No. The UK does not Riot. At the moment, it is parts of England which are rioting. So far, Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland (who have riots related to long term issues and splits) are not rioting. BBC News 24 has "UK Riots" in their banner headline - they are not UK riots. They are ENGLISH riots thus far, and it is ignorance and a desire to have it seen not as an English problem that the BBC are pasting Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with the same brush.
Well, I don't know if it will happen in the UK 'provinces', I sure hope not, but at this moment in time the BBC are broadcasting to the World that this is a UK thing, WHICH AT THIS TIME IT IS NOT. >:(
Glad that the Welsh, Irish and Scots are keeping their cool.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 09, 2011, 04:42:57 AM
Glad that the Welsh, Irish and Scots are keeping their cool.
Karl. I am talking about Nations, not people of nationalities.
Aye, just so.
kk
If you don't mind, I'm gonna hijack this thread because my neighborhood is affected. My corner grocery had its doors smashed and got looted, and the road that I walk down to get to Brick Lane and the bagel shop was host to a group of 40 guys throwing rocks at a police line. I'm totally fine, holed up on my quiet university campus with a fridge of food and beer, but at this point it's very much a fingers-crossed hope that I'll be able to get to the two Proms I have tickets for later this week. There may even be a curfew preventing it.
See, and I thought only England, Scotland and Wales were part of the United Kingdom. Or maybe I'm thinking Great Britain??? ???
I need to brush up on my history of the United Kingdom. A new thread may be in order. I am after all, technically, a member of the Commonwealth.
Quote from: Brian on August 09, 2011, 05:13:20 AM
If you don't mind, I'm gonna hijack this thread because my neighborhood is affected. My corner grocery had its doors smashed and got looted, and the road that I walk down to get to Brick Lane and the bagel shop was host to a group of 40 guys throwing rocks at a police line. I'm totally fine, holed up on my quiet university campus with a fridge of food and beer, but at this point it's very much a fingers-crossed hope that I'll be able to get to the two Proms I have tickets for later this week. There may even be a curfew preventing it.
Be safe there, laddie!
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 09, 2011, 05:14:53 AM
See, and I thought only England, Scotland and Wales were part of the United Kingdom. Or maybe I'm thinking Great Britain??? ???
The United Kingdom doth include Northern Ireland. And thereby hangs a tale . . . . Great Britain is the island comprising England, Scotland & Wales.
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 09, 2011, 05:16:15 AM
The United Kingdom doth include Northern Ireland. And thereby hangs a tale . . . .
Great Britain is the island comprising England, Scotland & Wales.
Thanks, Karl!!
Geography lesson, part II - Is Central America considered part of North or South America? ???
Quote from: ChamberNut on August 09, 2011, 05:19:32 AM
Geography lesson, part II - Is Central America considered part of North or South America? ???
North. South America begins at the southern end of Panama.
Quote from: Brian on August 09, 2011, 05:13:20 AM
If you don't mind, I'm gonna hijack this thread because my neighborhood is affected. My corner grocery had its doors smashed and got looted, and the road that I walk down to get to Brick Lane and the bagel shop was host to a group of 40 guys throwing rocks at a police line. I'm totally fine, holed up on my quiet university campus with a fridge of food and beer, but at this point it's very much a fingers-crossed hope that I'll be able to get to the two Proms I have tickets for later this week. There may even be a curfew preventing it.
I hope you make it Brian. It would be a bloody travesty if you didn't.
Quote from: John of Glasgow on August 09, 2011, 04:34:58 AM
No. The UK does not Riot. At the moment, it is parts of England which are rioting. So far, Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland (who have riots related to long term issues and splits) are not rioting. BBC News 24 has "UK Riots" in their banner headline - they are not UK riots. They are ENGLISH riots thus far, and it is ignorance and a desire to have it seen not as an English problem that the BBC are pasting Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland with the same brush.
Well, I don't know if it will happen in the UK 'provinces', I sure hope not, but at this moment in time the BBC are broadcasting to the World that this is a UK thing, WHICH AT THIS TIME IT IS NOT. >:(
I hate to break it to you...perhaps you should stop reading now...but many people in the US think UK and England are the same thing. :o
Brian - stay safe.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 09, 2011, 05:53:29 AM
I hate to break it to you...perhaps you should stop reading now...but many people in the US think UK and England are the same thing. :o
It may as well be.
Quote from: John of Glasgow on August 09, 2011, 05:32:21 AM
I hope you make it Brian. It would be a bloody travesty if you didn't.
tomorrow
Liszt | Mazeppa
Gliere | Concerto for Coloratura Soprano
Rachmaninov | Symphony No 2
Ailish Tynan, soprano
Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra
Kirill Karabits
Thursday
Bridge | Rebus overture
Brahms | Violin Concerto - arranged for piano by Dejan Lazic
Holst | Invocation
Elgar | Enigma
Dejan Lazic, piano; Julian Lloyd-Webber, cello
BBC Philharmonic
Vassily Sinaisky
Quotemc ukrneal: I hate to break it to you...perhaps you should stop reading now...but many people in the US think UK and England are the same thing.
I know. It is very sad.
QuoteLethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich It may as well be.
A very sad statement too, although I do not understand it. I do take great umbrage at being labelled English because I'm in the alleged UK though. At the moment, they are still riots IN ENGLAND. If they happen up here, I will attack Scotland for being weak in following the antics of another NATION.
Now...where did I put those bagpipes?....
Quote from: John of Glasgow on August 09, 2011, 06:23:32 AM
I know. It is very sad.
A very sad statement too, although I do not understand it. I do take great umbrage at being labelled English because I'm in the alleged UK though. At the moment, they are still riots IN ENGLAND. If they happen up here, I will attack Scotland for being weak in following the antics of another NATION.
Now...where did I put those bagpipes?....
Don't get all Pettersson on us, John! ;D Careful with that axe!
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 09, 2011, 05:53:29 AMbut many people in the US think UK and England are the same thing. :o
But here is the pertinent question from an American perspective: Who cares? UK, Britain, Great Britain, England, they all mean the same thing in practical terms, just as some people the world over use America as shorthand for the United States of America all the time.
Now to the riot, it's my understanding that the police shot and killed someone and then initial riots broke out. The extent of the riots indicates that something much more serious is at play. Is it bottled up anger amongst poorer people and/or minorities, or what is it? I confess, I don't follow the internal politics and economics of, um, Britain (?), so perhaps someone can shed some light.
Quote from: Todd on August 09, 2011, 06:31:01 AM
Now to the riot, it's my understanding that the police shot and killed someone and then initial riots broke out. The extent of the riots indicates that something much more serious is at play. Is it bottled up anger amongst poorer people and/or minorities, or what is it? I confess, I don't follow the internal politics and economics of, um, Britain (?), so perhaps someone can shed some light.
Right now the leading explanation among thinking types is that a generation - basically, my generation - of people aged 16-25 have been frozen out of work by the terrible economy here and live on the dole in their parents' homes and frustrated.
For most people who live in rioting areas, though, the main explanation is "people saw that another neighborhood got away with smashing police cars and stealing shit, so they decided to steal shit too."
Quote from: Brian on August 09, 2011, 06:34:42 AMFor most people who live in rioting areas, though, the main explanation is "people saw that another neighborhood got away with smashing police cars and stealing shit, so they decided to steal shit too."
Sounds like angry hooliganism fueled by recession. Too simple?
Quote from: Brian on August 09, 2011, 05:13:20 AM
If you don't mind, I'm gonna hijack this thread because my neighborhood is affected. My corner grocery had its doors smashed and got looted, and the road that I walk down to get to Brick Lane and the bagel shop was host to a group of 40 guys throwing rocks at a police line. I'm totally fine, holed up on my quiet university campus with a fridge of food and beer, but at this point it's very much a fingers-crossed hope that I'll be able to get to the two Proms I have tickets for later this week. There may even be a curfew preventing it.
