Riots in North London (and other UK cities)

[The Parkus Empire]

It's ridiculous, they're destroying their own city. What is it they expect to happen after this is all over?

A four week bender involving all the stolen booze, drugs and consumer electronics they made off with.

...And the destruction of capitalism, reserve banking, the Met, racism, the Coalition government, the resolution of the financial crisis and absolving of Britain's debt. Along with any other excuses the blow-hards in this thread and at the Guardian can come up with.

I dunno about all that, but there was certainly a massive government effort made to get jobs for African Americans after the Watts Riots.

[Greed and Death]

It's ridiculous, they're destroying their own city. What is it they expect to happen after this is all over?

A four week bender involving all the stolen booze, drugs and consumer electronics they made off with.

...And the destruction of capitalism, reserve banking, the Met, racism, the Coalition government, the resolution of the financial crisis and absolving of Britain's debt. Along with any other excuses the blow-hards in this thread and at the Guardian can come up with.

Maybe they want to return to pre white man native american govnerment.

When the white man discovered this country Indians were running it. No taxes no debt, women did all the work White man thought he could improve on a system like this.

~ Old Cherokee Saying

[The Parkus Empire]

A four week bender involving all the stolen booze, drugs and consumer electronics they made off with.

...And the destruction of capitalism, reserve banking, the Met, racism, the Coalition government, the resolution of the financial crisis and absolving of Britain's debt. Along with any other excuses the blow-hards in this thread and at the Guardian can come up with.

Maybe they want to return to pre white man native american govnerment.

When the white man discovered this country Indians were running it. No taxes no debt, women did all the work White man thought he could improve on a system like this.

~ Old Cherokee Saying

....

[Trixiestan]

"...and we will not let any phony concerns about Human Rights get in the way of the publication of these pictures and the arrest of these individuals."

At around the one minute mark, David Cameron literally brushes aside Human Rights because he's a rubber-faced twat.

Except that this is the purpose of CCTV and lefties always bring up dodgy human rights claims to defeat the system.

But you just go ahead and pretend Cameron said he opposes human rights, even though it's a straw man.

David Cameron LITERALLY said it! Did you even watch the interview? It's right there on video! Nevermind the fact that Cameron had a fucking hissy fit a while back when the EU made us give our prisoners the right to vote. The guy is a maggot.

Have a link. Make's depressing reading, but whatever. Here's the choice bits:

According to the Unicef report, which measured 40 indicators of quality of life – including the strength of relationships with friends and family, educational achievements and personal aspirations, and exposure to drinking, drug taking and other risky behaviour – British children have the most miserable upbringing in the developed world. American children come next, second from the bottom.

“The reason our children’s lives are the worst among economically advanced countries is because we are a poor version of the USA,” he said. “So the USA comes second from bottom and we follow behind. The age of neo-liberalism, even with the human face that New Labour has given it, cannot stem the tide of the social recession capitalism creates.”

LSE economist Nick Bosanquet, along with Blair Gibbs of the independent think tank Reform, branded Britain’s under-35s the “ipod Generation” – insecure, pressured, over-taxed and debt-ridden. Warning that Britain was at a generational tipping point when it came to quality of life, they argued, “The common perception is that today’s young people have it easy. But the true position of young people is thrown into stark relief when compared to their parents . . . who enjoyed many advantages of which the younger generation can now only dream, including a generous welfare state, free universal higher education, secure pensions and a substantial rise in housing equity which has augmented their lifetime savings.”

The first stirrings of major intergenerational conflict are already being noted. The basic rights of the recent past – a safe job, free education and healthcare, secure homes to raise a family, a modest but comfortable old age – have slipped quietly away, all to be replaced by a myriad of vapid lifestyle choices and glittery consumer trinkets. Excluded from a national social housing scheme sold off by their parents, unwilling to give birth in the UK’s draconian new system of rental accommodation which gives tenants no more than six months grace from eviction, and unable to afford homes of their own in 85 percent of the country, today’s ipod generation is stunted: trapped halfway between childhood and adulthood.

as Conservative MP David Willetts, put it: “A young person could be forgiven for believing that the way in which economic and social policy is now conducted is little less than a conspiracy by the middle-aged against the young.”

