through Bermondsey.
This racialisation is a problem that not only holds sway still over much of the Left, but also elements of the white working class  ('if its all about identity /ethnicity...well, what about us then?')

heard a 70 year old bloke on Talk Sport last night, had such a hatred of Livingstone from time in Brent where he said he moved out many OAPs of long residency from a home, to house other nationalities - he even named the individuals!

So, agree with Gilroy, but think that the defeat of class politics a few years before, allowed those elements to be privatised.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 20, 2011)

I think that what he mentions wasn't a result of the prior defeat of class politics - rather it was a part of the ongoing series of losses - a sign of losing the battle, not having yet lost it -  and one of the most dynamic ones with the farthest reaching consequences. And it often came from those who were at great pains to appear most formally concerned with class politics. Amazing thing at the time is that the right were totally opposed to this and large sections of the left supported it. Both were wrong but it rebounded to the benefit of those most bitterly opposed - the right. Don't ever let any politicians tell you they have any idea what's going on or what's coming round the corner.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 20, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> It seems to me that a more pertinent question would be; What do you think of Gilroy/want me to think of Gilroy?



I'm not sure what to think. I think he's an inspirational speaker... but if you're looking for a potential figurehead to effect real change... is he the one? Is he trying to be, or jumping on a bandwagon?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 20, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> YOU are the one who said that meaningless guff anout 'being neutral makes you more believable - I merely pointed out no such thing is possible. Ergo, why waste time trying? not hard to grasp, I'd've thought



I said "trying to be neutral". It seems you have a real problem with words like trying and almost. You pretend the don't exist. Weird.

And BTW, trying to be neutral to me means much the same thing as trying to be balanced or trying to be fair.

Glad to hear you see that as a waste of time. But I could have guessed.



> No, we don't, we need people like you to stop posting such empty, gnomic "look-at-me-aren't-i-the-intellectual" meaningless, pointless drivel



If you had a little bit more intelligence it might occur to you that, after 20 years of failing to have an societal impact whatsoever, it's fair to say that it's your drivel that is meaningless and pointless.

Harsh. But fair to say.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 20, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I'm not sure what to think. I think he's an inspirational speaker... but if you're looking for a potential figurehead to effect real change... is he the one? Is he trying to be, or jumping on a bandwagon?



I think he is well informed and knows his stuff.

I first read him in 1992 I think:"There Ain't No Black In the Union Jack" The Cultural Politics of Race and Nation (Hutchinson/Unwin Hyman/Routledge).

....and remember this article well too:*1993 *'Black and White on the dance floor' in Studying Culture (ed.)Ann Gray & Jim McGuigan (Edward Arnold).

Have read loads since then. I'm not sure he is trying to be a figurehead, he is though well placed to influence and educate.

With a CV like this:

http://www.blackculturalstudies.org/gilroy/gilroy_biblio.html

I am more inclined to believe that the 'bandwagon' is trying to jump on the likes of him.


----------



## treelover (Aug 20, 2011)

''Britain had become ‘two nations … who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws: the rich and the poor’'.

The vitriol that has been displayed in the country not just about the rioters(which imo is completely understandable if not sustainable) but of the chavs, the under class, the council estate scum, brings to mind, Disraeli's two nations and as neo-liberalism seems to enter its most brutal stages, it will get wot worse.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I'm not sure what to think. I think he's an inspirational speaker... but if you're looking for a potential figurehead to effect real change... is he the one? Is he trying to be, or jumping on a bandwagon?


figureheads, especially potential figureheads, cannot by definition effect change of any sort.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 20, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I think he is well informed and knows his stuff.
> 
> I first read him in 1992 I think:"There Ain't No Black In the Union Jack" The Cultural Politics of Race and Nation (Hutchinson/Unwin Hyman/Routledge).
> 
> ...



I think that's really more what I meant, actually. That his is a bandwagon that has suddenly acquired an engine and electric windows. 

And that means that right now he is very much in a position to/of influence. But educate?

That's more complicated. He does a great job of representing black minority perspectives and explaining the political impact of black people on society and vice versa.

But as an Asian man, does he represent me? More recently he has tried to bring in aspects of other minorities that share common ground.... and I can identify with that... and that's quite some power. All told maybe 10 million visible ethnic minorities in the country - predominantly in inner city power bases.

I think we do need figureheads to unite behind. To drive a sense of common purpose. Is he one? I dunno... I like him.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 20, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> figureheads, especially potential figureheads, cannot by definition effect change of any sort.



They are not the button pushers, if that's what you mean.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 20, 2011)

treelover said:


> ''Britain had become ‘two nations … who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets; who are formed by a different breeding, are fed by a different food, are ordered by different manners, and are not governed by the same laws: the rich and the poor’'.
> 
> The vitriol that has been displayed in the country not just about the rioters(which imo is completely understandable if not sustainable) but of the chavs, the under class, the council estate scum, brings to mind, Disraeli's two nations and as neo-liberalism seems to enter its most brutal stages, it will get wot worse.



A man's home is his castle and yet no man is an island.

Two nations? That few?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> They are not the button pushers, if that's what you mean.





> *fig·ure·head*  (f
> 
> 
> 
> ...



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/figurehead


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 20, 2011)

Is that it?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Is that it?



yes. we've established you didn't know what a figurehead is. now we can move on.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 20, 2011)

Clearly you're the one who needed to use a dictionary.... and badly too... since you missed out some other uses of the word.

Deliberately... but sssh. We'll gloss over that part, eh?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Clearly you're the one who needed to use a dictionary.... and badly too.


i only quoted from a dictionary because your understanding of a common word is woefully inadequate.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 20, 2011)

Inadequate would be a good word to describe a man who can't argue a point but instead quibbles over definitions of common words.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 20, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Inadequate would be a good word to describe a man who can't argue a point but instead quibbles over definitions of common words.


the thing is that gilroy is not a figurehead, that as has been said on this thread he commands a following. figureheads themselves do not command a following, rather their position, their office, commands respect.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 20, 2011)

An effective figurehead does both, surely?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 20, 2011)

> *The media's wilful ignorance over England's riots*
> 
> Ryan Gallagher, 19 August 2011
> 
> ...


http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkin...l-ignorance-media-journalism-riots-tony-evans


----------



## stethoscope (Aug 20, 2011)

Good on him for speaking out.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 20, 2011)

What I can't understand is why that lying little shite Kelvin Mackenzie is invited anywhere to offer opinions on anything, except maybe how to pretend unconvincingly to be a human being when you're actually some sort of loathesome poisonous reptile.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 21, 2011)




----------



## audiotech (Aug 21, 2011)

Bernie Gunther said:


> What I can't understand is why that lying little shite Kelvin Mackenzie is invited anywhere to offer opinions on anything, except maybe how to pretend unconvincingly to be a human being when you're actually some sort of loathesome poisonous reptile.



An invite to address a packed crowd at Anfield Road would be a glorious sight to behold.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 21, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> An effective figurehead does both, surely?


no


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 22, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> A man's home is his castle and yet no man is an island.
> 
> Two nations? That few?



...is to real life as masturbation is to sex.

Come on, if you try just a little bit harder I reckon you can make an even more vacuous and meaningless post - go on, you know you want to. It's like a really really shit version of Confucous posting after snorting an 8th of coke to fend off the mother of all hangovers.

And just to keep up the Kizmet theme of pointless self-indulgent posts, here's my two pennies worth: I'm really pessimistic, I think it's just going to get worse - I'll go with the LLETSA thesis - we're all fucked. But I'll keep doing what I can to try and prove myself wrong, futile though it is.


----------



## treelover (Aug 22, 2011)

Tony Evans? thought I recognised him, he played trumpet in the Farm (who were briefly on my band agency) for a while. Their fans could be very agressive people, not sure about the band though..


----------



## newme (Aug 22, 2011)

Well it took longer than normal with these threads but eventually no one outside p+p regulars are bothering anymore.


----------



## audiotech (Aug 22, 2011)

treelover said:


> Tony Evans? thought I recognised him, he played trumpet in the Farm (who were briefly on my band agency) for a while. Their fans could be very agressive people, not sure about the band though..



I attended one of their gigs and their fans did well in ripping down the butchersapron, some NF supporters had placed on the wall of the venue they were performing at that night.


----------



## BlackArab (Aug 22, 2011)

audiotech said:


> I attended one of their gigs and their fans did well in ripping down the butchersapron, some NF supporters had placed on the wall of the venue they were performing at that night.



Interesting as they had big following from football lads.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 22, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> no



So what constitutes an effective figurehead in your opinion?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 22, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> ...is to real life as masturbation is to sex.
> 
> Come on, if you try just a little bit harder I reckon you can make an even more vacuous and meaningless post - go on, you know you want to. It's like a really really shit version of Confucous posting after snorting an 8th of coke to fend off the mother of all hangovers.
> 
> And just to keep up the Kizmet theme of pointless self-indulgent posts, here's my two pennies worth: I'm really pessimistic, I think it's just going to get worse - I'll go with the LLETSA thesis - we're all fucked. But I'll keep doing what I can to try and prove myself wrong, futile though it is.



Erm.... I don't think you actually understood what I was saying.

I was kinda agreeing with you and going further... pointing out the dichotomy and balance between individualism and a sense of community. I was suggesting that it goes beyond rich and poor. 

So creating many nations in Britain... not just two.

I also agree with you and lletsa... that we're fucked. But probably for different reasons. It all seems fairly inevitable to me.

I mean... I was agreeing with you and you called me a Coke snorting Confucius because you couldn't be bothered to work out what I meant.

While I might like that... and indeed might use it as my tagline... it just serves to confirm my opinion that humans aren't quite the social animals we might think we are.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> So what constitutes an effective figurehead in your opinion?


the notion of an effective figurehead is something of an oxymoron.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 22, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Erm.... I don't think you actually understood what I was saying.
> 
> I was kinda agreeing with you and going further... pointing out the dichotomy and balance between individualism and a sense of community. I was suggesting that it goes beyond rich and poor.
> 
> ...


this just serves to confirm my opinion that you're something of a socially inadequate oddball


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 22, 2011)

Perhaps you're right.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 22, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> the notion of an effective figurehead is something of an oxymoron.



You're an oxymoron, to be fair.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Erm.... I don't think you actually understood what I was saying.
> 
> I was kinda agreeing with you and going further... pointing out the dichotomy and balance between individualism and a sense of community. I was suggesting that it goes beyond rich and poor.
> 
> ...



Apologies - I wasn't entirely compos mentis when I posted that. I'm surprised I even spelled it correctly to be fair.

Note to self: never post after the pub.


----------



## sheothebudworths (Aug 23, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> So he's just an aggressive twat who accuses everyone else of being liars or morons pretty much at random for absolutely no reason?



No. Not at all.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 23, 2011)

Seamus Milne:



> While bankers have publicly looted the country's wealth and got away with it, it's not hard to see why those who are locked out of the gravy train might think they were entitled to help themselves to a mobile phone. Some of the rioters make the connection explicitly. "The politicians say that we loot and rob, they are the original gangsters," one told a reporter. Another explained to the BBC: "We're showing the rich people we can do what we want."
> Most have no stake in a society which has shut them out or an economic model which has now run into the sand. It's already become clear that divided Britain is in no state to absorb the austerity now being administered because three decades of neoliberal capitalism have already shattered so many social bonds of work and community.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/10/riots-reflect-society-run-greed-looting


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 23, 2011)

Another posh public school boy vandal piece of shit:



> *Lib Dem (former) home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg has owned up to a criminal past.*
> As a 16-year-old exchange student in Munich, he was given community service after setting fire to a rare collection of cacti in a "drunken prank".