If you don't mind my asking, were those 40 or so guys local folk or from outside the area? In other words, are these pieces of work known to the neighborhood?
ZB
Quote from: Todd on August 09, 2011, 06:31:01 AM
Now to the riot, it's my understanding that the police shot and killed someone and then initial riots broke out. The extent of the riots indicates that something much more serious is at play. Is it bottled up anger amongst poorer people and/or minorities, or what is it? I confess, I don't follow the internal politics and economics of, um, Britain (?), so perhaps someone can shed some light.
A fair portion of them are just scum - the same essentially prideless and disrespectful people who you would feel intimidated by in the street. I would be surprised if many of them live in poverty - it actually takes considerable effort to be truly impoverished in this country nowadays, the poor tend to simply manage their finances very badly. The people taking part are largely spoiled and entitled kids who want free stuff.
How the whole thing flared up is one of the more bizarre occurances in recent history. I initially thought it was over Ian Tomlinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson), and a part of me thought "right on!". Then this part of me became crushed and incredulous when I read that it was from a drug dealer dying in a police shootout. This is the extent of the wilfull stupidity we are dealing with:
Yet, a friend of Duggan who gave her name as Niki, 53, said marchers had wanted "justice for the family" and "something had to be done". She said some of them lay in the road to make their point. "They're making their presence known because people are not happy. This guy was not violent. Yes, he was involved in things but he was not an aggressive person. He had never hurt anyone." (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100099830/these-riots-were-about-race-why-ignore-the-fact/)
Quote from: Todd on August 09, 2011, 06:39:16 AM
Sounds like angry hooliganism fueled by recession. Too simple?
Nope. Sounds right.
The original peaceful protest for the guy who was shot scattered in terror when the looting started, so it's irrational to think of that as anything other than a pretext seized upon by opportunistic thugs.
ZB: Being an American who lives here I really don't know if they're local to the neighborhood or not.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 09, 2011, 06:41:06 AM
A fair portion of them are just scum - the same essentially prideless and disrespectful people who you would feel intimidated by in the street. I would be surprised if many of them live in poverty - it actually takes considerable effort to be truly impoverished in this country nowadays, the poor tend to simply manage their finances very badly. The people taking part are largely spoiled and entitled kids who want free stuff.
How the whole thing flared up is one of the more bizarre occurances in recent history. I initially thought it was over Ian Tomlinson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson), and a part of me thought "right on!". Then this part of me became crushed and incredulous when I read that it was from a drug dealer dying in a police shootout. This is the extent of the wilfull stupidity we are dealing with:
Yet, a friend of Duggan who gave her name as Niki, 53, said marchers had wanted "justice for the family" and "something had to be done". She said some of them lay in the road to make their point. "They're making their presence known because people are not happy. This guy was not violent. Yes, he was involved in things but he was not an aggressive person. He had never hurt anyone." (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100099830/these-riots-were-about-race-why-ignore-the-fact/)
Involved in things - hah, that is a step up to what the BBC was broadcasting from the first day, a "father of 4 was killed" as though the wicked police are trigger happy, going after family men. One can understand their reluctance to do anything more drastic the 2nd and 3rd days in case they might accidentally hurt someone else with a watercannon or something, although force is the only way to stop anarchic mobs.
ZB
Quote from: Todd on August 09, 2011, 06:39:16 AM
Sounds like angry hooliganism fueled by recession. Too simple?
that, and throw in some police racism, plus, currently, the perception that the current prime minister is a new version of the oldfashioned toff who prefers to spend his time hobnobbing with billionaires like Murdoch, and yet is ushering in very tough austerity measures. (Helpfully the media report Cameron was spending his vacation in a place costing 10.000 a week - don't know whether it's pounds, euros or dollars, but anyway it's more than the looters will ever make per year).
The motives are an irrational mix, but that goes for pretty much everything we do.
Quote from: Brian on August 09, 2011, 06:42:15 AM
The original peaceful protest for the guy who was shot scattered in terror when the looting started, so it's irrational to think of that as anything other than a pretext seized upon by opportunistic thugs.
Wasn't the guy that was shot... was shot out of self-defense by the cops because he pulled a gun on them?
This kind of reminds me of when I was at Penn State, I was talking to this girl that was in one of the riots there. I asked her do people just get really mad when we lose a game (football)? She said actually that game was a tie, and they were planning on rioting anyway no matter what the outcome of the game. ::)
Most of the time I was there Beaver Ave in downtown stood bare with most of the shops closed due to the previous riots.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 09, 2011, 06:41:06 AM
A fair portion of them are just scum -
and yet, the bad news is, Lethe, scum have to live, too. If there's an upside there's got to be a downside too, to society. And the upsdie has been shooting higher and higher the past couple decades.
we are witnessing the end of an era and the start of a new, very tough age, in which there is virtually no place for non-educated people.
always, there have been people who did not manage to complete school successfully, and in a benevolent society ways were found to keep them going with a sense of dignity. In the new era there is no place for these masses, except as consumers of worthless stuff. Hence looting is the way they express their anger.
I'm not justifying these things; I'm just saying throwing about words like "scum" isn't terribly insightful.
Looters speak:
http://j.mp/ovVGXS
Quote from: Herman on August 09, 2011, 08:25:43 AM
always, there have been people who did not manage to complete school successfully, and in a benevolent society ways were found to keep them going with a sense of dignity. In the new era there is no place for these masses, except as consumers of worthless stuff. Hence looting is the way they express their anger.
Then they need to be taught a civilized, constructive way of expressing their anger. You've got a bunch of kids out burning and stealing and harming others with no legal or moral justification whatsoever. Knock 'em down and lock 'em up.
I find it odd that the Metropolitan Police decried "unacceptable levels of widespread looting, fires and disorder." Is there an "acceptable" level in England?
Quote from: Grazioso on August 09, 2011, 08:55:58 AM
I find it odd that the Metropolitan Police decried "unacceptable levels of widespread looting, fires and disorder." Is there an "acceptable" level in England?
Sure, that's what takes place after football games. ;D
Quote from: Guido on August 09, 2011, 08:30:12 AM
Looters speak:
http://j.mp/ovVGXS
That sounds like it's just having alot of fun for them and doesn't really mean anything to them. Even the part at the end about showing the rich people and the cops that they can do what they want sounds well stupid. :-\
Thanks for sharing.
Quote from: Herman on August 09, 2011, 08:25:43 AM
and yet, the bad news is, Lethe, scum have to live, too. If there's an upside there's got to be a downside too, to society. And the upsdie has been shooting higher and higher the past couple decades.
we are witnessing the end of an era and the start of a new, very tough age, in which there is virtually no place for non-educated people.
always, there have been people who did not manage to complete school successfully, and in a benevolent society ways were found to keep them going with a sense of dignity. In the new era there is no place for these masses, except as consumers of worthless stuff. Hence looting is the way they express their anger.
I'm not justifying these things; I'm just saying throwing about words like "scum" isn't terribly insightful.
It's true, though. It doesn't give the hows and whys on the subject, but I summed it up as clearly as I could to the person asking. People who specifically choose to loot a local family business rather than try to make a grand statement (such as protesters did early this year invading Tory HQ) have something fundamentally wrong with their sense of decency. It demonstrates the folly of their choices, and the total lack of ideology behind them. These are by and large not people facing poverty (there are people caught in photos wearing designer gear) just people with chips on their shoulder and a sense of mindless entitlement, whether to steal or to be part of something primal that requires no thought.
I'm not sure that like "rich prime minster" enter most of their minds at all in this specific context, he is a distant figure dicking around with foreign leaders. A lot of the "interviews" with the rioters have demonstrated the opposite: a total lack of thought. It would be nice to think that these are kettled-up, ghettoised and oppressed people, but this is no Dionysian orgy of destruction - they are happy "consumers of worthless stuff" and the riots offered a perfect storm of kiddies railing against being bored on Friday night, with the potential for free crap thrown in.