No wonder the UK is increasingly repressing its youth. As the generational divide deepens, it makes sense for the older generations to stake their claim now, while they have the power of the state on their side.

Conservative leader David Cameron’s call to “hug a hoodie” was mocked, but Tony Blair won praise for ignoring compelling crime statistics and launching a “Respect agenda” to protect the societies safest members (the over-50s) from those most at risk of crime (the under-25s)

Chavs are the foot soldiers of corporate consumerism. They wear branded kit, congregate around halls of bland consumerism – shopping centers, cinemas, fast food outlets – and target anyone who stands out. Their chief weapon is not surprise, but a volley of inarticulate abuse and violence backed up by safety in numbers. Though they suffer from a dearth of so many intangibles in their young lives, one thing they do not know is real material poverty. They own expensive sports gear, expensive mobiles, watch Murdoch satellite channels on large flatscreen TVs, and aspire to a souped-up motor with a massive stereo system. They are not so much poor as culturally and imaginatively impoverished, because the main characteristic of Chavs is not social class but an utter lack of hope.

Just how much more hopeless does the situation have to become before Britain’s children wake up and realise that they no longer want to be monitored, marketed and manipulated for the benefit of their elders?

Also, LEFTIES LEFTIES LEFTIES

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

David Cameron LITERALLY said it!

What's more upsetting is that saying such will just boost his support all the more.

[Greater Cabinda]

David Cameron LITERALLY said it!

What's more upsetting is that saying such will just boost his support all the more.

Only until everyone calms down and realizes what just happened.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

What's more upsetting is that saying such will just boost his support all the more.

Only until everyone calms down and realizes what just happened.

I'm not that optimistic

[Greater Cabinda]

Only until everyone calms down and realizes what just happened.

I'm not that optimistic

I doubt the ability of the Conservative Party to keep everyone riled up at a level in which no one thinks.

I mean, they aren't Republicans.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

I doubt the ability of the Conservative Party to keep everyone riled up at a level in which no one thinks.

They've been pretty grand at it in the past and as long as they play the Us vs Them card they're golden

[AiliailiA]

If all your argument with Intangelon was just splitting hairs and you were not actually arguing against corporal punishment of children, then there is no reason for me ever to take anything you say seriously. I thought you made strong points against corporal punishment of children, but clearly I read you wrong. It was all just a game of slapping down Intangelon then?

No. Intangelon seems to me to be making fundamental errors in that thread, because he seems to be too invested.

No. You were just slapping him down because he annoyed you. I understand, he annoyed me too.

Once I realised that he self-identifies as 'somone who spanks', and thus doesn't want to be faced with the 'spanking is abuse' argument, I understood why he seems so upset with my arguments. You'll notice that I've actually responded to Intangelon a lot less often, since.

I made my position clear in that thread - I think it's obvious that spanking is violence, there's really no point in debating that - it's not really debatable. The question is - should parents be ALLOWED to do it. I haven't expressed a position either way - I've just presented the arguments for why it's not necessary.

A very safe position.

Perhaps that is it. You don't actually want to prove anything or even argue for anything. It's all just about showing other people to be wrong, without ever saying anything you can be held to and proven wrong on?

No, you're just attributing positions to me that I never claimed. I'm arguing that spanking isn't necessary. I'm arguing that it's violence.

That doesn't mean I have to oppose all violence - I just don't think it's necessarily good parenting.

But you won't say it is bad parenting. In fact, you won't even say it not good parenting. All those words, and all you meant to say is "spanking is not necessarily good parenting".

What a waste of time. Mine, yours, everyones.

Of course cops should not be allowed to hit people in the head for rioting.

There's no 'of course', there.

To stop rioting, when it is happening, perhaps cops should be allowed to hit people ... though I'd think, there is no reason to hit them in the head if hitting them about the body would achieve the same result. The only reason any cop should use violence is to cut short the commission of a crime, to prevent an imminent crime, or to take into custody a suspect when there is no other way of taking them into custody.