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7003100.stm

Cameron and his frat scum trash resturants for coked up laughs and young Nick joins Boris in arsonists-not-so-anonymous; but they all now agree that the destruction of property should be subject ot the most draconian punishments possible.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 23, 2011)

Zizek



> There is an old story about a worker suspected of stealing: every evening, as he leaves the factory, the wheelbarrow he pushes in front of him is carefully inspected. The guards find nothing; it is always empty. Finally, the penny drops: what the worker is stealing are the wheelbarrows themselves. The guards were missing the obvious truth, just as the commentators on the riots have done. We are told that the disintegration of the Communist regimes in the early 1990s signalled the end of ideology: the time of large-scale ideological projects culminating in totalitarian catastrophe was over; we had entered a new era of rational, pragmatic politics. If the commonplace that we live in a post-ideological era is true in any sense, it can be seen in this recent outburst of violence. This was zero-degree protest, a violent action demanding nothing. In their desperate attempt to find meaning in the riots, the sociologists and editorial-writers obfuscated the enigma the riots presented.
> 
> The protesters, though underprivileged and de facto socially excluded, weren’t living on the edge of starvation. People in much worse material straits, let alone conditions of physical and ideological oppression, have been able to organise themselves into political forces with clear agendas. The fact that the rioters have no programme is therefore itself a fact to be interpreted: it tells us a great deal about our ideological-political predicament and about the kind of society we inhabit, a society which celebrates choice but in which the only available alternative to enforced democratic consensus is a blind acting out. Opposition to the system can no longer articulate itself in the form of a realistic alternative, or even as a utopian project, but can only take the shape of a meaningless outburst. What is the point of our celebrated freedom of choice when the only choice is between playing by the rules and (self-)destructive violence?



http://www.lrb.co.uk/2011/08/19/slavoj-zizek/shoplifters-of-the-world-unite


----------



## love detective (Aug 23, 2011)

never usually a fan, but that is pretty much spot on i'd say


----------



## rekil (Aug 23, 2011)

Post-riots Levi's and Nike to shift comms and marketing strategy from rebellion.




			
				wanker said:
			
		

> In light of the riots, brands need to be more sensitive to the overall message they portray when marketing, in particular to youths. New PR and marketing campaigns need to be aware of their styling, messaging and the product placement in order not to encourage a rebellious attitude with certain poses and street scenes, as this could influence the audience negatively.
> 
> My advice post-riot would be for brands to invest in role models such as Kanye West and David Beckham, who are conscious of emphasising positive attitudes through their lifestyle, career and attitude.


That'll 'do it.'


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I said "trying to be neutral". It seems you have a real problem with words like trying and almost. You pretend the don't exist. Weird.
> 
> And BTW, trying to be neutral to me means much the same thing as trying to be balanced or trying to be fair.
> 
> ...


HUH? are you thick, blind or both? in case you'd not noticed, I haven't been in govt for the past 30 years, and I'm hardly responsible for Blair taking the LP to a neoliberal position! ONE person alone can do very little. Has it ever occured to you that slightly greater socioeconomic forces (than one person posting on a BB) might _possibly_ explain how we got to where we are?
_here's_ "harsh but fair"; your every post is that of someone desperately trying to convince everyone else of their superior wisdom, and unique insights into life; unfortunately, in the process they end up as a pile of meaningless, vague,vacuous pseudo-intellectual tosh that - when made in P&P - also show the clear lack of any class analysis that is the hallmark of dripping wet liberals everywhere, which is one the reasons why progressive liberalism is dead in the water, and neoliberalism has become the intellectual backbone of thatcherite tories.
when you post something that _is_ politically insightful, genuinely so, I may change my mind.
Otherwise, your posts are a waste of valuable PC memory


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> An effective figurehead does both, surely?


of course they bloody don't, that's not what a 'figurehead' is there for!


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Come on, if you try just a little bit harder I reckon you can make an even more vacuous and meaningless post - go on, you know you want to. It's like a really really shit version of Confucous posting after snorting an 8th of coke to fend off the mother of all hangovers.



what a way with words you have, Norman!


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Erm.... I don't think you actually understood what I was saying.
> 
> I was kinda agreeing with you and going further... pointing out the dichotomy and balance between individualism and a sense of community. I was suggesting that it goes beyond rich and poor.
> 
> ...


Let me explain something your superior intellect is clearly failing to grasp; someone on a BB who says other people aren't intelligent enough to understand their posts....is almost certainly spouting WMD-strength bollocks, and us lesser mortals have understood that all too clearly!


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> of course they bloody don't, that's not what a 'figurehead' is there for!



what is it there for?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> HUH? are you thick, blind or both? in case you'd not noticed, I haven't been in govt for the past 30 years, and I'm hardly responsible for Blair taking the LP to a neoliberal position! ONE person alone can do very little.



Can you see the contradiction in your own words?



> when you post something that _is_ politically insightful, genuinely so, I may change my mind.
> Otherwise, your posts are a waste of valuable PC memory



Problem is... what you think is politically insightful is not at all. It's just mostly excuses.

Change your mind. Get a better one.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Let me explain something your superior intellect is clearly failing to grasp; someone on a BB who says other people aren't intelligent enough to understand their posts....is almost certainly spouting WMD-strength bollocks, and us lesser mortals have understood that all too clearly!



It's not about superior, silly, it's about taking responsibility.

You have an attitude that says I have to post in a certain way.. show insight that you understand otherwise you are gonna ignore me. That attitude is why you failed. That attitude is why any campaign against the forces you think are negative have failed.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It's not about superior, silly, it's about taking responsibility.
> 
> You have an attitude that says I have to post in a certain way.. show insight that you understand otherwise you are gonna ignore me. That attitude is why you failed. That attitude is why any campaign against the forces you think are negative have failed.



Because having a positive attitude will make everything right, won't it? 

Campaigns generally fail because they're either not supported well enough or, more usually, because the forces they confront have the power to be able to resist or ignore.

You're *definitely* going on the "Hippy" pyre CTR.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It's not about superior, silly, it's about taking responsibility.


bollocks. The deep-rooted social problems we have will NOT be solved by me 'taking responsibility', and I bet in my grassroots activism I do a lot more to 'take responsibility' for my community and part of London than you do, wherever you live.. And this is NOT about ordinary working-class people 'taking responsibility'; it's about the wealthy seeking to absolve themselves from any *real* sense of responsibility towards the society they feed off.


> You have an attitude that says I have to post in a certain way..


WATTALOTTABOLLOX! I have ZERO 'attitude', merely a conviction that my socialist-scientific views are the basis of my understanding and analysis of Britain today. WHAT way do I 'have to post in'? either you give something with just SOME specifics, or I'll treat it with the same disdain as I do the rest of your drivel


> show insight that you understand otherwise you are gonna ignore me.


Insight for WHAT? i understand your posts perfectly well - for the great steaming pile of ub er-vague meaningless, pointless wittering that they are, with FUCK ALL to be gained from reading them, and valuable time lost. There simply is nothing there worth reading, my nieces display greater understanding of political issues than you do. There's no good reason to NOT ignore you


> That attitude is why you failed.


who's 'you'? I'm personally quite successful thanks


> That attitude is why any campaign against the forces you think are negative have failed


what a pile of steaming, meaningless hippy shite! i think you'll actually find that has nothing to do with the 'Left's failure over the past 30 years.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Can you see the contradiction in your own words?


Nope, and i strongly suspect there isn't one, so howsabout you spelling it out, O Great Internet Mystic Sage?


> Problem is... what you think is politically insightful is not at all


You haven't got a f-ing clue what I think is 'politically insightful! However, I do seem to recall that an awful lot of people, today and in the past, draw a lot of inspiration from the works of a long-dead dead, hairy German who tends to formj the backbone of my political ideas


> It's just mostly excuses.


HOW is any ideas I support 'just excuses'? any chance of a comment that makes sense from you-or has ANY worthwhile meaning?


> Change your mind. Get a better one


christ, what ridiculous, _faux_-spiritual New Age crap. Like that's possible, or would solve any deep-rooted social or economic problems.
And, besides which, if that meant changing it to the spliff-addled, terminally-wibbling turbogenerator of meaningless hippy bollocks that yours is - no ta, I'm fine as it is,kthanks.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

I would question whether you really are fine. Or just deluding yourself.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 23, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Because having a positive attitude will make everything right, won't it?
> 
> Campaigns generally fail because they're either not supported well enough or, more usually, because the forces they confront have the power to be able to resist or ignore.
> 
> You're *definitely* going on the "Hippy" pyre CTR.



It won't make everything alright. Nothing will ever make everything all right. Anyone who tells you different is selling something.

But it will make streathamite happier and probably live longer.


----------



## klang (Aug 23, 2011)




----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 23, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I would question whether you really are fine. Or just deluding yourself.



Please fuck off with your passive aggressive shite, you're a waffling cunt with delusions of adequacy. It seems I should listen to my drunken self more in future.


----------



## past caring (Aug 24, 2011)

And the award for "first like given out by me on the boards" goes to SpineyNorman.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 24, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> But it will make streathamite happier and probably live longer.


Oh YEAH? How d'you work that out, then? You some sorta medical guru then?
or are you just talking your usual meaningless, pointless bollocks?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 24, 2011)

past caring said:


> And the award for "first like given out by me on the boards" goes to SpineyNorman.


seconded


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 24, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I would question whether you really are fine. Or just deluding yourself.


I would question whether there is even the slightest possibility of you posting something that isn't a total crock of shite, meself.
you've never met me, so these pitiful attempts to project some sort of superior sage-like wisdom is both pitiful and laughable.
who the fuck are you to play Freud, cap'n nomark?
e2a; is there ANy chance of you debating properly by rebutting the points I made that elicited this non-answer?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 24, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Please fuck off with your passive aggressive shite, you're a waffling cunt with delusions of adequacy. It seems I should listen to my drunken self more in future.


I would Norm, drunknorm v 1.0 was bang on the money!


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 24, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Please fuck off with your passive aggressive shite, you're a waffling cunt with delusions of adequacy. It seems I should listen to my drunken self more in future.



It'll be easier to listen when you remove your head from up your own arse.

What has been my essential point? That we all need to start listening and working together. We need to be less aggressive to people who are in similar situations. That tried and trusted methods haven't worked and we should be looking at fresh new ideas.

And, my word, what opposition it has faced.

The thing is I know that there is a fairly small group of posters and those that wannabe in that group who will be totally resistant to it. Personal issues or whatever.

There is no chance of ever changing their minds. Or even debating fairly and openly.

So you debate with that kind of person in the knowledge that the best you can do is give them rope to show how aggressively dismissive they are and use them as an example of your point.

So you wanna call me a cunt... fine. Point proved. Go have a drink. You earned it.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 24, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I would question whether there is even the slightest possibility of you posting something that isn't a total crock of shite, meself.
> you've never met me, so these pitiful attempts to project some sort of superior sage-like wisdom is both pitiful and laughable.
> who the fuck are you to play Freud, cap'n nomark?
> e2a; is there ANy chance of you debating properly by rebutting the points I made that elicited this non-answer?



None whatsoever. All you did was whine and whinge... there was nothing to answer.

All you ever seem to do is whine and whinge.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 24, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Oh YEAH? How d'you work that out, then? You some sorta medical guru then?
> or are you just talking your usual meaningless, pointless bollocks?



Because I think you're getting wound up over perceived insults that aren't always there. And you are writing post after whiney post calling me all kinds of things.

That's just not good for your blood pressure.

Not that I care. Was just sharing.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 24, 2011)

I think it's because you post like a particular sort of buddhist- I'm not trying to cuss you here even, I've worked out that we disagree on many points and you'll not be changing your philosophical outlook based on me giving it the rhetoric of class struggle. In what you say there is nuggets of correct analysis, but to my mind you dress it up in some kind of self-help manual style that makes me think of social workers. I even imagine you do the voice that they have, the soothing neutral tone.

I think you identify the fundemental effects and somehow defer the fundemental causes to personal responsibility. I may be reading you wrong, I'm not Mr. Clever so I often do read people wrong. Anyway. Way off topic. Sliante


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 24, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> I think it's because you post like a particular sort of buddhist- I'm not trying to cuss you here even, I've worked out that we disagree on many points and you'll not be changing your philosophical outlook based on me giving it the rhetoric of class struggle. In what you say there is nuggets of correct analysis, but to my mind you dress it up in some kind of self-help manual style that makes me think of social workers. I even imagine you do the voice that they have, the soothing neutral tone.



I type exactly how I speak. Do you think I don't know how incredibly frustrating that is for people used to demanding others to answer as requested?

Of course I know. But I'm not changing. Because it filters out those people quite quickly.

There's no dressing up... if anything it's dressing down because I try to convey a lot in as few words as possible. That way you find out who likes to read and think... and who likes everything spelled out for them.