All this dignity stuff I don't buy. When growing up I had equal or fewer opportunities and successes than the majority of those people, I can be quite certain of that due to the ridiculously low base level I am operating from. The difference is that I have been fortunate enough not to fall for moron culture (not related to my interest in classical - all it requires to avoid this pitfall is a reasonably well-exercised brain). Unfortunately the rioters seem to be part of a youth culture which while not celebrating acts like this, certainly makes it easier for them to transition naturally into it en-masse, and it's nothing to do with oppression (although they love to perceive it as that way, as it validates their "why bother" attitude), it's a celebratory thing for them. Being an "underdog" or failed"grafter" is seen as something to celebrate, and it is that navel-gazing, un-critical quality which makes it so much easier to transition into foolishness like what has been happening over the past few days.
Sorry of this isn't particularly coherent, but these spoilt playing-impoverished people are just the pits. They have education thrown at them, but they rebel, they have welfare thrown at them and rather than improving their lives, they burn it on the same old things but in more extravagant ways so they can retain their street credibility of appearing downtrodden. They are offered extensive opportunities to find work through a network of job centres that are desperate to get people into work (I have considerable experience with these places - they do seem make an effort, and I hardly live in a rich town). At some stage you just have to realise, unless you drag them from their natural habitat of the council estates (which would be seen as "shocking class bigotry" or something), they will perpetuate this cycle because they
desire it.
Edit: these are largely children, though - some will grow out of it. But sadly, they will be replaced by newer ones.
Quote from: Grazioso on August 09, 2011, 08:55:58 AM
Then they need to be taught a civilized, constructive way of expressing their anger. You've got a bunch of kids out burning and stealing and harming others
I find it odd that the Metropolitan Police decried "unacceptable levels of widespread looting, fires and disorder." Is there an "acceptable" level in England?
This reminds me of something I read earlier - an Arab foreign minister has finally condemned Syria, saying "it is unacceptable when over 2000 people are killed", with the implication that numbers somewhat below these are fine.
Quote from: Brian on August 09, 2011, 09:05:15 AM
Sure, that's what takes place after football games. ;D
Or after the Stanley Cup final in Vancouver. :D Would not have mattered whether the Canucks won or lost that game 7, which they did lose. Sports hooliganism isn't exclusive to England.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 09, 2011, 09:14:35 AM
Sorry of this isn't particularly coherent, but these spoilt playing-impoverished people are just the pits. They have education thrown at them, but they rebel, they have welfare thrown at them and rather than improving their lives, they burn it on the same old things but in more extravagant ways so they can retain their street credibility of appearing downtrodden. They are offered extensive opportunities to find work through a network of job centres that are desperate to get people into work (I have considerable experience with these places - they do seem make an effort, and I hardly live in a rich town). At some stage you just have to realise, unless you drag them from their natural habitat of the council estates (which would be seen as "shocking class bigotry" or something), they will perpetuate this cycle because they desire it.
Ironic that compared to a lot of the world, these people live in incredible affluence, ease, safety, and liberty, with a government that kindly offers them education, health care, welfare aid, etc., and doesn't drag them away in the night and murder them because of their religious affiliation or political views. Poor babies.
Indeed - they are wannabe oppressed, just like the middle class are wannabe idealistic - like the good old days of activism. The blandness offered by a safe society is not enough (and I must admit, the ease of food and entertainment has ruined my ability to particularly specialise or engage in anything in any meaningful way - too much of everything :)).
Now listening to the Bonzos, "Can Blue Men Sing the Whites?"
Quote from: Herman on August 09, 2011, 08:18:22 AM
police racism
Ha ha, good one.
I don't see the problem with what is happening. Nothing wrong with a bit of multicultural enrichment, right?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 09, 2011, 10:43:55 AM
Ha ha, good one.
I don't see the problem with what is happening. Nothing wrong with a bit of multicultural enrichment, right?
Are you joking or are you serious?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 09, 2011, 10:43:55 AM
Ha ha, good one.
It is worth pointing out that "police racism" has nothing whatsoever to do with any of this. This is not Rodney King II. The guy who was shot by police was an armed (though not firing) drug dealer and the rioters were not even mourning his death anyway - the people protesting his death dissolved peacefully and the victim's family is hiding from looters just like I am.
Quote from: mc ukrneal on August 09, 2011, 10:48:38 AM
Are you joking or are you serious?
In his case, the answer to both questions is yes.
Quote from: Brian on August 09, 2011, 05:13:20 AM
If you don't mind, I'm gonna hijack this thread because my neighborhood is affected. My corner grocery had its doors smashed and got looted, and the road that I walk down to get to Brick Lane and the bagel shop was host to a group of 40 guys throwing rocks at a police line. I'm totally fine, holed up on my quiet university campus with a fridge of food and beer, but at this point it's very much a fingers-crossed hope that I'll be able to get to the two Proms I have tickets for later this week. There may even be a curfew preventing it.
Keep safe, mate.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 09, 2011, 09:14:35 AM
Sorry of this isn't particularly coherent, but these spoilt playing-impoverished people are just the pits. They have education thrown at them, but they rebel, they have welfare thrown at them and rather than improving their lives, they burn it on the same old things but in more extravagant ways so they can retain their street credibility of appearing downtrodden. They are offered extensive opportunities to find work through a network of job centres that are desperate to get people into work (I have considerable experience with these places - they do seem make an effort, and I hardly live in a rich town). At some stage you just have to realise, unless you drag them from their natural habitat of the council estates (which would be seen as "shocking class bigotry" or something), they will perpetuate this cycle because they desire it.
I'll have to second the point above. It is much easier in the UK than other countries for a school leaver (not even with diplomas) to get her/his foot in the door in the work market and make something of it as long as they show the necessary commitment. I have been working in a medium size company for 8 years now and we have taken quite a few school leavers over the years as the company grew. Some of them have been here now for 5 to 7 years, made a name for themselves and have nicely settled among the various departments. Don't get me wrong, there's been some poor candidates as well and they didn't last long, but all it takes is the required right effort and attitude when offered such opportunities.
Quote from: Brian on August 09, 2011, 05:13:20 AM
If you don't mind, I'm gonna hijack this thread because my neighborhood is affected. My corner grocery had its doors smashed and got looted, and the road that I walk down to get to Brick Lane and the bagel shop was host to a group of 40 guys throwing rocks at a police line. I'm totally fine, holed up on my quiet university campus with a fridge of food and beer, but at this point it's very much a fingers-crossed hope that I'll be able to get to the two Proms I have tickets for later this week. There may even be a curfew preventing it.
I was watching developments on the news with growing horror, and was suddenly struck with the thought that you might still be in London, Brian, and possibly affected by all this mess. So I popped in here (been away from GMG for a while) to see if you were still around. I'm very glad to see you're OK, but sorry to read that the bad stuff is closer than seems comfortable.
Be careful, right?
Alan! Great to "see" you! (You've been in The Shed, haven't you?)
Quote from: Elgarian on August 09, 2011, 11:51:36 AM
I was watching developments on the news with growing horror, and was suddenly struck with the thought that you might still be in London, Brian, and possibly affected by all this mess. So I popped in here (been away from GMG for a while) to see if you were still around. I'm very glad to see you're OK, but sorry to read that the bad stuff is closer than seems comfortable.
Be careful, right?
Well, I hope you will stick around a bit as we've missed you. But yes - I'm safe in my room right now, but haven't been off campus in 24 hours. It is an oasis of quiet here at the school, thankfully, except the sirens, which are quite a bit fewer than they were last night. I will keep careful but would be really ticked off to miss tomorrow night's Proms!
Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on August 09, 2011, 11:52:24 AM
Alan! Great to "see" you! (You've been in The Shed, haven't you?)