None of these apply in the case we see in the video.

No matter what their age, if the "person" is apprehended as you said 10 minutes after rioting, if they are as you said "shut down" and if there are plenty of police present to take them into custody, there is absolutely no need for "hitting in the head". They should arrest the suspect as it was plainly in their power to do.

Maybe they could have apprehended him without the batons. Or maybe he'd have fought back. It's a complex theatre - and I don't object to the tactical decisions they made.

Of course you don't object. To object would be to take a position.

You don't approve their action either, do you? Then you would have to defend it.

You're defending punishment without trial, by legally privileged persons with physical advantages, and it is not one bit better than child abuse.

Nonsense. Totally different spheres. That's like saying you can't oppose the death penalty, but be in favour of your nation fighting a war of defence.

[/quote]

There is no other circumstance in which it would be OK for eight people to run around a corner and confront four people, surround the one that they caught, taser him and then beat him. Even if the two groups of people had been in a life-and-death battle with each other minutes before, this would be affray at the very least. More likely "assault with intent to cause grievous bodily harm".

No, don't mention "in war". Not unless you mean that police should act towards civilians, the way soldiers may act towards other soldiers. That's bullshit, which you introduced right there. "Totally different spheres" you said, then introduced two very different spheres (execution after due process, which has nothing to do with parental punishment or policing, and killing in war, which has nothing to do with parental punishment or policing).

I'm willing to give police some leeway as regards assaulting others. They have a duty on behalf of all of us, to take suspects under arrest. Taking a person under arrest may involve some violence.

But it is quite wrong of police to use any more violence than necessary to prevent imminent harm to others, to defend themselves, or to effect an arrest. Punishment should follow only after due process, meaning a trial. Police who apply any more violence than that are at best incompetent, and in my opinion corrupt: they abuse their position of power.

Now I'm sure that with your great talent for not being wrong that you can weasel out of that ... but whatever. You've given me an opportunity to express my own opinion, and I'm not much interested in your opinion since you take such great pains to conceal it.

[Sremski okrug]

I think your overacting.

[Grave_n_idle]

Why? Someone ascribes political - even altruistic - motives to the violence and looting, so that's what is happening?

No, this is somewhere between wishful thinking and propaganda - the guys burning London buses, and stealing flatscreen TV's are not making a political statement, they're stealing shit, and blowing shit up. Because they want to

Obviously hopelessness doesn't exist anymore.

Being hopeless doesn't cause riots any more than it causes making dolls. It doesn't excuse it. It isn't 'the reason'.

These kids may be hopeless, but that's not why they are rioting.

[Alyakia]

What really strikes me is that, visually; we can gather over 80% of the Rioters are not of British descent.

Ya gotta be white to be British, dawg.

[Grave_n_idle]

Here's a nifty video on the tubeyou~

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmo8DG1gno4&

Nice and well stated. Perhaps if the BBC showed more interviews like this, we'd have less people screaming for the blood of the rioters.

"We don't have a future."

"Um... The banks!"

"And the police!"

"Er... Look at what you're seeing today: the message is here!"

"They have nothing to lose!"

The interview is virtually impossible to listen to. There's literally no reasoning he's giving. It's just a slew of empty slogans and bumperstickers. Are they rioting against the banks? Then why are they burning pubs? Are they against the police? Then why are they leaving the Met alone? Are they against the current political regime? Then why the fuck are they stealing MacBooks and Nike's?

It's a shitty interview with an idiot.

Right.

Burning buses. Looting sports shops. Running some guys over.

Sure, people are pissed about the banks, about the cops, about the government - but none of those things explain or excuse what is happening.

[New Norman England]

Except that this is the purpose of CCTV and lefties always bring up dodgy human rights claims to defeat the system.

But you just go ahead and pretend Cameron said he opposes human rights, even though it's a straw man.

David Cameron LITERALLY said it! Did you even watch the interview? It's right there on video! Nevermind the fact that Cameron had a fucking hissy fit a while back when the EU made us give our prisoners the right to vote. The guy is a maggot.