> I think you identify the fundemental effects and somehow defer the fundemental causes to personal responsibility. I may be reading you wrong, I'm not Mr. Clever so I often do read people wrong. Anyway. Way off topic. Sliante



There is a component of personal responsibility. It may seem sometimes that I am deferring the causes. But that's because I am arguing against people who think it's always someone else's fault. Who take no responsibility. In that extremis of argument it's easy to lose track of the bigger picture.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 24, 2011)

Alternatively, one might say there is no "fault". There is only cause and effect. Free will is an illusion, since every choice we make is only made in the context of our own personal experiences and history. If we had the same choice again in the same circumstances at the same time then we would choose the same way, so whence this "free will"?

It's a bugger, really.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 24, 2011)

The closest you can get to free will is the ability to analyse your choices and decide based on the outcome and your motives... whether you would make them like that again.

Something doesn't have to be your fault for you to take responsibility for it... or ensuring that you change it.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> The closest you can get to free will is the ability to analyse your choices and decide based on the outcome and your motives... whether you would make them like that again.
> 
> Something doesn't have to be your fault for you to take responsibility for it... or ensuring that you change it.


what are you going to change about yourself over the next six months?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 24, 2011)

My underwear, mostly.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> My underwear, mostly.


yeh. i suppose changing your abysmal personality would take a lifetime.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 24, 2011)

If you're looking for a serious answer... then it is this:

I have to continue and work harder at what I am doing. I believe it will make a difference. There is not much time and no room for error.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 24, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Alternatively, one might say there is no "fault". There is only cause and effect. Free will is an illusion, since every choice we make is only made in the context of our own personal experiences and history. If we had the same choice again in the same circumstances at the same time then we would choose the same way, so whence this "free will"?
> 
> It's a bugger, really.


that's almost getting into Insha'Allah.

are you one of them _muslimists_?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 24, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> yeh. i suppose changing your abysmal personality would take a lifetime.


It's taken one to make it. I guess I'm stuck with it now.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2011)

i guess we all are then


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 24, 2011)

Togetherness. That's the spirit.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 24, 2011)

is this ((()))group hug time?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 24, 2011)

no


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 24, 2011)

fucking good job and all


----------



## kabbes (Aug 24, 2011)

We will either hug or not hug as has already been predetermined by the starting state of the universe.


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 24, 2011)

Werner Heisenberg says you are wrong.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 24, 2011)

Q: How many particle physicists are necessary to have a riot? A: Two hundred: 136 to smash it up + 64 to analyse the tiny pieces.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 24, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Werner Heisenberg says you are wrong.


Are you sure?

Heisenberg's principle is a very precise statement about the limits of our possible knowledge. It doesn't quite say that there are uncaused events, though.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 24, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> Q: How many particle physicists are necessary to have a riot? A: Two hundred: 136 to smash it up + 64 to analyse the tiny pieces.



Yay! A physics joke.


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 24, 2011)

It all comes down to how keen you are to twist things in order to continue believing in a deterministic universe. Basically I'm not keen at all.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 25, 2011)




----------



## love detective (Aug 25, 2011)

a tiny substandard Militant for the post political landscape


----------



## kabbes (Aug 25, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Werner Heisenberg says you are wrong.



Well, Heisenberg says it is impossible to ever take accurate measurements, owing to the fact that the measuring affects the measured.  And the chaotic nature of the processes of the universe means that without this accurate measurement, it is impossible for us to accurately predict its future path.

None of that means that the processes themselves aren't deterministic, though.



ericjarvis said:


> It all comes down to how keen you are to twist things in order to continue believing in a deterministic universe. Basically I'm not keen at all.



I'd say you have to twist things to believe in free will.  Your way out seems to be randomness, but that is no more free will than determinism is.  Leaving aside the whole argument about whether there is a stochastic process that still embeds cause and effect behind apparent randomness (in the same way that our random number generators are actually deterministic chaotic functions), I would _still_ say that you have no more control over your own fate by having something random happen than you do by a determined mechanistic process

If neither of these things is true then where does your control come from?  What actually _is_ it, pragmatically speaking?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 25, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> None whatsoever. All you did was whine and whinge... there was nothing to answer.
> 
> All you ever seem to do is whine and whinge.


err, nope, all I ever do is take action at the grassroots level, as opposed to you, who only ever talks meaningless drivel, and does nothing else beyond that, nothing at all. 
Still, if that's what floats yer boat...each to their own


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 25, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Well, Heisenberg says it is impossible to ever take accurate measurements, owing to the fact that the measuring affects the measured.  And the chaotic nature of the processes of the universe means that without this accurate measurement, it is impossible for us to accurately predict its future path.
> 
> None of that means that the processes themselves aren't deterministic, though.



There is no evidence to imply that processes on the quantum level are deterministic. Heisenberg went well beyond saying it's impossible to measure both position and momentum. That was becoming fairly obvious anyway. What he was able to do was quantify that uncertainty. Furthermore the Uncertainty Principle appears to be pretty fundamental to an awful lot of quantum physics. I agree that it doesn't prove an absence of deterministic processes, however it does put a belief in determinism in pretty much the same category as belief in a deity. It's something that a lot of people find makes sense, but there isn't any evidence to back it up.




kabbes said:


> I'd say you have to twist things to believe in free will.  Your way out seems to be randomness, but that is no more free will than determinism is.  Leaving aside the whole argument about whether there is a stochastic process that still embeds cause and effect behind apparent randomness (in the same way that our random number generators are actually deterministic chaotic functions), I would _still_ say that you have no more control over your own fate by having something random happen than you do by a determined mechanistic process
> 
> If neither of these things is true then where does your control come from?  What actually _is_ it, pragmatically speaking?



That's the really interesting question. My take is that we are one hell of a long way from even vaguely answering it. We'll have to have some idea of what consciousness actually is before we can really start. In the mean time I'm happy enough to operate on the assumption that whatever is actually the case, working on the basis that I actually have genuine free will is more fun than assuming I haven't. Kind of an arbitrary choice, but I don't think there's any other way of choosing given how little we know that's relevant.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 25, 2011)

You can't state that you have free will without even knowing what it is!

For me, the key question is this: if the universe was re-run and you were in the same place at the same time with the same experiences, would you have made a different choice?  More -- _could_ you have made a different choice?

There is a fallacious dualism that tends to creep in when thinking about this, separating our physical selves from some kind of abstracted "consciousness".  But it's the meat that does the thinking.  And the meat is subject to a particular physical state.  You can't escape that.  You can bring randomness into it, I suppose, although I have a suspicion that even apparent randomness turns out not to be.  But randomness is not the same thing as this ideal of "free will".


----------



## kabbes (Aug 25, 2011)

Hang on...





ericjarvis said:


> I agree that it doesn't prove an absence of deterministic processes, however it does put a belief in determinism in pretty much the same category as belief in a deity. It's something that a lot of people find makes sense, but there isn't any evidence to back it up.



No evidence to back up the existence of deterministic processes?  Or no evidence to back up the belief that the whole lot is one big deterministic process?

Suppose you mean the latter and suppose I grant you the possibility of random fluctuation.  Does that change one damn thing?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Aug 25, 2011)

kabbes said:


> You can't state that you have free will without even knowing what it is!.


Actually, I think you can! In fact, I think that it just what humans have done. Free will is an idea we have come up with, that we have fooled ourselves into, through recognising that we are animals that act with intention but without having full access to the mechanics of that intention.

We hold quite a lot of these 'bad concepts' in our heads, it seems to me. And free will _is_ a bad concept - I would defy anyone to provide a definition of it. It's not a question of 'do we have free will or not', more a question of 'what the hell is free will supposed to be in the first place'.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 25, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> err, nope, all I ever do is take action at the grassroots level



On a side note.... you realise that you live pretty close to me IRL?

Part of the same area and possibly community... and yet I have never heard or seen a thing locally about your grassroots action. Not a sausage.

Whereas I would be willing to bet, if you have any knowledge of your own area, that you have seen and probably heard mine.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Actually, I think you can! In fact, I think that it just what humans have done. Free will is an idea we have come up with, that we have fooled ourselves into, through recognising that we are animals that act with intention but without having full access to the mechanics of that intention.
> 
> We hold quite a lot of these 'bad concepts' in our heads, it seems to me. And free will _is_ a bad concept - I would defy anyone to provide a definition of it. It's not a question of 'do we have free will or not', more a question of 'what the hell is free will supposed to be in the first place'.



I agree with this... though not with the term 'bad concept'.

Necessary concepts, I think. But just concepts. Others like zero and infinity are more easy to define..


----------



## kabbes (Aug 25, 2011)

Yeah, I'll buy that.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 25, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Actually, I think you can! In fact, I think that it just what humans have done. Free will is an idea we have come up with, that we have fooled ourselves into, through recognising that we are animals that act with intention but without having full access to the mechanics of that intention.
> 
> We hold quite a lot of these 'bad concepts' in our heads, it seems to me. And free will _is_ a bad concept - I would defy anyone to provide a definition of it. It's not a question of 'do we have free will or not', more a question of 'what the hell is free will supposed to be in the first place'.


agree with this


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 25, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> On a side note.... you realise that you live pretty close to me IRL?
> 
> Part of the same area and possibly community... and yet I have never heard or seen a thing locally about your grassroots action. Not a sausage.
> 
> Whereas I would be willing to bet, if you have any knowledge of your own area, that you have seen and probably heard mine.


then look harder


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 25, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> On a side note.... you realise that you live pretty close to me IRL?
> 
> Part of the same area and possibly community... and yet I have never heard or seen a thing locally about your grassroots action. Not a sausage.
> 
> Whereas I would be willing to bet, if you have any knowledge of your own area, that you have seen and probably heard mine.



Do you mind not waving your dick in my face?

By the way, why would you have heard about Streathamite's "grassroots action"? I wasn't aware it was a requirement of activism that you boast about what you've done or how big your actions are.


----------



## past caring (Aug 25, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> On a side note.... you realise that you live pretty close to me IRL?
> 
> Part of the same area and possibly community... and yet I have never heard or seen a thing locally about your grassroots action. Not a sausage.
> 
> Whereas I would be willing to bet, if you have any knowledge of your own area, that you have seen and probably heard mine.


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 25, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Hang on...
> 
> No evidence to back up the existence of deterministic processes?  Or no evidence to back up the belief that the whole lot is one big deterministic process?
> 
> Suppose you mean the latter and suppose I grant you the possibility of random fluctuation.  Does that change one damn thing?



There is no evidence to back up the idea that the uncertainty principle means that quantum processes are deterministic but cannot be observed as such. Since we don't have any idea of how consciousness operates, let alone free will, there's no reason to suppose it necessarily involves processes at a quantum level. So in that sense you may be right. However the idea that the starting conditions for the universe lead to a single possible situation at any particular time is something that not only isn't supported by any evidence, it would require us to have missed some pretty major aspects of quantum physics. I accept that it's somewhat less unlikely that changes from 10 seconds from the Big Bang to the present might be entirely deterministic, but there's no evidence supporting that either.

To get back to the point. One cause of the riots is that too many people spend too much time worrying about minor things, such as how to get a new mobile phone, how to avoid getting blamed for fucking up and shooting somebody, or worrying about whether they will survice a stop and search by the plod; and far too little time worrying about all this REALLY important stuff.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 25, 2011)

The People's Assembly in Dalston, Next meeting:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Step-Forward-Network/274169189266888#!/event.php?eid=231225546924418

Minutes from the last meeting on the 21st of August:
http://www.peoplesassemblies.org/2011/08/minutes-from-east-london-peoples-assembly-22-8-11/

I have read these minutes and feel that more Hackney people need to be in on this. What are you doing Sunday?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 25, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Do you mind not waving your dick in my face?
> 
> By the way, why would you have heard about Streathamite's "grassroots action"? I wasn't aware it was a requirement of activism that you boast about what you've done or how big your actions are.



You know, for as long as folk are gonna jump in one sided this will probably continue.

You're fueling his sense of being wronged... when actually the post I was replying to said much worse.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 25, 2011)

I want to point out that the majority of 'grassroots' activism and development projects goes _largely_ unreported. There is a reason why...people are not networking, skill/idea sharing enough.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I want to point out that the majority of 'grassroots' activism and development projects goes _largely_ unreported. There is a reason why...people are not networking, skill/idea sharing enough.


no, it's because people aren't reporting it.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 25, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> no, it's because people aren't reporting it.