Indeed Karl. Really, you should have seen the state of the place. Wallpaper peeling off the walls, windows broken, roof leaking. I was shocked at the state of repair Dave had left it in, really.
This'll be brief - charging off shortly in readiness for big Elgar event. But hope you're well, both tonally and atonally, dear fellow!
I just wrote to Elgarian and explained that my wife has been working in central Birmingham this week! Last night the riots came to within a block of where she is staying. The damage to Birmingham centre was substantial. Jane said she saw two cashpoints where all there was were holes where the machines had been; and many smashed windows along the main shopping street, New St. Today she was thrown out of the building she was working in at 2pm, as it was locked down and then locked into her nearby Hotel since then. They are still doing their work OK, but I wonder what tonight will bring.
Tomorrow she is coming home a day early; as they have just worked through and late rather than going out for meals, so are ahead of schedule. As she comes home I am off to London for two days and who knows what will kick off where in the city? The PM is just down the road from where I work, he will keep us all jolly safe of course, he has told us so!
Brian, I also am at the Prom tomorrow night. I doubt the Royal Albert Hall will be a target to looters; harps are such a niche item to nick then fence. I hope your neighbourhood stays quiet now. Seemingly curfew has been ruled out. Water cannon are all in Northern Ireland and they are currently saying they don't intend to deploy the Army.
We shall see.
Mike
Baseball bats and batons top Amazon sales list (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/amazon/8691838/Baseball-bats-and-batons-top-Amazon-sales-list.html)
*sigh* children
Am a bit puzzled about the sayings regarding the level of UK wellfare generally here - seem to contradict the statistics as they are usually presented to us on the Continent ?
Cf.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:niIUE-ldT0cJ:www.poverty.org.uk/summary/key%2520facts.shtml+UK+poverty+line&cd=4&hl=da&ct=clnk&gl=dk&source=www.google.dk
I am not referring to the riot gang members - but are low-paid jobs still giving £3 / hour as a friend of mine once told me - and what are the taxes under such circumstances ?
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 09, 2011, 01:10:26 PM
Baseball bats and batons top Amazon sales list (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/amazon/8691838/Baseball-bats-and-batons-top-Amazon-sales-list.html)
*sigh* children
Are baseball bats used much for their intended purpose over there? I didn't think the sport was all that popular in the U.K.
Quote from: Szykneij on August 09, 2011, 01:30:27 PM
Are baseball bats used much for their intended purpose over there? I didn't think the sport was all that popular in the U.K.
Even before this, a large percentage of baseball bats sold would likely be for a (presumably piece of mind-only) self-defence option underneath a bed or under a store counter. It's not a particularly popular sport - its school sports equivelent (rounders) uses a shorter bat.
There is an explanation for the emergence of the amoral, even psychopathic behavior exhibited by the anarchic mobs in England (add Greece) and the killings a month ago in Norway (add Caylee Anthony's murder).
It has to do with the downplaying or the outright denial of depravity in human nature. If people don't have any evil inclinations and all that is needed is to satisfy their material wants, then everything should be OK - NOT!
Police do not have to be armed; there doesn't have to be the deterrence of a death penalty; moral absolutes that forbid stealing are replaced with relativism; children do not have to be restrained by parents or whatever substitutes for that in blended or artificially conceived "families". There is no need to destroy a moral compass - to deny its existence is more than enough.
As Aristotle Onassis once said, "The rule is, there are no rules!" Well, the great tycoon was a pretty pathetic sight in his last years propping up his eyelids with toothpicks and mourning the death of his beloved son.
Culture and history are not what young people have by default, nor is the concept of deferred gratification. But the latter can be taught by degrees, which was standard education in the past. The legacy of generations also carries with it the means needed to protect it, and this sometimes is force, like it or not.
ZB
To me one aspect is, European mediocrity cannot work endlessly, because it does not apply on human beings - especially on youth. Really, letting the dog run in our fields without dog lead is an infringement of law here... Where is the life? What does life mean? Where is the risk? We have to let control and fix houses wastewater pipes without need, and if a bit of water pours down, we must fix it until 2015. 5000 EUR? 10000 EUR of costs? For nothing IMO, just ridiculous.
We're champions (the Germans) in avoiding risks, probably due to our society being old in any terms... I'm 39 and not the youth, but I can understand the youth's need for action and destruction.
Quote from: Tapio Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 09, 2011, 11:21:27 PM
To me one aspect is, European mediocrity cannot work endlessly, because it does not apply on human beings - especially on youth.
what is "European mediocrity", if I may ask?
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 09, 2011, 09:55:02 PM
There is an explanation for the emergence of the amoral, even psychopathic behavior exhibited by the anarchic mobs in England (add Greece) and the killings a month ago in Norway (add Caylee Anthony's murder).
It has to do with the downplaying or the outright denial of depravity in human nature. If people don't have any evil inclinations and all that is needed is to satisfy their material wants, then everything should be OK - NOT!
Police do not have to be armed; there doesn't have to be the deterrence of a death penalty; moral absolutes that forbid stealing are replaced with relativism; children do not have to be restrained by parents or whatever substitutes for that in blended or artificially conceived "families". There is no need to destroy a moral compass - to deny its existence is more than enough.
As Aristotle Onassis once said, "The rule is, there are no rules!" Well, the great tycoon was a pretty pathetic sight in his last years propping up his eyelids with toothpicks and mourning the death of his beloved son.
Culture and history are not what young people have by default, nor is the concept of deferred gratification. But the latter can be taught by degrees, which was standard education in the past. The legacy of generations also carries with it the means needed to protect it, and this sometimes is force, like it or not.
ZB
There's an easier explanation, but we are not allowed to talk about that.
America too. Things are getting so dire, even the establishment is starting to take notice:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/08/07/american-tinderbox/
The BBC have removed the banner headline "UK RIOTS" and have now replaced it with "ENGLAND RIOTS" - they must have been reading this thread. ;D However, if it breaks out anywhere else in the UK, then they do have the right to say "UK RIOTS". That was the gripe that got me to post this and it has been resolved. 0:)
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 10, 2011, 12:10:48 AM
There's an easier explanation, but we are not allowed to talk about that.
People on the dole? Actually, I thought that some group perhaps would like to destabilize Britain for the 2012 games just as what happened on 7/7 right after the Olympic announcement. Being alive for opportunities, fanning mayhem and spreading fear are more effective than setting off bombs.
ZB
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 10, 2011, 12:10:48 AM
There's an easier explanation, but we are not allowed to talk about that.
Let me guess! Miscegenation, right?
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 10, 2011, 12:10:48 AM
There's an easier explanation, but we are not allowed to talk about that.
Would it help if we knew their names?
It is also interesting how hard this kind of crime is to combat. I saw a video of a shop invasion a week or so ago in the US where 40 people walked in and looted it, expecting to be obscured by the mass many of them did not wear masks to hide from the CCTV. In the same way, few of the looters in the UK appear to have worn gloves. So many of these people will be caught, and the painstaking work it will take to examine CCTV footage and forensic evidence will take resources away from far more deserving cases. Every angle these events can be viewed from reveal one thing: light psychopathy.
Previously this kind of violence was fueled by something vaguely understandable, and so it was directed at certain institutions which could be aticipated and defended. But with this amoral and exclusively self-interested violence, it is so diffuse and a shop can be attacked and emptied within 10 minutes with the most rudimentary of prior-planning, that it cannot be planned against. This is especially the case in the other random cities that looting has sprung up in. I think it's a case of criminally-minded people realising that the state does not have quite the power they thought it did, and so countless people who would never engage in crime usually feel safe to explore this flaw in their minds which allow them to engage in such unabashed destruction.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 09, 2011, 09:55:02 PM
There is an explanation for the emergence of the amoral, even psychopathic behavior exhibited by the anarchic mobs in England (add Greece) and the killings a month ago in Norway (add Caylee Anthony's murder).