All David Cameron "LITERALLY said" was: "Picture by picture these criminals are being identified, arrested, and we will not let any phony concerns about human rights get in the way of the publication of these pictures and the arrest of these individuals."

So unless you fully support phony human rights concerns, you're making a massive straw man out of what he said. But that's typical lefty selective hearing for you. You pretty much drown out of distort what doesn't conform to your ideology.

[Alyakia]

"We don't have a future."

"Um... The banks!"

"And the police!"

"Er... Look at what you're seeing today: the message is here!"

"They have nothing to lose!"

The interview is virtually impossible to listen to. There's literally no reasoning he's giving. It's just a slew of empty slogans and bumperstickers. Are they rioting against the banks? Then why are they burning pubs? Are they against the police? Then why are they leaving the Met alone? Are they against the current political regime? Then why the fuck are they stealing MacBooks and Nike's?

It's a shitty interview with an idiot.

Right.

Burning buses. Looting sports shops. Running some guys over.

Sure, people are pissed about the banks, about the cops, about the government - but none of those things explain or excuse what is happening.

Please, explain the psychology behind rioting and why are they are rioting. (And paticularly, why they're rioting, not why they're looting.)

[Alyakia]

David Cameron LITERALLY said it! Did you even watch the interview? It's right there on video! Nevermind the fact that Cameron had a fucking hissy fit a while back when the EU made us give our prisoners the right to vote. The guy is a maggot.

All David Cameron "LITERALLY said" was: "Picture by picture these criminals are being identified, arrested, and we will not let any phony concerns about human rights get in the way of the publication of these pictures and the arrest of these individuals."

So unless you fully support phony human rights concerns, you're making a massive straw man out of what he said. But that's typical lefty selective hearing for you. You pretty much drown out of distort what doesn't conform to your ideology.

LEFTY LEFT LEFT LEFT LEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFT

[New Norman England]

All David Cameron "LITERALLY said" was: "Picture by picture these criminals are being identified, arrested, and we will not let any phony concerns about human rights get in the way of the publication of these pictures and the arrest of these individuals."

So unless you fully support phony human rights concerns, you're making a massive straw man out of what he said. But that's typical lefty selective hearing for you. You pretty much drown out of distort what doesn't conform to your ideology.

LEFTY LEFT LEFT LEFT LEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFT

I stand by what I said, only someone who wants to but a leftist spin on what he said could come to the conclusion that was drawn.

[The Parkus Empire]

"We don't have a future."

"Um... The banks!"

"And the police!"

"Er... Look at what you're seeing today: the message is here!"

"They have nothing to lose!"

The interview is virtually impossible to listen to. There's literally no reasoning he's giving. It's just a slew of empty slogans and bumperstickers. Are they rioting against the banks? Then why are they burning pubs? Are they against the police? Then why are they leaving the Met alone? Are they against the current political regime? Then why the fuck are they stealing MacBooks and Nike's?

It's a shitty interview with an idiot.

Right.

Burning buses. Looting sports shops. Running some guys over.

Sure, people are pissed about the banks, about the cops, about the government - but none of those things explain or excuse what is happening.

I'm sure it was just random.

[Grave_n_idle]

Right.

Burning buses. Looting sports shops. Running some guys over.

Sure, people are pissed about the banks, about the cops, about the government - but none of those things explain or excuse what is happening.

I'm sure it was just random.

I'm not sure of that at all. I'm pretty sure that there was an arguably legitimate protest, that got accompanied the first night by some mobs looting and burning, and starting fights. I'm similarly sure that, the next night, more people took advantage of that unrest to loot, and burn and fight. etc.

I've seen how the clean-up squads are mobilising via twitter - I'm sure that rioters are similarly organising through social media. Nothing 'random' about it.

[Grave_n_idle]

Right.

Burning buses. Looting sports shops. Running some guys over.

Sure, people are pissed about the banks, about the cops, about the government - but none of those things explain or excuse what is happening.