Err and? You haven't said anything contrary to what I have already so I don't understand you saying 'no' at the beginning of your response. People are not reporting it because they don't know about it and/or don't think it's of _value_, if they did they would be networking/skill/info sharing more!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Err and? You haven't said anything contrary to what I have already so I don't understand you saying 'no' at the beginning of your response. People are not reporting it because they don't know about it or think it's of _value_, if they did they would be networking/skill/info sharing more!


people are skill sharing fuck loads. so i disagreed with you. if something's going unreported, the reason for it is that it isn't being reported.  and the reason it isn't being reported is because journalists and their editors don't get turned on by that sort of thing. and participants aren't reporting it because you don't report everything you do in your life unless you're stanley edwards.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 25, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> people are skill sharing fuck loads. so i disagreed with you. if something's going unreported, the reason for it is that it isn't being reported.  and the reason it isn't being reported is because journalists and their editors don't get turned on by that sort of thing. and participants aren't reporting it because you don't report everything you do in your life unless you're stanley edwards.



You can disagree of course.  I don't think this is just down to the 'media/editors/journalists', my original post on the subject included the word 'enough', which was important to the point I was making....people are not networking/skill/info sharing _enough_ IMO. For me, this fact has a direct correlation to the 'amount' of reporting that is/isn't occuring.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> You can disagree of course.  I don't think this is just down to the 'media/editors/journalists', my original post on the subject included the word 'enough', which was important to the point I was making....people are not networking/skill/info sharing _enough_ IMO. For me, this fact has a direct correlation to the 'amount' of reporting that is/isn't occuring.



And you are right. Pickers is also a bit right... most of the activism that goes unreported does so because it isn't deemed interesting.

But unlike pickers you realise that the onus is on those who wish to be reported to make sure it is interesting enough.

That's where the skill sharing and networking comes in.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> and participants aren't reporting it because you don't report everything you do in your life unless you're stanley edwards.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2011)

kabbes said:


>


if you like it, 'like' it


----------



## magneze (Aug 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> if you like it, 'like' it


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> On a side note.... you realise that you live pretty close to me IRL?
> 
> Part of the same area and possibly community... and yet I have never heard or seen a thing locally about your grassroots action. Not a sausage.
> 
> Whereas I would be willing to bet, if you have any knowledge of your own area, that you have seen and probably heard mine.


err yeah, _sure_ you know what I look like, or my RL name.
and I'm absolutely _sure _you're a legend in my area for that sorta thing....
you remind me of another poster...


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 26, 2011)

btw, had a good meeting of the Tottenham defence campaign last night. We're going to blitz the broadwater farm estate this w/end but I'm not happy with the bust card we have.
So...can ANYONE please put up or PM me with a tiptop bust card, with bindman's etc's number on it?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Aug 26, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> btw, had a good meeting of the *Tottenham defence campaign* last night. We're going to blitz the broadwater farm estate this w/end but I'm not happy with the bust card we have.
> So...can ANYONE please put up or PM me with a tiptop bust card, with bindman's etc's number on it?



Anything to do with the swp? And what do "blitz" and "bust card" mean?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I want to point out that the majority of 'grassroots' activism and development projects goes _largely_ unreported. There is a reason why...people are not networking, skill/idea sharing enough.



Or perhaps, as certainly used to be the case with grassroots activism, you didn't really talk about it because it was perfectly normative behaviour?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> no, it's because people aren't reporting it.



I'd agree with that.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Err and? You haven't said anything contrary to what I have already so I don't understand you saying 'no' at the beginning of your response. People are not reporting it because they don't know about it and/or don't think it's of _value_, if they did they would be networking/skill/info sharing more!



You're jumping to a conclusion based on your own preconception (otherwise there'd be more networking/info-sharing). While it's an  easy conclusion to jump to, it also ignores other possibilities, like people do share skills and info, and network, but they don't do so on *your* radar; or they don't publicise it because hey, it's just what people *do* for each other.

As for value, why would people bother to do *anything* if they didn't believe their actions had value and were of value?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> people are skill sharing fuck loads. so i disagreed with you. if something's going unreported, the reason for it is that it isn't being reported.  and the reason it isn't being reported is because journalists and their editors don't get turned on by that sort of thing. and participants aren't reporting it because you don't report everything you do in your life unless you're stanley edwards.



In which case you report loads of stuff you haven't done, too.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> And you are right. Pickers is also a bit right... most of the activism that goes unreported does so because it isn't deemed interesting.
> 
> But unlike pickers you realise that the onus is on those who wish to be reported to make sure it is interesting enough.
> 
> That's where the skill sharing and networking comes in.



Make it interesting enough?

Satan save us from public fucking relations!!


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> In which case you report loads of stuff you haven't done, too.


au contraire. i do lots of stuff i don't report, unreported because you don't need to - and in many if not most cases wouldn't want to - know what i'm up to.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> au contraire. i do lots of stuff i don't report, unreported because you don't need to - and in many if not most cases wouldn't want to - know what i'm up to.



No, I mean that if you're Stanley Edwards you report a load of stuff you haven't done, you _nudnik_!


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Make it interesting enough?
> 
> Satan save us from public fucking relations!!



It's not really public relations... it's having causes or projects that are engaging to a wider cross section of the community.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're jumping to a conclusion based on your own preconception (otherwise there'd be more networking/info-sharing). While it's an  easy conclusion to jump to, it also ignores other possibilities, like people do share skills and info, and network, but they don't do so on *your* radar; or they don't publicise it because hey, it's just what people *do* for each other.
> 
> As for value, why would people bother to do *anything* if they didn't believe their actions had value and were of value?



You seem to be arguing cross purposes... rutita is clearly talking about improving communication between all type of actions and activism... you seem to be suggesting that it's not necessary.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It's not really public relations... it's having causes or projects that are engaging to a wider cross section of the community.



In other words it's about networking and presenting relating your work to others.

AKA public relations.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Or perhaps, as certainly used to be the case with grassroots activism, you didn't really talk about it because it was perfectly normative behaviour?



You Twitter.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You seem to be arguing cross purposes... rutita is clearly talking about improving communication between all type of actions and activism... you seem to be suggesting that it's not necessary.



Too much seeming.

I'm not suggesting that it isn't necessary, I'm suggesting that people may be comfortable with the _status quo_ as regards their grassroots activism. Apart from anything else, it makes it harder for others to appropriate their good work for other purposes (the current big one being "The Big Society").


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You Twitter.



Nope.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> In other words it's about networking and presenting relating your work to others.
> 
> AKA public relations.



Under that definition everytime you meet someone and tell them what you are doing it counts as public relations.

That's stretching a definition to breaking point.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Under that definition everytime you meet someone and tell them what you are doing it counts as public relations.
> 
> That's stretching a definition to breaking point.



No, under that definition, which is specific (as made clear in my posts) to grassroots activism, it does nothing of the sort.

And what you're talking about is individual social relations.

You're trying too hard.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nope.



You should. That is now fast becoming normative behaviour.

And it's very much about constant reporting... to the extent where it can be mind-numbingly tedious. And yet people respond. Exactly the kind of people we're trying to reach.

And Twitter was just one example of how things may have changed since the days when activism was normative behaviour.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> No, under that definition, which is specific (as made clear in my posts) to grassroots activism, it does nothing of the sort.
> 
> And what you're talking about is individual social relations.
> 
> You're trying too hard.



I'm not at all.

You said being interesting and working on interesting projects that people want to engage with was public relations. I think it's just common sense.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You should. That is now fast becoming normative behaviour.
> 
> And it's very much about constant reporting... toothed extent where it can be mind-numbingly tedious. And yet people respond. Exactly the kind of people we're trying to reach.
> 
> And Twitter was just one example of how things may have changed since the days when activism was.normative behaviour.



I can see Twitter's utility as a format for passing small pieces of data on quickly, and I do read twitter streams, I just don't participate because I find the format extremely limiting. Sometimes you can't condense stuff into 140 characters or less.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> I'm not at all.
> 
> You said being interesting and working on interesting projects that people want to engage with was public relations. I think it's just common sense.



Don't tell me what I've said, when it isn't what I've said, but rather your interpretation.

My point is very obviously that in light of you having stated that "...the onus is on those who wish to be reported to make sure it is interesting enough", "making sure it is interesting enough" means that your activism has to be judged not only on effectiveness, but on how appealing it is, or how appealing you can make it.

In other words, it becomes about public relations.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Too much seeming.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that it isn't necessary, I'm suggesting that people may be comfortable with the _status quo_ as regards their grassroots activism.



That's obvious. That's what makes better and more open communication so important. No good being comfortable with something that doesn't work.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> That's obvious. That's what makes better and more open communication so important. No good being comfortable with something that doesn't work.


And if it does work, but is specific to a particular problem in a single area? Do we cast it aside because it isn't "interesting" enough in a networked world?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> err yeah, _sure_ you know what I look like, or my RL name.
> and I'm absolutely _sure _you're a legend in my area for that sorta thing....
> you remind me of another poster...



Whereas you remind me of...






I know who to look for....


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> And if it does work, but is specific to a particular problem in a single area? Do we cast it aside because it isn't "interesting" enough in a networked world?



Of course not. In fact... if something has a proven success record it's even more important to spread and share that method.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Whereas you remind me of...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And if you mix tooting and streatham you can get 'tootinham'.

Is that how you ended up working there? Got drunk and confused on the way home one night?

I think you may be lost.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Don't tell me what I've said, when it isn't what I've said, but rather your interpretation.
> 
> My point is very obviously that in light of you having stated that "...the onus is on those who wish to be reported to make sure it is interesting enough", "making sure it is interesting enough" means that your activism has to be judged not only on effectiveness, but on how appealing it is, or how appealing you can make it.
> 
> In other words, it becomes about public relations.



I disagree with the use of the term... but it doesn't matter. Call it PR if it makes you happy.

Effective is interesting in itself.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 26, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Anything to do with the swp? And what do "blitz" and "bust card" mean?


nope, swappies are - mercifully - thin on the ground round that way(that way being broadwater, philip lane, bruce grove etc).
blitz means 3 hours of dropping a bust card and leaflet through every letterbox on broadwater, bust card = well, advice card if a kid gets busted by OB


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> And if you mix tooting and streatham you can get 'tootinham'.
> 
> Is that how you ended up working there? Got drunk and confused on the way home one night?
> 
> I think you may be lost.


jesus, you really ARE an eejit, aintcha?


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 26, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> The People's Assembly in Dalston, Next meeting:
> 
> http://www.facebook.com/pages/Step-Forward-Network/274169189266888#!/event.php?eid=231225546924418
> 
> ...


sorry, tottenham job, will try to be at other 'Ackney stuff
e2a; should be done on broadwater by 4pm, will try to get up there by then


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

Tell me that when your tyres get nicked and the kid with them is waving your bust card and roaching your leaflet.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> and the reason it isn't being reported is because journalists and their editors don't get turned on by that sort of thing. and participants aren't reporting it because you don't report everything you do in your life unless you're stanley edwards.


I'll give that a 'like' badge!


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Tell me that when your tyres get nicked and the kid with them is waving your bust card and roaching your leaflet.


a pathetic, reactionary insult to our youth; so the whole of tottenham is a den of criminality?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

You don't have enough tyres for the whole of tootinham.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

Good luck handing out flyers to people who mostly read Facebook and anti-arrest tactics in an area with a high petty crime rate.

Genius.


----------



## dirtyfruit (Aug 26, 2011)

Too many egos prancing about


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

Where would we be without ego? Who would we be?



I'm sure it is mind numbing for people to read. It's been pretty mind-numbing for the people involved.

But what's the alternative? Allow yourself to get shouted down by weight of numbers and eventually give up?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Where would we be without ego? Who would we be?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There's little possibility of that happening to you, if only because your engagement with criticism is passing at best.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

dirtyfruit said:


> Too many egos prancing about



I'll have you know that I don't "prance", I limp elegantly, my good fruit!


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> There's little possibility of that happening to you, if only because your engagement with criticism is passing at best.



That's not true.

I'm never bad at taking good criticism.

And I've been criticised enough to know the difference!


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Where would we be without ego?



You can't make an omelette without breaking egos.

Bugger. We'd all be Jamie Oliver.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

Maybe we'd all bugger Jamie Oliver?