It has to do with the downplaying or the outright denial of depravity in human nature. If people don't have any evil inclinations and all that is needed is to satisfy their material wants, then everything should be OK - NOT!
Police do not have to be armed; there doesn't have to be the deterrence of a death penalty; moral absolutes that forbid stealing are replaced with relativism; children do not have to be restrained by parents or whatever substitutes for that in blended or artificially conceived "families". There is no need to destroy a moral compass - to deny its existence is more than enough.
As Aristotle Onassis once said, "The rule is, there are no rules!" Well, the great tycoon was a pretty pathetic sight in his last years propping up his eyelids with toothpicks and mourning the death of his beloved son.
Culture and history are not what young people have by default, nor is the concept of deferred gratification. But the latter can be taught by degrees, which was standard education in the past. The legacy of generations also carries with it the means needed to protect it, and this sometimes is force, like it or not.
ZB
Amen.
It's telling the first thing some people want to do when an outbreak of mob violence occurs is to theorize about how society let down the mob. A bunch of counterproductive twaddle and coddle that gives people the idea any behavior can be excused by outside forces.
Quote
Cameron said the police have been authorized to use whatever means necessary to combat "despicable violence," with the use of plastic bullets permitted and plans in place for water cannon to be available within 24 hours if needed, he said. (Source: CNN.com)
Apparently a government of cowardly, incompetent twits, waiting for days to--gasp--employ water cannons. We wouldn't want to knock a rioter over and get slapped with a slip-and-fall lawsuit! Meanwhile, property damage, theft, and injuries mount while firefighters and police get put into harm's way.
Quote from: Grazioso on August 10, 2011, 04:55:37 AM
Apparently a government of cowardly, incompetent twits, waiting for days to--gasp--employ water cannons. We wouldn't want to knock a rioter over and get slapped with a slip-and-fall lawsuit! Meanwhile, property damage, theft, and injuries mount while firefighters and police get put into harm's way.
It's not as simple as that - the UK has certain... qualms with water canons and armoured vehicles on the streets and I hoped it would blow over without that. This is an unprecidented situation and I don't blame them for not bringing in borderline military hardware right away.
Edit: intriguingly, coming to the fore in recent news articles is the agreement that the police in Manchester, Birmingham etc are cracking down much more. In London they are being ordered to hold back in some cases to photograph offenders for more solid cases later. It reveals an intriguing point: if the police in London are worried about the legal consequences of arresting rioters, yet the ones elsewhere are banging heads together, this is pretty much shoots down the usual Met "persecution" claims that so often eminate from scumbags.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 10, 2011, 04:57:44 AM
It's not as simple as that - the UK has certain... qualms with water canons and armoured vehicles on the streets and I hoped it would blow over without that. This is an unprecidented situation and I don't blame them for not bringing in borderline military hardware right away.
Military hardware is a tank firing HE rounds into a crowd. That's urban warfare. But less-lethal arms (rubber bullets, beanbag projectiles, gas, water cannons, etc.) are standard riot-control measures. I understand that any Western democratic government would and should have major qualms about employing the actual military against its own people. Armies are raised to combat extra-national foes, not shoot the people they're employed to defend.
But "hoping the situation will blow over" is precisely the mindset that allows something like this to flare up and rage unabated. The criminals know that they have a government or society that's timid about stepping in quickly and decisively with overwhelming force, and they're taking advantage of it. What's more important: the shop of a innocent bystander that gets burned to the ground, ruining their family, or the comfort of a violent criminal?
Quote from: Grazioso on August 10, 2011, 05:18:54 AM
But "hoping the situation will blow over" is precisely the mindset that allows something like this to flare up and rage unabated. The criminals know that they have a government or society that's timid about stepping in quickly and decisively with overwhelming force, and they're taking advantage of it. What's more important: the shop of a innocent bystander that gets burned to the ground, ruining their family, or the comfort of a violent criminal?
IMO this is hindsight - I've not heard of anything similar like this happening before happening in a developed country. Riots with ideologies can go on and on and there are existing tactics based on experience with this. But outright looting over an entire week isn't something usually dealt with - even Canada's notoriety for spree riots after hockey matches has proven hard for their police to deal with despite knowing that they are coming, such a thing happening over many days was improbable. Often all it takes is daylight and a cleanup after a major occurance.
I still think that borderline military is a reasonable description for tank-like vehicles, regardless of their non-lethality. It is a POV position, of course. It's bringing standard policing (a guy on foot without a gun talking to people on the street, or interviewing a person in a police station) closer to regimentation and mechanisation. I don't consider such things unneccessary, but simply undesirable. As I said, there are certain potent images which resonate with specifically people from the UK of even armoured police vans (much less water canons) which make these less of a desirable option right from the start than in some other countries.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 10, 2011, 05:29:08 AM
IMO this is hindsight - I've not heard of anything similar like this happening before happening in a developed country. Riots with ideologies can go on and on and there are existing tactics based on experience with this. But outright looting over an entire week isn't something usually dealt with - even Canada's notoriety for spree riots after hockey matches has proven hard for their police to deal with despite knowing that they are coming, such a thing happening over many days was improbable. Often all it takes is daylight and a cleanup after a major occurance.
I still think that borderline military is a reasonable description for tank-like vehicles, regardless of their non-lethality. It is a POV position, of course. It's bringing standard policing (a guy on foot without a gun talking to people on the street, or interviewing a person in a police station) closer to regimentation and mechanisation. I don't consider such things unneccessary, but simply undesirable. As I said, there are certain potent images which resonate with specifically people from the UK of even armoured police vans (much less water canons) which make these less of a desirable option right from the start than in some other countries.
The Rodney King riots are an American parallel (and the various inner city riots of the 60s-80s that preceded it) . For the benefit of Brits, I should note the difference between here and there. Inner city shop owners defended their own stores with their own guns, and that was usually an effective deterrent. In the UK, given some recent cases as reported in the US media, it;s now illegal to defend one's property--house or store or car or whatever--and any attempt to do so, whether with or without a gun, can be prosecuted as a crime.
Quote from: zamyrabyrd on August 09, 2011, 09:55:02 PM
there doesn't have to be the deterrence of a death penalty; moral absolutes that forbid stealing are replaced with relativism; children do not have to be restrained by parents or whatever substitutes for that in blended or artificially conceived "families". There is no need to destroy a moral compass - to deny its existence is more than enough.
The social history of Europe for the period 1000-1900 CE should be enough to prove that the death penalty doesn't actually deter anyone; that people steal even when moral absolutes are taught and preached in every public outlet; and that children misbehave when ruled by the rod as much as when ruled without it.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 10, 2011, 05:57:32 AM
The Rodney King riots are an American parallel (and the various inner city riots of the 60s-80s that preceded it) . For the benefit of Brits, I should note the difference between here and there. Inner city shop owners defended their own stores with their own guns, and that was usually an effective deterrent. In the UK, given some recent cases as reported in the US media, it;s now illegal to defend one's property--house or store or car or whatever--and any attempt to do so, whether with or without a gun, can be prosecuted as a crime.
It's one of those laws that the police get shit for each time it is followed through - in such anarchic conditions owners shouldn't really worry about that unless they do something demonstrably stupid - after all, the evidence will often be recorded on their own CCTV.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 10, 2011, 05:29:08 AM
IMO this is hindsight - I've not heard of anything similar like this happening before happening in a developed country. Riots
Unfortunately, the US has suffered massive, deadly urban riots on multiple occasions: the '67 Detroit riots, the '92 LA riots, etc.
Quote
I still think that borderline military is a reasonable description for tank-like vehicles, regardless of their non-lethality. It is a POV position, of course. It's bringing standard policing (a guy on foot without a gun talking to people on the street, or interviewing a person in a police station) closer to regimentation and mechanisation.