Please, explain the psychology behind rioting and why are they are rioting. (And paticularly, why they're rioting, not why they're looting.)

Why are people burning stuff, and blowing shit up? Why are they throwing rocks at cops, and running over Muslims? Why are they looting and smashing stores up, and burning stores out?

Because they want to. There's no complicated social psychology at work, here - nor any need for one.

[Alyakia]

Please, explain the psychology behind rioting and why are they are rioting. (And paticularly, why they're rioting, not why they're looting.)

Why are people burning stuff, and blowing shit up? Why are they throwing rocks at cops, and running over Muslims? Why are they looting and smashing stores up, and burning stores out?

Because they want to. There's no complicated social psychology at work, here - nor any need for one.

Even if you think it's just thuggery that somehow spontaneously appearing out of nowhere, the part where the rioters realise that they're in "control" is still "complicated social psychology". Riots and the group mentality are very much "complicated social psychology" even if you want to ignore everything before it. It's a group phenonemon, not a collection of individuals.

You of all people must know about the Scarman report, right?

[Grave_n_idle]

But you won't say it is bad parenting. In fact, you won't even say it not good parenting. All those words, and all you meant to say is "spanking is not necessarily good parenting".

What a waste of time. Mine, yours, everyones.

That thread is not the topic of this thread. I did a cursory explanation of my position in that thread, since you seem to think there's some reason that it impacts this thread. It doesn't. I'm done discussing it here.

Of course you don't object. To object would be to take a position.

You don't approve their action either, do you? Then you would have to defend it.

I'm comfortable with their actions. I'm not saying I think they should hit people in the head as a matter of course. "Hi, Officer... *thwack*", but I'm okay with a higher margin of physical confrontation in the arrest of rioters.

A position I've been defending, in case you hadn't noticed.

"Totally different spheres" you said, then introduced two very different spheres

Indeed. Kinda the point I was making.

But it is quite wrong of police to use any more violence than necessary to prevent imminent harm to others, to defend themselves, or to effect an arrest. Punishment should follow only after due process, meaning a trial. Police who apply any more violence than that are at best incompetent, and in my opinion corrupt: they abuse their position of power.

Different circumstances. Rounding up a couple of kids for shoplifting, in the regular course of things? Cuff 'em and book 'em.

Rounding up a handful of rioters as part of an extended campaign of conflict with rioters... sure, knock 'em around a bit.

Now I'm sure that with your great talent for not being wrong

Again... thanks?

... that you can weasel out of that ... but whatever. You've given me an opportunity to express my own opinion, and I'm not much interested in your opinion since you take such great pains to conceal it.

I've hardly hidden my opinion. I said I'd be okay with live fire on the rioters. I'm not exactly being coy.

But then, I think you said it all right there - you're not actually interested in my opinion. Preach on, brother. Preach on.

[AiliailiA]

Right.

Burning buses. Looting sports shops. Running some guys over.

Sure, people are pissed about the banks, about the cops, about the government - but none of those things explain or excuse what is happening.

I'm sure it was just random.

It's not random. But perhaps it is so complex that trying to find the "causes" of it will turn up more culprits than necessary to account for it.

"Success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan" ... but that was then

[Grave_n_idle]

Why are people burning stuff, and blowing shit up? Why are they throwing rocks at cops, and running over Muslims? Why are they looting and smashing stores up, and burning stores out?

Because they want to. There's no complicated social psychology at work, here - nor any need for one.

Even if you think it's just thuggery that somehow spontaneously appearing out of nowhere, the part where the rioters realise that they're in "control" is still "complicated social psychology". Riots and the group mentality are very much "complicated social psychology" even if you want to ignore everything before it. It's a group phenonemon, not a collection of individuals.

You of all people must know about the Scarman report, right?

Sure, post-Brixton. Well aware of the time and the place.

It's not a complex social psychology - it's mob rule. It' the easiest psychology there is - the pragmatism of the individual subsumed into the will of the mob. People who WANT to be involved in the mob are going where the mob will be. That's all there is to it.