*shudders


----------



## dirtyfruit (Aug 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I'll have you know that I don't "prance", I limp elegantly, my good fruit!



Injured Ninja Panda


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> On a side note.... you realise that you live pretty close to me IRL?



Never in my life have I been more grateful for living in Sheffield.

I'm sure that if we all just listened to Kizmet more, just gave him more attention, looked at him, everything would be ok.

A few points for our self-obsessed friend:

1) It's incredibly fucking arrogant to tell people you've never met, about whom you know nothing, that they need to change the way they relate to people, that _they are the problem._

2) What do you think would change if everyone on here, everyone who has read your tedious self-absorbed posts, started being nicer to people, or at least nicer to Kizmet, which is what you really want (if you can say what we do we can say what you want)? I'll tell you what - nothing. Apart from everyone who changed their behaviour will be shat on even more, because...

3) We live under capitalism, neoliberal capitalism, a particularly virulent form. Capitalist incentives are present in all areas of life. It's not about the motivations of individuals, it's about a system that incentivises selfishness and not giving a shit about others. For most people, acting 100% altruistically would mean going under in no time. So they are forced, _by the system,_ to behave selfishly. A few of us changing what we do will achieve nothing, nothing whatsoever.

4) You want me to agree that people like me, my mum, my mates, my family, are to blame. Well we're not. There are massive power differentials in this society - those with more power are better coordinated and, obviously, more powerful - and they've used the economy to shape this society in their own image. You want me to say ordinary people, people whose main concern is just getting by, putting food on the table and trying to give their kids a decent start in life, should share the blame? Fuck right off you wittering numpty.

Yes, we should be attempting to create social spaces (god I hate that term used in this context but I can't think of a better one) that operate outside capitalism, but then again I'd wager most of the people you're insulting with your thought-free posts are already doing this. But "revolutions of consciousness", which is what you appear to be on about, are never self-causing. They are produced by changes in the material world that create new incentives and new ways of doing things. You may not _think_ you're individualising things by making your non-arguments, but you are. To change the ways people act we must change the system itself - people simply aren't going to act how you want them to when everything in the real world is forcing them to do the opposite. That's just the way it is.

And since, as far as Kizmet's concerned, it's clearly OK to make wild assumptions about people you don't know, might I suggest that Kizmet stops masturbating in swimming pools so often and instead reads a history book?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

1) Hypocrisy.
2) Stupidity.
3) Defeatism.
4) Shirking responsibility.

Nice speech, but no one's fooled.

You made wild assumptions with virtually every line. And said absolutely nothing except whinged how it's not your mums fault.

Well it is... she brought her son up to have a potty mouth. You're good at insults... but then you'd have to be if you are shit at everything else, I suppose.

Defense mechanism.

*shrugs.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes, we should be attempting to create social spaces (god I hate that term used in this context but I can't think of a better one) that operate outside capitalism, but then again I'd wager most of the people you're insulting with your thought-free posts are already doing this. But "revolutions of consciousness", which is what you appear to be on about, are never self-causing. They are produced by changes in the material world that create new incentives and new ways of doing things. You may not _think_ you're individualising things by making your non-arguments, but you are. To change the ways people act we must change the system itself - people simply aren't going to act how you want them to when everything in the real world is forcing them to do the opposite. That's just the way it is.



Everything else you wrote was just the recycled horseshit of impotence.

There is meat in this paragraph, though. Wanna discuss it? Or wanna keep trying to impress your mates?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

Frankly, Kizmet, you're coming across as the kind of know-all self-righteous cock who people cross the street to avoid. The sort of person who used to form the backbone of the middle-membership of the Swappies, dreaming they were Alex Callinicos when actually they were more Gordon Brittas.


----------



## kabbes (Aug 26, 2011)

I don't particularly agree with Norman that Kizmet is some kind of evil incarnate, but I 100% agree with his sentiments about capitalism, systemic selfishness and the illusion of personal control.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Good luck handing out flyers to people who mostly read Facebook and anti-arrest tactics in an area with a high petty crime rate.
> 
> Genius.



You know that we have been talking about how grassroots stuff doesn't get reported? Another reason is that some stuff has to JUST happen and not be advertised because it is sensitive. I say this now because in the way you are attacking a certain poster, I don't think you want to be doing. In fact, I think you personally would be doing the same thing and not boasting about it because, boasting is not the done thing for some activities....Please...back off a bit. SOme people, regardless of how you know/interact with them here are doing stuff that is meaningful.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Or perhaps, as certainly used to be the case with grassroots activism, you didn't really talk about it because it was perfectly normative behaviour?



Just seen this (reading backwards through the thread), yes of course, normal and sensitive, not stuff to make a song and dance about...some of it anyway.


----------



## dirtyfruit (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Where would we be without ego? Who would we be?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But your ego appears to be a shallow and reactionary wisp of an identity, with hints of a massive swaggering cock looming underneath


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2011)

dirtyfruit said:


> But your ego appears to be a shallow and reactionary wisp of an identity, with hints of a massive swaggering cock looming underneath


i think you mean he's a big dick


----------



## dirtyfruit (Aug 26, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i think you mean he's a big dick



It's deliberately ambiguous


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> You know that we have been talking about how grassroots stuff doesn't get reported? Another reason is that some stuff has to JUST happen and not be advertised because it is sensitive. I say this now because in the way you are attacking a certain poster, I don't think you want to be doing. In fact, I think you personally would be doing the same thing and not boasting about it because, boasting is not the done thing for some activities....Please...back off a bit. SOme people, regardless of how you know/interact with them here are doing stuff that is meaningful.



What exactly are you asking me to back off from?

I responded directly to a comment from streathamite that was just as bad. But of course quoting me makes it seem like I'm the aggressor.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 26, 2011)

*Is there a reason for the riots?*

is there a reason for this thread?

is there a reason for newsnight?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> What exactly are you asking me to back off from?
> 
> I responded directly to a comment from streathamite that was just as bad. But of course quoting me makes it seem like I'm the aggressor.


I am asking you to back off from certain assumptions and statements you have made regarding x, y or z activities currently being done.

I am not taking sides in the on-going spat you are having with _whomever_. It has though, I feel spilled into areas that I think both yourself and others are broadly in agreement/support with/of and if a step back was taken in terms of the_ no you-no you-no but you-no but you are shit_ conversation this has descended into, the commonalities may well be seen in your positions/values/motivations/interests.

Hell, I am not going to post again on this thread until it returns to anything near the OP subject, which I think is an important one. Not a flounce, just an _okay, can we move on type of thing_.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Frankly, Kizmet, you're coming across as the kind of know-all self-righteous cock who people cross the street to avoid. The sort of person who used to form the backbone of the middle-membership of the Swappies, dreaming they were Alex Callinicos when actually they were more Gordon Brittas.



Heh. You basically gang up from the get-go and then complain when the target doesn't like it? 

I feel safe in the knowledge that you've barely taken on board a word I've said in your rush to back up your mates... and so I can't be too bothered about your opinion of it.


----------



## IC3D (Aug 26, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> *Is there a reason for the riots?*
> 
> is there a reason for this thread?
> 
> is there a reason for newsnight?


I guess newsnight came about because of a demand for a 'highbrow' more in depth look at the days news with additional commentary and debate provided by people with first hand experience of those events.

This thread came about for people to discuss newsnight

I don't think anyone here knows why the riots happened


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I am not taking sides in the on-going spat you are having with _whomever_. It has though, I feel spilled into areas that I think both yourself and others are broadly in agreement/support with/of and if a step back was taken in terms of the_ no you-no you-not but you-no but you are shit_ conversation this has descended into, the commonalities may well be seen in your positions/values/motivations/interests.



Wasn't that my point - that most of us want broadly the same thing and need to be more accepting of each other and different methods?

If it wasn't for the grudge holders and the circle jerks of approval.... we'd all get somewhere.

And along came the grudge holders and circle jerkers to tell me I'm wrong and prove I'm right.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Heh. You basically gang up from the get-go and then complain when the target doesn't like it?
> 
> I feel safe in the knowledge that you've barely taken on board a word I've said in your rush to back up your mates... and so I can't be too bothered about your opinion of it.



You do like to make assumptions, don't you?

This isn't about backing up mates, and your willingness to play the "victim" card whenever people gainsay you illustrates that you know this isn't about backing up mates, either. It's about your dislike of being argued with or contradicted. You've done this before, cast aside peoples' opinions in favour of your own ill-defined ones, and then attacked them when they've asked "well, what do you actually mean, Kizmet?".

Feel safe in whatever "knowledge" you've garnered for yourself. It's all you'' listen to, after all.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You do like to make assumptions, don't you?
> 
> This isn't about backing up mates, and your willingness to play the "victim" card whenever people gainsay you illustrates that you know this isn't about backing up mates, either. It's about your dislike of being argued with or contradicted. You've done this before, cast aside peoples' opinions in favour of your own ill-defined ones, and then attacked them when they've asked "well, what do you actually mean, Kizmet?".
> 
> Feel safe in whatever "knowledge" you've garnered for yourself. It's all you'' listen to, after all.



Please... show me where this has happened. It should be easy.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

IC3D said:


> I guess newsnight came about because of a demand for a 'highbrow' more in depth look at the days news with additional commentary and debate provided by people with first hand experience of those events.
> 
> This thread came about for people to discuss newsnight
> 
> I don't think anyone here knows why the riots happened



Nobody knows the whole story, not people on this thread, and certainly not the well-fed idiots in Parliament. Unfortunately, by the time we do know the whole story, the time to have learned lessons from it, and to have actually had much use from events as a lever for social change will be long gone.

Which is pretty much just as "the-powers-that-be" like things.

As for "Newsnight", while that was certainly part of their remit back in the mists of time, don't you get the feeling that they're becoming as "lowest common denominator" as the rest of the news programmes? Okay, it's not Fox by any stretch of the imagination, but they certainly don't do anywhere near as much investigative journalism as they used to.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 26, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Please... show me where this has happened. It should be easy.



What's the point, you'll just excuse yourself, and the entire board will continue to be treated to the unedifying spectacle of you and Streathamite, or you and SpinyNorman arguing across another half a dozen pages of a thread that isn't supposed to be about idiots on the internet, but about the riots and the reason(s) for them.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, I was referring to the "is there an underclass" thread. If you re-read it while exercising some reflexivity, you may get an inkling of what I'm referring to about your behaviour.

Oh, and before you ask why I haven't taken Streathamite and Norman to task, I've already told them elsewhere that they're twats.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 26, 2011)

Can I just state that I'm not here to provide 'backup' for anyone, I don't personally know anyone on this thread and so cannot be having a 'circle-jerk with my mates'.

I just find the way Kizmet has behaved on this thread, making assumptions left, right and centre, very offensive. And, by the way, you're still doing it kizmet - presuming to know why others have taken issue with your comments. For me it's just that you appear to be a massive cunt - you don't need to waste any time with cod-psychology - I just don't like arrogant egomaniacs. 

As for the part of my post you requested discussion on - what would you like to discuss? What do you disagree with? On what do you require clarification? You must disagree with it at a fairly fundamental level to be making the kind of arguments you have been doing.


----------



## IC3D (Aug 26, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nobody knows the whole story, not people on this thread, and certainly not the well-fed idiots in Parliament. Unfortunately, by the time we do know the whole story, the time to have learned lessons from it, and to have actually had much use from events as a lever for social change will be long gone.
> 
> Which is pretty much just as "the-powers-that-be" like things.
> 
> As for "Newsnight", while that was certainly part of their remit back in the mists of time, don't you get the feeling that they're becoming as "lowest common denominator" as the rest of the news programmes? Okay, it's not Fox by any stretch of the imagination, but they certainly don't do anywhere near as much investigative journalism as they used to.


We all have a variety of ideas, youths clubs in Haringey shutting and despondency over EMA spring to mind.

Guests on NN are pretty dire, David Starkey! its a circus, annoying caricatures trolling airwaves with theatrical intelcetual treacle.


----------



## dirtyfruit (Aug 26, 2011)

.

opps


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 26, 2011)

And just to confirm kizmet's over-inflated ego, he claims this is about 'grudges'! Don't flatter yourself sunshine, I'd never even noticed you before this thread. For this to be a grudge I'd have to have noticed you. And for me to have noticed you there would have to be something about you that's note-worthy. There isn't. 