And I take your point. Especially after 9/11, the US has seen upsurge in paramilitary-style police units equipped with body armor, automatic assault rifles, (non-lethal) grenades, armored vehicles, etc. And not just SWAT executing high-risk warrants, where the extra gear is necessary for self-defense, but standing around the New York city transit system:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-03-31/news/27060563_1_anti-terror-penn-station-transit-system
QuoteI don't consider such things unneccessary, but simply undesirable. As I said, there are certain potent images which resonate with specifically people from the UK of even armoured police vans (much less water canons) which make these less of a desirable option right from the start than in some other countries.
What's more undesirable here? Hints of a police state, or a state that's temporarily (?) going unpoliced?
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 10, 2011, 06:00:36 AM
It's one of those laws that the police get shit for each time it is followed through - in such anarchic conditions owners shouldn't really worry about that unless they do something demonstrably stupid - after all, the evidence will often be recorded on their own CCTV.
I wonder why armored cars and water cannons are frowned upon when Big Brother gets to watch Londoners on telly? You ever read the graphic novel
V for Vendetta, written back in the 80's, about a fascist government ruling Britain in the near future? There's an image near the beginning of a CCTV camera with a sign under it "for your protection" ???
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 10, 2011, 04:47:15 AM
It is also interesting how hard this kind of crime is to combat. I saw a video of a shop invasion a week or so ago in the US where 40 people walked in and looted it, expecting to be obscured by the mass many of them did not wear masks to hide from the CCTV. In the same way, few of the looters in the UK appear to have worn gloves. So many of these people will be caught, and the painstaking work it will take to examine CCTV footage and forensic evidence will take resources away from far more deserving cases. Every angle these events can be viewed from reveal one thing: light psychopathy.
Forensic evidence, especially finger prints, VERY rarely is of any use.
Quote from: Grazioso on August 10, 2011, 06:05:40 AM
Unfortunately, the US has suffered massive, deadly urban riots on multiple occasions: the '67 Detroit riots, the '92 LA riots, etc.
Sorry, I wasn't being clear - I mean motiveless rioting. With Rodney King, the police must have realised everything was going to hell in a bad way. It's this "I want free stuff" untied to any ideology or sense of righteousness that I find unique in this case.
Quote from: Grazioso on August 10, 2011, 06:05:40 AM
What's more undesirable here? Hints of a police state, or a state that's temporarily (?) going unpoliced?
The latter surely, but my view is that the extent of the violence could not have been anticipated. It's definitely time to bring them in now, especially as now everybody knows that the rioters have no justification and so will not object to their presence. But during the first 36 hrs, it simply looked like one of those random flash mob type events which die out. It's the fact that this one hasn't died out that makes it rather unique, especially allied to the emergence of online messaging to coordinate the rioters in was previously uprecidented. When discussed with such a system, it must feel almost like online shopping to some of them.
It's not really a police state that people think about when they see armoured vehicles (that would take some major paranoia), but echoes of an out of control situation that people do not want replicated even if the ground causes in the area the are deployed in are different. There is also something of a distaste for heavy-handed applications of power in the Fascist-era southern-European/arabic manner - if anything CCTV at least keeps things polite and out of the way - rather "British".
Quote from: Grazioso on August 10, 2011, 06:10:24 AM
I wonder why armored cars and water cannons are frowned upon when Big Brother gets to watch Londoners on telly? You ever read the graphic novel V for Vendetta, written back in the 80's, about a fascist government ruling Britain in the near future? There's an image near the beginning of a CCTV camera with a sign under it "for your protection" ???
Pointing out CCTV statistics in London and to a lesser extent the UK has been a much favoured target of the American right (along with the NHS and gun control), but it's not viewed in the same way here as there. While has the potential to be invasive (I'm not so concerned about a random operator seeing me poke my nose when I think nobody is looking) it's also solved countless crimes, and I don't feel much fear for being unable to try to challenge their use when they have been deemed to be utilised inappropriately. So many useful things can be demonised just for the potential of misuse. For genuine systemic fascistic misuse of CCTV to persecute and track everyone en-masse, it would be clear that the government was screwing us far before such a system reached fruition. It's the perception or fear that drives such thoughts, but I have yet to see evidence of such a problem - although I remain aware that such things could happen and will support CCTV use less and less if this appears to be emerging. Essentially: real governments are too mediocre to pull such things off.
Quote from: Guido on August 10, 2011, 06:18:08 AM
Forensic evidence, especially finger prints, VERY rarely is of any use.
I don't have any expertise in the subject, I'm just going by what I read so can't really comment on this. To me it seems clear - if a criminal is caught on a shop's CCTV touching a very specific, out of the way item behind the store's counter, and later their fingerprint is revealed to be there it seems rather open and shut.
Edit: the longer my nails get, the more my typing ability decreases :(
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 10, 2011, 06:40:03 AM
Sorry, I wasn't being clear - I mean motiveless rioting. With Rodney King...
But didn't the riots begin after a protest against the police shooting of a black man? Would there be any riots without that initial killing and subsequent protest? I'm not saying the London rioters
today are motivated by that, but that it was a catalyst. I think of the Kent State riots in 1970. I wasn't there but my best friend was. While acknowledging that a protest march against the Vietnam War was the cataylst, what he subsequently saw were not anti-establishment, anti-war types rioting but rather frat boys having fun on a destructive rampage through downtown Kent.
Sarge
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on August 10, 2011, 07:08:51 AM
But didn't the riots begin after a protest about the police shooting of a black man? Would there be any riots without that initial killing and subsequent protest? I'm not saying the London rioters today are motivated by that, but that it was a catalyst. I think of the Kent State riots in 1970. I wasn't there but my best friend was. While acknowledging that a protest march against the Vietnam War was the cataylst, what he subsequently saw were not anti-establishment, anti-war types rioting but rather frat boys having fun on a destructive rampage through downtown Kent.
That is true. In London, if there was an immediate knee-jerk reaction from the black community (and I think it's also an self-conscious 'underclass' thing rather than a race thing) it was swiftly snubbed out. No matter how important the event or cause there will always be people hijacking it for violence, but the lack of even an "excuse" for carrying out the actions in this case is kind of grimly impressive. I'm sure those university kids would all know to bullshit away and blame it on the shootings and "oppression" by the police if they were arrested for rioting, but I'm not sure that the London rioters could even conjur up a fictitious reason given how rubbish the original "spark" was proven to be,
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 10, 2011, 06:40:03 AM
Pointing out CCTV statistics in London and to a lesser extent the UK has been a much favoured target of the American right (along with the NHS and gun control), but it's not viewed in the same way here as there. While has the potential to be invasive (I'm not so concerned about a random operator seeing me poke my nose when I think nobody is looking) it's also solved countless crimes, and I don't feel much fear for being unable to try to challenge their use when they have been deemed to be utilised inappropriately. So many useful things can be demonised just for the potential of misuse. For genuine systemic fascistic misuse of CCTV to persecute and track everyone en-masse, it would be clear that the government was screwing us far before such a system reached fruition. It's the perception or fear that drives such thoughts, but I have yet to see evidence of such a problem - although I remain aware that such things could happen and will support CCTV use less and less if this appears to be emerging. Essentially: real governments are too mediocre to pull such things off.
We object to it first because of the principle of the thing--the government shouldn't have the capacity to know everything--and second because of the possibilities of misuse. Not so much by some totalitarian Big Brother government as by local authorities who find it a convenient tool to exert authority over local residents. Hah, Ms. Lethe, we see you leaving too many garbage bags out for the trash removal in the morning--you're fined. You know you can't walk your dog before 6 AM on this street--you're fined. That window needs fixing. You have one week to do so or you're fined. Here in the US, "red light" cameras have turned into an lucrative source of traffic fines without actually reducing accidents (their official purpose).
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 10, 2011, 07:20:39 AM
We object to it first because of the principle of the thing--the government shouldn't have the capacity to know everything--and second because of the possibilities of misuse. Not so much by some totalitarian Big Brother government as by local authorities who find it a convenient tool to exert authority over local residents. Hah, Ms. Lethe, we see you leaving too many garbage bags out for the trash removal in the morning--you're fined. You know you can't walk your dog before 6 AM on this street--you're fined. That window needs fixing. You have one week to do so or you're fined. Here in the US, "red light" cameras have turned into an lucrative source of traffic fines without actually reducing accidents (their official purpose).
I agree that would suck - although if it was pushing people so hard, they would rebel. They have already done this here with traffic cameras being used to raise money by local government in petty ways. The way I see CCTV is it's the thing that makes me feel safe when walking through the town centre at pub closing times. I know that even if I am assaulted there is a chance that the person will be able to be identified.
Edit:
http://www.youtube.com/v/0cbVW_QS2eE
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 10, 2011, 05:57:32 AM
The social history of Europe for the period 1000-1900 CE should be enough to prove that the death penalty doesn't actually deter anyone; that people steal even when moral absolutes are taught and preached in every public outlet; and that children misbehave when ruled by the rod as much as when ruled without it.
Well, some periods were safer than others. Stealing and murder can happen but when there are consequences and penalities they happen less.
ZB
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 10, 2011, 06:40:03 AM
Sorry, I wasn't being clear - I mean motiveless rioting. With Rodney King, the police must have realised everything was going to hell in a bad way. It's this "I want free stuff" untied to any ideology or sense of righteousness that I find unique in this case.
I understand that it may not have been predicted or predictable, but my point is that once the SHTF and authorities understand the scope and danger of what's happening, they're obligated to act swiftly and decisively to prevent further harm to the innocent--whatever the root impetus or lack thereof behind the rioting. If the guilty get harmed in the ensuing melees, it's unfortunate, but they brought it on themselves by deciding it would be fun to attack cops, burn their own cities, and rob stores.
Note: the PM has offered water canons within 24 hours notice, but as of yet no police force have requested one. I now know why (in part) - apparently this would be the first time one has ever been used on a crowd in Britain.
People are already being swiftly tried, essentially named and shamed. A good policy, as it helps to expose the mediocrity and fragility behind these actions - everyday "nice" people. Hopefully it will strike a chord.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 10, 2011, 09:40:41 AM
Note: the PM has offered water canons within 24 hours notice, but as of yet no police force have requested one. I now know why (in part) - apparently this would be the first time one has ever been used on a crowd in Britain.
I think "band of violent criminals, thieves, and arsonists" would be a more accurate description. It's not a peaceful protest march the government is considering dispersing.
Quote
People are already being swiftly tried, essentially named and shamed. A good policy, as it helps to expose the mediocrity and fragility behind these actions - everyday "nice" people. Hopefully it will strike a chord.
They ought to be dragged through the streets in some form of public humiliation, in addition to standard fines or jail time.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 10, 2011, 06:40:03 AM
Sorry, I wasn't being clear - I mean motiveless rioting. With Rodney King, the police must have realised everything was going to hell in a bad way. It's this "I want free stuff" untied to any ideology or sense of righteousness that I find unique in this case.
yes, but that is your personal take on this, and you seem to need it badly, considering the massive number of posts you're writing about this.
the way people need to talk about "scum", "psychopaths" and how unfortunate it is they can't be shot at may also be viewed as evidence that there is such a dire need in today's society for clearcut winners and losers and never the twain shall meet. These losers / looters are aware of this too, and, even though it's stupid and self-defeating, it's part of the reason why they behave the way they do now - is my guess.
I'm not defending it.
Quote from: Herman on August 10, 2011, 01:52:40 PM
yes, but that is your personal take on this, and you seem to need it badly, considering the massive number of posts you're writing about this.
the way people need to talk about "scum", "psychopaths" and how unfortunate it is they can't be shot at may also be viewed as evidence that there is such a dire need in today's society for clearcut winners and losers and never the twain shall meet. These losers / looters are aware of this too, and, even though it's stupid and self-defeating, it's part of the reason why they behave the way they do now - is my guess.
I'm not defending it.
It's an interesting subject with potentially large repercussions on life in my country, why wouldn't I care about it? If you want to criticise me properly (rather than casually throw in that "maybe you're
too keen"), try correcting some of the replies I've given you in the past few days instead of bailing each time and coming back with another objection that you won't follow up on.*
My opinions might frustrate someone because they don't adhere to what American politics recognises as the "left" and "right". I'm not super pro-punishment as Grazioso seems to have endorsed a few times (although not to an unacceptable extent, mind), nor am I into hang-wringing over "these poor people". I want the rioters to stop behaving like animals, but at the moment they're failing to do so. I wish them the best in their recovery back to acceptable human beings likely to help me in the street rather than rob me. If you think that you are wing nut-hunting with me, then you are mistaken given how I am strongly pro-reform and support prevention over cure. My choice of blunt language to describe the people and their actions was chosen for a reason - it reflects my anger towards their rotten behviour. You may have a point that it seems to imply that I am de-humanising them, suggesting they have no rights. This isn't the case, I just think they're idiots and the more I think about their justifications based on their supposed upbringing and environment, the less I find to excuse them.
As to this 'downtrodden' aspect you're suggesting - I don't buy it. I am part of this supposedly oppressed group of people myself, and the majority of my friends are drawn from the same pool. I have shit all education, don't feel particularly psychologically able to engage with the ruthless combat and BSing of careerism and the open job market. There is a chance that I have to accept that I may have to stick with a crappy job and little sense of fulfilment or career 'advancement'. This is my base lot and I make a really fine life from it, as do millions of people in this country. It's patronising to push this whole proletariat solidarity thing, blackjacking people from criticising too strongly because they're just the
little-people, they don't know any better - they are
conditioned not to have any control over their actions.
Why are people like my social circle not rioting, or the people staying at home in London and Manchester (who when interviewed on the news are angry at the idiots in their midst)? It seems to be because they are respectful and decent people who have chosen to build a positive social culture together. Of the rioters, I'm sure many have excellent excuses that they're ready to draw out when asked why, but it comes down to their choice to cause harm. This brink is what separates bad from good people - you can let life embitter you, or you can shrug and get on. Speaking as a completely unambitious lazy bugger, "boredom" from a lack of satisfaction with our lot in life can't be all there is to this, it's the desire to cause hurt which lurks inside many young people. A lot of the rioters will come to regret what they have done, or later grow out of this mentality, but just because they can be made good doesn't make them any less bad now. Also, obviously, there is no such thing as a 100% bad or good person. A good person may do scummy things, and when I become sufficiently angered by what they have done, surely "scumbag" is an accurate word for the person of that moment.
I'm kind of sick of the excuses (another reason why I post so often in this thread - and something which hits even more closely to my life) - I have lived through them, seeing deadbeats subtly manipulating kids into thinking that their ridiculous way of life is the easy way out, and despite this I see others making the best of it and choosing not to be influenced by that idiot culture (I used to do a course at a youth centre where finding and holding down a job was considered at best suspicious). It's surely the "easy way out" brigade who form the more hard core of these rioters? So many choices were made for them to follow that path and it can still be claimed that they are above harsh criticism - that we must be polite about potential mitigating circumstances of the people stealing and assaulting?
I get that you think that poor people who have a hard life are more likely to be corrupted by negative surrounding factors, anybody would agree with that (bar some Ayn Rand nut or something). But I feel that this is nowhere near the mitigating factor you're pushing. A lot of the people being tried for theft have comfortable jobs, one was even a teacher. They know right from wrong, they chose to "get one over" the rest of us. They're bad people (or if not, why make such a good impression of one?). I hope they become better in time.
*BTW sorry if I am not 'eloquent' enough for that, I do have a scattergun approach to writing and sometimes I find myself fine-tuning opinions on the fly - I find it a nourishing and overall self-enhancing thing to do, as irritating as it may be to the reader.