Anyway, back to the discusion - kizmet seems to believe it's all my mum's fault - cos if she'd smacked my bum more when I swore I wouldn't be calling kizmet nasty names and err... everything would then, somehow, be alright. 

Finally, has it not crossed your little mind, kizmet, that I might have been DELIBERATELY making assumptions about you, the dafter the better, in order to mock the kind of assumptions you've been making about others on this very thread?


----------



## dirtyfruit (Aug 26, 2011)

Step away from the narcasist


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 26, 2011)

_narcaist_?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 26, 2011)

Paulie Tandoori said:


> _narcaist_?


narcissist


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 27, 2011)

speak for yourself love

boom tish


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 27, 2011)

OK Kizmet, let's see if it's possible to have a two way conversation with you. The paragraph you said had "meat in it" - let's discuss it. You'll have to go first - after all, I wrote it so it's fairly clear where I stand on the issue. Precisely what about that paragraph would you like to discuss?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 27, 2011)

Some excellent multi faceted analysis from Mike Marqusee:



> In the vast realm of human phenomena there are few things as impure or as complex as a riot, with its ever-shifting array of motives and circumstances. It is a social phenomenon and requires a social analysis and response. It’s the denial of that duty that’s reckless and irresponsible, not the alleged “socio-economic excuses” reviled by conservatives...
> 
> What happened was a concatenation of actions and reactions, with the riotous behaviour taking several forms: confrontation with police, destruction of property (large chain stores but also small shops), sporadic assaults on individuals, looting (theft), sometimes as a secondary overspill and sometimes as primary purpose, plus a lawless reaction to all of the above...
> 
> ...


 
http://www.mikemarqusee.com/?p=1203


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 27, 2011)

IC3D said:


> We all have a variety of ideas, youths clubs in Haringey shutting and despondency over EMA spring to mind.



They were certainly the "fuse" of the riots, but what was the bomb, i.e. what was the "body" of problems that made EMA and cuts to youth projects the final straw? The government could promise to totally reinstate EMA, and to fully fund all youth projects, but there would still be the underlying problems, just waiting for a spark to ignite them. 



> Guests on NN are pretty dire, David Starkey! its a circus, annoying caricatures trolling airwaves with theatrical intelcetual treacle.



More fool us if we expect more. Why would the BBC want to queer its' pitch, when it depends on government toleration for funding? Grease the govt enough and they'll be allowed to raise the licence fee. Ask too many difficult questions, and they won't.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 28, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> What's the point,



The point is, until you our someone shows me in context then I'm going to continue with my delusion that I'm only bad to the bad guys! 



> you'll just excuse yourself, and the entire board will continue to be treated to the unedifying spectacle of you and Streathamite, or you and SpinyNorman arguing across another half a dozen pages of a thread that isn't supposed to be about idiots on the internet, but about the riots and the reason(s) for them.
> 
> Oh, and in case you're wondering, I was referring to the "is there an underclass" thread. If you re-read it while exercising some reflexivity, you may get an inkling of what I'm referring to about your behaviour.



If I remember that thread... I only asked the question... "so who's underclass...?" and only you gave a decent reply.

The usual suspects did their usually suspect thing... including telling me how stupid and pointless a question it was.

After that, all bets are off.

No apologies, let's move on.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 28, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Can I just state that I'm not here to provide 'backup' for anyone



You can state anything you like... that alone won't make it true.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 28, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> OK Kizmet, let's see if it's possible to have a two way conversation with you. The paragraph you said had "meat in it" - let's discuss it. You'll have to go first - after all, I wrote it so it's fairly clear where I stand on the issue. Precisely what about that paragraph would you like to discuss?"



Short of time... will answer this later tonight.


----------



## elbows (Aug 28, 2011)

Theres some good stuff in this Ken Loach piece:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/aug/28/ken-loach-class-riots-interview

Here is a relevant chunk:



> We talk more about the riots, and the subsequent heavy-handedness of the courts. "They'll shoot people for stealing sheep next, won't they?" he says. "But, in a way, whenever something dramatic happens, you know that everybody retreats to their comfort zone – so the Tories retreat to cutting benefits, pulling people out of their houses, savage prison sentences. They want that anyway. So whatever happens is an excuse for them to do what they want to do."
> I mention the two young men put away for four years each, after trying to provoke rioting through their Facebook pages. Loach notes, with a shrug, that their cases will probably go to appeal, then adds: "It's the ruling class cracking the whip, isn't it? It's disgusting. We've got to organise. In the words of the old American trade unionist Joe Hill: don't mourn, organise."
> He continues, apologising occasionally for "lecturing" me. "I think the underlying factors regarding the riots are plain for anyone with eyes to see … It seems to me any economic structure that could give young people a future has been destroyed. Traditionally young people would be drawn into the world of work, and into groups of adults who would send the boys for a lefthanded screwdriver, or a pot of elbow grease, and so they'd be sent up in that way, but they would also learn about responsibilities, and learn a trade, and be defined by their skills. Well, they destroyed that. Thatcher destroyed that. She consciously destroyed the workforces in places like the railways, for example, and the mines, and the steelworks … so that transition from adolescence to adulthood was destroyed, consciously, and knowingly.
> "I don't recall the nihilism among kids now, 40 or 50 years ago," he says. "Now there is no place for kids, period. So I think despite the material advances, we're worse off." We also don't seem to have a political class that understands, on any level, what it's like to face unemployment. "No, the Bullingdon boys have never had to confront that," says Loach. "The Bullingdon boys will wreck restaurants and …" he pauses. "Just throw some money at it?" I say. "Yes, or their parents will throw money at it."


----------



## SpineyNorman (Aug 28, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> You can state anything you like... that alone won't make it true.



Stop being a penis.



Kizmet said:


> Short of time... will answer this later tonight.



OK.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 28, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Stop being a penis.


chance would be a fine thing


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 30, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yes, we should be attempting to create social spaces (god I hate that term used in this context but I can't think of a better one) that operate outside capitalism, but then again I'd wager most of the people you're insulting with your thought-free posts are already doing this. But "revolutions of consciousness", which is what you appear to be on about, are never self-causing. They are produced by changes in the material world that create new incentives and new ways of doing things. You may not _think_ you're individualising things by making your non-arguments, but you are. To change the ways people act we must change the system itself - people simply aren't going to act how you want them to when everything in the real world is forcing them to do the opposite. That's just the way it is.



The reason I separated this paragraph out as 'having meat' in it was not because I disagreed with it... but because it was the only one which addressed the issues of 'how it is' and what to do about it.

In fact... if you hadn't been so keen on sucking up to your mates you would see that I pretty much agree with most of what has been said about how and why we are were we are as a society.

In fact... as rutita pointed out... there's lots we agree on. Putting aside all personal disagreements, let's look at that.

 "people simply aren't going to act how you want them to when everything in the real world is forcing them to do the opposite. That's just the way it is."

That is just the way it is... but when you break it down... what is a person's real world? Family, community, society, environment?

We all agree that socio-economic forces affect and control society and environments.... and we all know how hard these forces and proponents of them have fought to break up and atomize the other two elements of extended family and local community.

We even know how. We can point to the media's involvement in spreading fear, mistrust and ignorance.

We know why.... because then we are easier to control, move around and sell to.

These are the background conditions. We know this.

But if we are going to fight back... first we have to be strong again. Otherwise it's still a losing battle. On uneven ground. I mean, you said it yourself.

The system you want to change feeds off the circulation of money. The family and community do not. The system makes people want things they don't need. The family and community gives them what they need.

No matter what system is in control of society and environment... with a strong family and community structure people are not weak.

The most disappointing thing about the recent riots was that the rioters turned on people who "should" have been part of their community. Small businesses, ordinary people.

This is as clear a sign as any that the break-up of community structures has been successful. 

The precise meanings of family and community have changed. Partly because of the socio-economic forces and partly because of technology. So new meanings have to be sought. It is in the interests of capitalism for there to be no structures in place. The rioters were, for a short while, a strong community. Based around common interests. That's a capitalists community. Fluid. Temporary. Seemingly strong, but actually weak. Seasonal.

The riots were conceived by the Mark Duggan incident... and genuine anger from the local community. It was sparked by the general dissaffection and anger of some bored local youths then fueled by the social networking systems to spread to bored, opportunistic disaffected youths all over.

But instead of heading off to tottenham or Central London.. they robbed their neighbours and damaged their own streets. Why?

Because they didn't think of them as their neighbours or streets.

That's the first battle, in my opinion. If you don't reconnect society then nothing else will have the strength required to change anything. How do we get people to once again see their local community as their neighbours and their streets?

That's why that paragraph has meat in it... because you mentioned changes in the real world... new incentives and new ways of doing things.

Except that you talked about them as if they were only achievable by changing the system. Which you also said was too strong to be changed.

That way lies madness!

Material changes, new incentives and new ways of doing things can and should start and be implemented from the family, community and upwards.

That's what I think we should be talking about. What are the new incentives and new ways of doing things? How do you reconnect communities?

Of course there are pressing political conditions and circumstances that require immediate action and activism.. but they will stand more chance of success set against a backdrop of actions that creates connected communities to take the action.

In other words. How are we going to build an army?


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 30, 2011)

Shit, I wrote loads.

Now let's see. Are you going to make it a waste of time?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> In other words. How are we going to build an army?


Short answer: By networking! Looking at the things we have in common and how those things make us valued and valuable to eachother.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 30, 2011)

And those things are a natural result of a community structure. Sharing of resources... enlarged knowledgebase.

The key is in numbers. We need reasons to get bums on seats... for people to feel like involvement in their local community brings benefits alternative to the ones the system offers. It's not that these communities don't exist... they do... of all types. But fractured. We need to find ways to join them up. Current political issues are too fluid and individualistic to be able to do that. The incentives need to be deeper than that.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 30, 2011)

The local community has to be able to provide sustenance, support, assistance, advice, fun, relaxation and responsibility. That's the level of incentive that I believe we have to think about.

Sustainability. Self-sufficiency. Not just environmentally... but socially too. They have to be among the new incentives.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> The riots were conceived by the Mark Duggan incident... and genuine anger from the local community. It was sparked by the general dissaffection and anger of some bored local youths then fueled by the social networking systems to spread to bored, opportunistic disaffected youths all over.
> 
> But instead of heading off to tottenham or Central London.. they robbed their neighbours and damaged their own streets. Why?
> 
> ...


you're not going to build an army or play any meaningful part in building an army while you're so woefully ignorant of military science.

it doesn't take a genius to work out that if you have home advantage you have, er, an advantage. the importance of the battlefield's attested throughout history, from sun tzu and vegetius to jomini, clausewitz and theorists of urban guerrilla warfare like marighella. only a fucking twat would say 'you want to riot? why not run down the way a few miles to places you don't know too well away from everyone you know.' the reason people riot in their neighbourhoods is because that's where they are. but it seems to have escaped your notice that there were a lot of people rioting, not just two or three dozen. these people were friends and neighbours. and by no means all of them were 'bored local youths', as pictures from eg tottenham and hackney showed. in many cases, though, the people whose houses the riots took places outside weren't in more than geographical terms 'neighbours', because of gentrification.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 30, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> it doesn't take a genius to work out that if you have home advantage you have, er, an advantage. the importance of the battlefield's attested throughout history,



It wasn't a war, you prick. This isn't fucking Warhammer with little elves representing the rioters. Put down your books and fantasy scenarios or stay out of it.


----------



## LLETSA (Aug 30, 2011)

'Young people face an exceptionally bleak future: it will be much harder for them than for their parents to get an education, a decent job, a secure home, or, in the remote future, a dignified retirement. The life chances of millions are being diminished. 150 people have been made homeless as a result of the recent riots, but tens of thousands will be made homeless by the government’s cuts to housing benefit...'

Good summary of the situation, leaving aside the silly dismissal of the 150 made homeless by the rioters. This is exactly what's going to happen, and there's absolutely no chance of preventing it. I keep trying to drum it into some Russian friends on the brink of gaining citizenship that this is no place to be looking to bring up a child.

Third World Britain here we come.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It wasn't a war, you prick. This isn't fucking Warhammer with little elves representing the rioters. Put down your books and fantasy scenarios or stay out of it.



Strategy and tactics are still necessary concomitants of any engagement, peaceful or violent. You need to forward-plan, because you can be damn sure that if you're engaging with the state, they will have.

You also (unlike the state, in my experience) need to realise that strategy needs to be fluid - things rarely go according to plan, and if you're locked into a strategic course, you're buggered. That's why the polce have made so many protest-related errors in the last few years, IMO: The Met's strategy is to deploy set-piece tactics that rely on a particular "model" or type of protester. Introduce wild cards and things go wrong for them.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> And those things are a natural result of a community structure. Sharing of resources... enlarged knowledgebase.



I don't disagree, I will say however that they are the exact same things that build 'community' structures too!



> The key is in numbers. We need reasons to get bums on seats... for people to feel like involvement in their local community brings benefits alternative to the ones the system offers. It's not that these communities don't exist... they do... of all types. But fractured. We need to find ways to join them up. Current political issues are too fluid and individualistic to be able to do that. The incentives need to be deeper than that.



Yep, that whare the networking comes into it. Do favours and ask for favours, build up shared experiences/links, identify and unify under common needs. Be valuable and show others how they are valued.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It wasn't a war, you prick. This isn't fucking Warhammer with little elves representing the rioters. Put down your books and fantasy scenarios or stay out of it.


this from the man who said an army needed to be created.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 30, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Strategy and tactics are still necessary concomitants of any engagement, peaceful or violent. You need to forward-plan, because you can be damn sure that if you're engaging with the state, they will have.
> 
> You also (unlike the state, in my experience) need to realise that strategy needs to be fluid - things rarely go according to plan, and if you're locked into a strategic course, you're buggered. That's why the polce have made so many protest-related errors in the last few years, IMO: The Met's strategy is to deploy set-piece tactics that rely on a particular "model" or type of protester. Introduce wild cards and things go wrong for them.


very much so. look at j18: as demonstrators dispersed throughout the city the cops were at a loss in how to deal with it. the same sort of thing worked with the recent riots, where the perimeter expanded to such an extent the police were unable to do more than nip at the crowds who were out. unlike an army, however, the police may attempt to track down every 'enemy combatant' following such a confrontation.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 30, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> I don't disagree, I will say however that they are the exact same things that build 'community' structures too!



Absolutely. It's a virtuous circle.



> Yep, that whare the networking comes into it. Do favours and ask for favours, build up shared experiences/links, identify and unify under common needs. Be valuable and show others how they are valued.



To do all of that successfully we need to get people together.... in the same rooms, parks and halls. Large numbers of people from disparate backgrounds where a fertile ground can be created. The unifying under common needs bit. Yes there are current political issues that people can unite against or for... but there has to be continuity.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 30, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Strategy and tactics are still necessary concomitants of any engagement, peaceful or violent. You need to forward-plan, because you can be damn sure that if you're engaging with the state, they will have.
> 
> You also (unlike the state, in my experience) need to realise that strategy needs to be fluid - things rarely go according to plan, and if you're locked into a strategic course, you're buggered. That's why the polce have made so many protest-related errors in the last few years, IMO: The Met's strategy is to deploy set-piece tactics that rely on a particular "model" or type of protester. Introduce wild cards and things go wrong for them.



I agree... and I think that inflexibility is another good reason to bend our minds towards new incentives and ways of.doing things... so that we can keep coming up with wild cards the state isn't prepared for.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 31, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Good luck handing out flyers to people who mostly read Facebook and anti-arrest tactics in an area with a high petty crime rate.
> 
> Genius.


Oh what, you know more about Tottenham youth than everyone who lives there or has worked there?
yeah, that's _genius.
_Thank fuck there's enough people out there who don't have your negative, sneering contempt for the youth; with attitudes like yours, it's hardly surprising they give up on Society or its' rules


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 31, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> 1) Hypocrisy.
> 2) Stupidity.
> 3) Defeatism.
> 4) Shirking responsibility.
> ...


actually, Norman nailed you totally, which I can only assume is why you totally failed to engage with or rebut a single one of the serious points he made there. it's called 'debate', perhaps you should try it sometime


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 31, 2011)

Perhaps you should catch up?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Perhaps you should catch up?


i had thought i wouldn't need to say it again, but you are one thick fuck.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 31, 2011)

Everytime you say it your sperm count drops with disappointment.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 31, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> They were certainly the "fuse" of the riots, but what was the bomb, i.e. what was the "body" of problems that made EMA and cuts to youth projects the final straw? The government could promise to totally reinstate EMA, and to fully fund all youth projects, but there would still be the underlying problems, just waiting for a spark to ignite them.


Ok, now I'd like to stress I am talking SPECIFICALLY about totteringham here, but I can give you 3 very big, underlying reasons
1) police racism and racist harassment; it is no coincidence that both of Tottenham's major riots were triggered by the death of a black person during a police op that went wrong. relations between the police and Tottenham blacks are atrocvious, and the faut for this lies about 95% with OB. Their racism has got better, not worse in the time I can comment on
2) specific, ongoing police harassment of youth. it's this constant petty picking on people; by the gtime you get S&Sed for the 5th time in a week - and in the charmless, bullying way that tottenham OB have - you're gonna get mad. anyone would. now mutiply that by 52 weeks peryear, and by several thousand angry, rebellious kids
3) unemployment and poverty; we have ONE FIFTH of the U-25 as NEETS, and Tottenham is the most impoverished part of London, and one of the  worst in the UK, full stop. hence loads of kids with nothing to do, and no hopes for the future.
The surprise is not that there are riots, but there haven't been _more_.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 31, 2011)

So why weren't there more, in your opinion?

And why weren't there riots in Leyton, Leytonstone or Edmonton? They have broadly similar demographics.


----------



## Das Uberdog (Aug 31, 2011)

article here discussing Met tactics wrt public order situations,

http://trialbyalamo.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/public-order-policing-after-the-riots/

it's a bit long but the crux of the argument is here:

"...it was the ‘cat and mouse’, mobile and rapid movement of the recent disorder which threw traditional policing tactics into a mess. When trouble flared, the police attempted to quell disorder with their standard containment methods; however such reactions were predictable and clunky. Principles learned from the kettle-breaking and avoiding antics of the previous three years had a cumulative impact upon the mobilisation of many of the flash-rioters and looters. Rioters struck with lightning speed, and when confronted by a police presence, often evaporated into the æther only to re-emerge on another street, striking a new target."

"The police have been hoist by their own petard; after decades of making effective protests impossible via traditional means of assembly and marching, they have forced an innovation in ideas and strategies. The result is a many-headed hydra, a powerful and ungovernable _tour de force_. It is difficult to envisage what, exactly, they will be able to do to deal with it."


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 31, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Perhaps you should catch up?


I have thanks, and WRT your posts, there's too little there that's worth catching up on
e2a; not meant nastily, but time is a precious, finite resort, and I don't have enought to not prioritise, ruthlessly


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 31, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> So why weren't there more, in your opinion?
> 
> And why weren't there riots in Leyton, Leytonstone or Edmonton? They have broadly similar demographics.


Edmonton DID see disturbances, itg's just they were out-screamed by their southern neighbours.
WF cops are nowhere near as bad as Tottenham OB, but more importantly there's only ONE estate in either locality, that's as big as the broadwater, or the Eyder/st anne's one. Also, WF youth services haven't been slashed to pieces - Tottenham's have


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 31, 2011)

Well, I guess that'll show me for trying to keep the peace.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> Everytime you say it your sperm count drops with disappointment.


i don't know if your apparent stupidity is deliberate or innate, but either way it makes you look a twat. for example, you start going on about building up an army then have a pop at someone who raises some obvious points about choosing your ground. you are a thick fuck: it's just a fact. oh - and ignorant with it.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 31, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Edmonton DID see disturbances, itg's just they were out-screamed by their southern neighbours.
> WF cops are nowhere near as bad as Tottenham OB, but more importantly there's only ONE estate in either locality, that's as big as the broadwater, or the Eyder/st anne's one. Also, WF youth services haven't been slashed to pieces - Tottenham's have



If it was that simple why was there also trouble in better funded boroughs like Enfield? Or even Brixton?

Does that mean you don't agree that many of the tottenham rioters were not from the area?

It's not that I disagree with you... but I think the reasons that you outlined provided a background for the rioting... but were not the reason as such.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 31, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> It's not that I disagree with you... but I think the reasons that you outlined provided a background for the rioting... but were not the reason as such.


there is a rather large difference between 'reason', and 'underlying causal factors. thereis no single one thing to blame, but a whole host of factors.
to underscore this; enfield's youth undemployment has shot up over the past 2 years, and CONEL's budget's have been decimated.
and they've ALL suffered from what 30 years of neolib dogma have done to the public sector and trad w/c communities


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 31, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i don't know if your apparent stupidity is deliberate or innate, but either way it makes you look a twat. for example, you start going on about building up an army then have a pop at someone who raises some obvious points about choosing your ground. you are a thick fuck: it's just a fact. oh - and ignorant with it.



The thing is... and I know it's not like this on urban... but in real life if you constantly call someone stupid who is clearly not stupid then it's you who ends up looking foolish.

On urban you are protected by a little delusional bubble of.mates. But it amounts to the same thing.

My comment about raising an army and your comment about choosing ground were unrelated. I was talking about in the future... you were trying to insinuate that the riots were a war.

You're not really fooling anyone.

You may have read a lot of books... but you are very ignorant of people.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> If it was that simple why was there also trouble in better funded boroughs like Enfield? Or even Brixton?
> 
> Does that mean you don't agree that many of the tottenham rioters were not from the area?
> 
> It's not that I disagree with you... but I think the reasons that you outlined provided a background for the rioting... but were not the reason as such.


'some of the tottenham rioters were not from the area'. you mean they had dared to come down from edmonton or up from hackney or over from wood green - none of those areas that far away?


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> The thing is... and I know it's not like this on urban... but in real life if you constantly call someone stupid who is clearly not stupid then it's you who ends up looking foolish.
> 
> On urban you are protected by a little delusional bubble of.mates. But it amounts to the same thing.
> 
> ...


kizmet

you are a thick fuck. i made explicit reference to battlefield - a riot is even to thick fucks like you similar to a battle in that there are two sides fighting. if you are in fact not stupid, you are doing a fucking good job of concealing it. as for my alleged ignorance of people, your ignorance appears to know no bounds.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 31, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> there is a rather large difference between 'reason', and 'underlying causal factors. thereis no single one thing to blame, but a whole host of factors.
> to underscore this; enfield's youth undemployment has shot up over the past 2 years, and CONEL's budget's have been decimated.
> and they've ALL suffered from what 30 years of neolib dogma have done to the public sector and trad w/c communities



Agreed. But that doesn't fully explain why those locations and why at that time. Deprivation and inequality are obvious causal factors... but not in their own.

Nothing will fully explain it, that's the nature of riots. But there are signs of commonality.

High rates of poverty, unemployment and petty crime mixed with fractured communities and poor relationships with the local police. Particularly noticeable was that a lot of those areas had a particularly wide demographic... quite well to do areas up close to very poor ones.

In terms of timing I think the school holidays was the biggest single determining factor.

I think it's also interesting to look at areas that didn't riot and look at those commonalities that are missing.

For example... Leyton. It's a shithole. But didn't go off. Leyton doesn't have such a wide demographic... it's pretty uniformly poor. Also, while relations with the police are poor, the community structure is fairly strong with a fairly balanced mix of ethnicities.. each with their own structure.

Also Leyton has the Olympics coming with the prospect of investment.

So it also lacks commonality in that there is hope.

I think, if there is a single underlying reason for the riots, it's that - Loss of hope.


----------



## Kizmet (Aug 31, 2011)

Pickman's

You are clearly a man desperately in need of a proper shag.

Not that I'm offering.

*shudders.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 31, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Ok, now I'd like to stress I am talking SPECIFICALLY about totteringham here, but I can give you 3 very big, underlying reasons
> 1) police racism and racist harassment; it is no coincidence that both of Tottenham's major riots were triggered by the death of a black person during a police op that went wrong. relations between the police and Tottenham blacks are atrocvious, and the faut for this lies about 95% with OB. Their racism has got better, not worse in the time I can comment on



Why are you assuming that Duggan's death was a "police op that went wrong"?



> 2) specific, ongoing police harassment of youth. it's this constant petty picking on people; by the gtime you get S&Sed for the 5th time in a week - and in the charmless, bullying way that tottenham OB have - you're gonna get mad. anyone would. now mutiply that by 52 weeks peryear, and by several thousand angry, rebellious kids
> 3) unemployment and poverty; we have ONE FIFTH of the U-25 as NEETS, and Tottenham is the most impoverished part of London, and one of the worst in the UK, full stop. hence loads of kids with nothing to do, and no hopes for the future.
> The surprise is not that there are riots, but there haven't been _more_.



It's not really surprising. Many of the traditional routes to youth being able to know their rights and exercise them have been diminished over the last 20 years. Little recourse to legal advice, little recourse to youth projects where you might be able to get decent independent welfare advice rather than the shit that JC+ belches out. People get so worn down that it needs a lot to stoke the fires.
Plus, despite what the red-tops like to preach, a majority of people, even "hoodies", are law-abiding when it benefits them to be, even if they are gang members.


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 31, 2011)

> *Riot communities and victims panel announced*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
http://www.dpm.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/news/riot-communities-and-victims-panel-announced-0


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 31, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> The thing is... and I know it's not like this on urban... but in real life if you constantly call someone stupid who is clearly not stupid then it's you who ends up looking foolish.
> 
> On urban you are protected by a little delusional bubble of.mates. But it amounts to the same thing.
> 
> ...


a couple of things occurred to me this afternoon in relation to this exchange.

you say that your post about building up an army and mine about battlefields were unrelated. not so. at present there is only one group or organisation which takes part in riots as an armoured and militarised force, and that is of course the police. what happens in a riot situation is that you get people fighting on a field not necessarily of their choosing, taking on a hierarchical force whose tactics effectively date from the era of the roman empire but which are combined with 21st century communications and surveillance equipment. what is surprising in these circumstances is that unarmed people take them on with makeshift weapons. however, as they operate within a hierarchical framework the police cannot deal effectively with fast-moving situations in streets with which they are unfamiliar when they are not expecting it. the tottenham riot's a prime example of this, when the preparation they have  for large demonstrations or that they had for subsequent nights' rioting weren't available. their control room, gt, was not in operation at least at the start of the riot. the rioters had seized the element of surprise and were operating, if not on their own turf, then certainly on ground with which they were familiar.

if you cast your mind back to the student protests of the end of last year, you will have seen police tactics remain quite static while the protestors' tactics changed significantly. in the course of a few short weeks they received a crash course in public order policing, drawing lessons from the police operations to the extent that by the final protest they had largely got the measure of what the police were up to and how to circumvent that. of course not everyone involved learnt at the same pace, and there were a lot of people who don't appear to have reached the same conclusions - or in some cases, any conclusions at all. nonetheless as a group the protestors were much more capable of running the police ragged as time went on.

the trajectory which evolved over the course of the student protests and could be seen over the three days of the recent riots will not lead to the development of an army, now or in the future. individuals and groups will learn various things about what works and what doesn't when confronting the police, and in the aftermath of any riot. as so many people have found out, the police is not an army which following the battle, the riot, simply holds an after action review and incorporates lessons learned into their training and preparation for next time. they also use their considerable resources to track down people who have given them a bloody nose, which is an awful lot of people this time round.organisationally, the creation of an army such as you propose involves a great deal of hard work. it also involves a number of illegal actions, for example drilling. but from the outset it involves conspiracy, which is one reason why you might want to reconsider your proposal. anyone who became involved in an army along the lines you suggest would from the venture's outset be leaving themselves open to a lengthy prison sentence possibly for conspiracy to treason or other equally nasty charges.

even so, there is a lot for people interested in the history, theory and practice of rioting to learn from the military, even if they never intend to put such lessons into practice. obviously there are the riot control methods of various armed forces, which mirror those of the police and which contain more extreme riot control methods than the police, at least in the island of great britain, would be allowed to use. see, for example, the us army fm 3-19.15 _www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-19-15.pdf _(5.4MB pdf). however, affinity groups and friendship networks could learn a considerable amount from small unit tactics. but there seems to me to be a fundamental reconsideration of the relationship of rioters to the police needed. the main thing is, are the police the object of the riot. that is, are they the target? while for some people they will be, for other people they have been an obstacle to get over or get around. if an army is to evolve, it will, in my opinion, be an army of small units with no central command, no central communications, no real shared ethos but shared methods of doing things, shared tactics and perhaps shared targets. this will not come about because i notice a similarity between small groups of organised looters or rioters and eg the sas. it will come about because rioting is a social activity and people like to do social activities with their mates. it will come about because working in small units is what people can do with the people they know. your idea of an army won't happen because you seem rather ignorant of what a public order situation's like. mine's more likely as it depends on what people are like, as people mull over what they did and how it can be done better.

oh - and let's not forget my post was prompted by your effort about armies. the two contributions were linked from the outset.


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 31, 2011)

Kizmet said:


> For example... Leyton. It's a shithole. But didn't go off. Leyton doesn't have such a wide demographic... it's pretty uniformly poor. Also, while relations with the police are poor, the community structure is fairly strong with a fairly balanced mix of ethnicities.. each with their own structure.
> .


do you MIND???? cheek!
_I_ like it here, so does everyone who knows here, and it is emphatically NOT a "shithole" - simply extremely nondescript.



> High rates of poverty, unemployment and petty crime mixed with fractured communities and poor relationships with the local police. Particularly noticeable was that a lot of those areas had a particularly wide demographic... quite well to do areas up close to very poor ones.





> I think, if there is a single underlying reason for the riots, it's that - Loss of hope


well yeah, but that really IS a statement from the Department Of The Bleedin' obvious!!!


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 31, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Why are you assuming that Duggan's death was a "police op that went wrong"?


In that even those utter cunts in tottenham OB would rather not have a corpse on their hands, if they could possibly avoid it! beyond that, take your point


----------



## Treacle Toes (Aug 31, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> do you MIND???? cheek!
> _I_ like it here, so does everyone who knows here, and it is emphatically NOT a "shithole" - simply extremely nondescript.



Can I just say  Did Kizmet know you are in Leyton?

If not, this is descending into foot-in-mouth comedy.


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 1, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> a couple of things occurred to me this afternoon in relation to this exchange.
> 
> you say that your post about building up an army and mine about battlefields were unrelated. not so. at present there is only one group or organisation which takes part in riots as an armoured and militarised force, and that is of course the police. what happens in a riot situation is that you get people fighting on a field not necessarily of their choosing, taking on a hierarchical force whose tactics effectively date from the era of the roman empire but which are combined with 21st century communications and surveillance equipment. what is surprising in these circumstances is that unarmed people take them on with makeshift weapons. however, as they operate within a hierarchical framework the police cannot deal effectively with fast-moving situations in streets with which they are unfamiliar when they are not expecting it. the tottenham riot's a prime example of this, when the preparation they have  for large demonstrations or that they had for subsequent nights' rioting weren't available. their control room, gt, was not in operation at least at the start of the riot. the rioters had seized the element of surprise and were operating, if not on their own turf, then certainly on ground with which they were familiar.
> 
> ...



That really is an excellent post.

But I think you have misunderstood what I meant by "army".

"if an army is to evolve, it will, in my opinion, be an army of small units with no central command, no central communications, no real shared ethos but shared methods of doing things, shared tactics and perhaps shared targets."

This is the kind of thinking I have been talking about. Not at the Al Qaeda terrorist cell level. But at a local community level... where there can be sharing of methods and sharing of targets amongst these units.

Much of what I have been saying has been directed at what we can do do promote or assist this evolution. How to create a fertile breeding ground for localized action.

The actual content of the action is much less important in the context of widespread local action. Which is why it's important not to look at the specific differences in people's methods... but try to identify common objectives and targets that can be a constant and continuous source of unity. And ways to promote that unity.


----------



## cool herc (Sep 1, 2011)

bored kids looting, not political at all, not protesting anyway


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 1, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> do you MIND???? cheek!
> _I_ like it here, so does everyone who knows here, and it is emphatically NOT a "shithole" - simply extremely nondescript.



I like it too. But it IS a shithole. If a lovable one...



> well yeah, but that really IS a statement from the Department Of The Bleedin' obvious!!!



I don't think it's really all that obvious. Because it's so fundamental. The task is to restore hope. The first challenge.

Obvious doesn't, sadly, mean easy...


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 1, 2011)

cool herc said:


> bored kids looting, not political at all, not protesting anyway



looting is protesting.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2011)

cool herc said:


> bored kids looting, not political at all, not protesting anyway


what like the people in nottingham who firebombed the police station?


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 1, 2011)

Rutita1 said:


> Can I just say  Did Kizmet know you are in Leyton?
> 
> If not, this is descending into foot-in-mouth comedy.



He lives in Leyton?  Poor bastard. 


Kidding... I live there too.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 1, 2011)

cool herc said:


> bored kids looting, not political at all, not protesting anyway


I think they said 1/5 of the people involved were under 18. That means 4/5 weren't kids. This still didn't stop the news pontificating forth for ages about the "younger generation".


----------



## cool herc (Sep 1, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> what like the people in nottingham who firebombed the police station?



Having a pop at the plod is just what bored kids do - still just bored kids.


----------



## Pickman's model (Sep 1, 2011)

cool herc said:


> Having a pop at the plod is just what bored kids do - still just bored kids.


so how many police stations have 'bored kids' firebombed outside the riots if, as you say, 'having a pop at the plod is just what bored kids do'?


----------



## cool herc (Sep 1, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> so how many police stations have 'bored kids' firebombed outside the riots if, as you say, 'having a pop at the plod is just what bored kids do'?



You tell me. Plenty of cop cars get burned up as a dare, its what kids do for kicks


----------



## cool herc (Sep 1, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> I think they said 1/5 of the people involved were under 18. That means 4/5 weren't kids. This still didn't stop the news pontificating forth for ages about the "younger generation".



I say "kids" I mean youth - under 21, or under 25 if youre a shortarse


----------



## belboid (Sep 1, 2011)

cool herc said:


> You tell me. Plenty of cop cars get burned up as a dare, its what kids do for kicks


really?  Can't say I've seen many round here, and I suspect I'd have heard about if they had. Flicking v's at cops is one thing, actually firebombing the feckers is a taking things a step or two further


----------



## cool herc (Sep 1, 2011)

there's a video or two on youtube where cop cars are getting nicked for joyrides.

Everyone hates the cops when theyre kids


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 1, 2011)

I'm not all that fond of the older ones either.


----------



## cool herc (Sep 1, 2011)

touche


----------



## DotCommunist (Sep 1, 2011)

cool herc said:


> there's a video or two on youtube where cop cars are getting nicked for joyrides.


 
high standards of evidence


----------



## goldenecitrone (Sep 2, 2011)

Interview with Cameron on Today programme now, asking him if he understands how people get caught up in the moment, and if he saw any places getting smashed up when he was in the Bullingdon Club.


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 2, 2011)

DotCommunist said:


> high standards of evidence



This is beginning to bug me. I keep hearing people spouting simplistic shit with absolute 100% confidence which implies they KNOW precisely why the riots took place despite not having listened to anything said by anyone who actually rioted. The last couple of days I've been going round the estate asking people for their take on the riots as a prep for going to the LMS meeting last night. I've had some very articulate explanations of "what my friend who was one of the people that burned down FootLocker says he did it for".

So, can I just ask a favour from Urbanites. If you HAVEN'T taken the time to find out what those involved in the riots have been saying, can you just bear in mind that your opinion may well be a complete crock of shit.

Which doesn't mean that there aren't rioters spouting complete bollocks too, but at least it gives some insight into what they think can be used as a reason or a justification, even if it's far from the whole truth.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 2, 2011)

I know it's a hella arrogant and mega-patronising thing to even think of suggesting it, but people don't always understand their own full range of motivations for their actions.

Not just rioters, but all of us.


----------



## Kizmet (Sep 2, 2011)

Careful, Kabbes... you're treading dangerously into kizmet territory...


----------



## ericjarvis (Sep 2, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I know it's a hella arrogant and mega-patronising thing to even think of suggesting it, but people don't always understand their own full range of motivations for their actions.
> 
> Not just rioters, but all of us.



True. However I still think it's a bit dodgy to attempt to analyse somebody's motivations without getting ANY evidence of what they think.


----------