I realise that I am flying off the handle, and this giant wall of text might seem like some feeble attempt at justification - but, hey - I usually know when to step back but something about this subject bugs me. We can't all be the ones making pithy snipes from the sidelines.
I've been looking online for info about the "London Mob", but the only specific pages I can find are references to the book The London mob: violence and disorder in eighteenth-century England. I first found out about the Mob while reading a biography of Wellington: during the first half of the 19th century, the Mob was a recognised phenomenon, a crowd of thugs who would roam the streets en masse looking for trouble. They would occasionally adhere to some political cause or other, but it was more an excuse for violence than from conviction. As I recall from the biography, Wellington's London house was stoned on a couple of occasions, and at another time the Mob surrounded the carriage of an unpopular politician and tried to drag him out, stopped only by Wellington charging in on his horse.
So this behaviour isn't unprecedented.
Having partaken in a few protests, I think I understand the excitement and feeling of bravado that are the reward for bold and defiant behaviour (the same feelings that motivate Jihadists, I would say) - and it's certainly not mere coincidence that most of the rioters are young men, the group best known for pointless violence and stupid risk-taking.
The base cause of all this misbehaviour is bad parenting. If parents don't raise their kids to have self control and be considerate of others, this is the end result. People learn behaviour codes from their family and neighbours, not from government policy. Generous welfare and lenient justice can never be more than secondary factors.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 10, 2011, 03:41:49 PM
I realise that I am flying off the handle, and this giant wall of text might seem like some feeble attempt at justification -
it's just fine. I read it with interest, and I did get your position wrong, sorry about that. It's obviously true that it's not just a matter of today's society's winners against the losers. The mix is more complicated than that. We get to see the hidden societal costs of the consumer culture now. Some people really believe you're what you wear, and what kind of smartphone you're using. I just don't see what use it is to use words like 'scum' and 'animals' but then I'm on the other side of the channel, safe, for now.
Innocent civilians being beaten up and murdered, stores vandalised, buildings and cars torched.......as an Englishman I am ashamed of my country now.
Oh yes, there is no logic, no reason and no purpose to all that has happened during the past couple of days. God help us all for the days to come.
marvin
It seems as though things might be dying down finally - I'm not sure whether it was the due to the strong police response in other areas of the country, or the mass dragging of people to court (one remained in session throughout the night to deal with processing them all), or families being so sick of it consciously affecting their lives and making this clear to the demographic involved. Probably a bit of everything, but maybe more than anything else the mob got bored (this is a lot like online raids I suppose - they always peter out quite rapidly).
Quote from: Herman on August 10, 2011, 10:59:28 PM
it's just fine. I read it with interest, and I did get your position wrong, sorry about that. It's obviously true that it's not just a matter of today's society's winners against the losers. The mix is more complicated than that. We get to see the hidden societal costs of the consumer culture now. Some people really believe you're what you wear, and what kind of smartphone you're using. I just don't see what use it is to use words like 'scum' and 'animals' but then I'm on the other side of the channel, safe, for now.
No worries, sorry again for freaking out.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 10, 2011, 03:41:49 PM
As to this 'downtrodden' aspect you're suggesting - I don't buy it. I am part of this supposedly oppressed group of people myself, and the majority of my friends are drawn from the same pool. I have shit all education, don't feel particularly psychologically able to engage with the ruthless combat and BSing of careerism and the open job market. There is a chance that I have to accept that I may have to stick with a crappy job and little sense of fulfilment or career 'advancement'. This is my base lot and I make a really fine life from it, as do millions of people in this country.
This reminds me of an article I once read, by the expatriate American curmudgeon Fred Reed. First World poverty isn't anything like Third World poverty; reasonable options exist -
The reality is that the wherewithal of a cultivated life of leisure, if only in tea [sic!] shirts and jeans, is within the reach of almost all of the "poor." If I had to live in really cheap welfarish quarters in Washington, DC, which I know well, on food stamps and a bit of cash welfare, what would I do?
I'd have a hell of a good time.
First, I'd get a library card, which is free, for the public libraries of the District. The downtown library, over on 9th Street, is a huge dark half-empty building in which very few people appear and none of the poor. I'd spend time reading, which I enjoy and the poor don't. They aren't interested. [etc.]http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed64.html
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 11, 2011, 02:59:38 AM
It seems as though things might be dying down finally - I'm not sure whether it was the due to the strong police response in other areas of the country, or the mass dragging of people to court (one remained in session throughout the night to deal with processing them all), or families being so sick of it consciously affecting their lives and making this clear to the demographic involved. Probably a bit of everything, but maybe more than anything else the mob got bored (this is a lot like online raids I suppose - they always peter out quite rapidly).
No worries, sorry again for freaking out.
I hope you are right Lethe, I really hope you are right.
marvin
Quote from: eyeresist on August 10, 2011, 08:00:49 PM
The base cause of all this misbehaviour is bad parenting. If parents don't raise their kids to have self control and be considerate of others, this is the end result.
Like parents, like kids. ;D
There are plenty of kids who manage to become criminals despite their parents best efforts - it's a common story in any deprived area. No matter how much you control what goes on inside your home's walls, if the culture and education outside is rotten then you're subject to the roll of a dice as to how the kids will turn out. Add to this that both parents might have to be working full time (sad to think that this unusual situation may actually penalise a family) to pay the bills and not be around at every moment possible, unlike a family with more disposable income and the ability for the mother to stop working if she wishes.
Parenting is a huge factor, but possibly outweighed by the combined mass of many other ones.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 11, 2011, 05:03:53 AM
There are plenty of kids who manage to become criminals despite their parents best efforts - it's a common story in any deprived area. No matter how much you control what goes on inside your home's walls, if the culture and education outside is rotten then you're subject to the roll of a dice as to how the kids will turn out. Add to this that both parents might have to be working full time (sad to think that this unusual situation may actually penalise a family) to pay the bills and not be around at every moment possible, unlike a family with more disposable income and the ability for the mother to stop working if she wishes.
Parenting is a huge factor, but possibly outweighed by the combined mass of many other ones.
Indeed.
It's very interesting: the Left blames the Right for this situation --- and viceversa. :) I should say they are both to be blamed. ;D
This strikes me as stupid:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/social.media/08/11/london.riots.social.media/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/social.media/08/11/london.riots.social.media/index.html)
It's definitely the same old unworkable snap reaction from a government that doesn't really understand how the internet works (does any?). It's less ridiculous than it sounds from a soundbyte: there were apparently people on Twitter, etc, actively saying "this is our next target", clearly amongst the looters, and there was no mechanism to stop this. But I can't see how any such block could be workably put into place without severe collateral damage, and I'd be surprised if it gets through even in modified form, even if only for PR reasons (comparisons to the Saudis). The PM possibly even knows this, but is looking to deflect the increasing amount of crosshairs pointing in his direction from critics of his cuts to the police budget (although a large part of the problem seems to have been police internal policy).
Quote from: Velimir on August 11, 2011, 03:13:37 AM
This reminds me of an article I once read, by the expatriate American curmudgeon Fred Reed. First World poverty isn't anything like Third World poverty; reasonable options exist -
The reality is that the wherewithal of a cultivated life of leisure, if only in tea [sic!] shirts and jeans, is within the reach of almost all of the "poor." If I had to live in really cheap welfarish quarters in Washington, DC, which I know well, on food stamps and a bit of cash welfare, what would I do?
I'd have a hell of a good time.
First, I'd get a library card, which is free, for the public libraries of the District. The downtown library, over on 9th Street, is a huge dark half-empty building in which very few people appear and none of the poor. I'd spend time reading, which I enjoy and the poor don't. They aren't interested. [etc.]
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed64.html
Reed, and most of the others who write on Lew Rockwell, should be taken with a grain of salt. Sometimes several grains, and occassionally a whole shakerful.
At any rate, this reminds me of a relatively minor, but pointed, episode in Tom Clancy's Hunt for Red October, written in what proved to be the final years of the Cold War--although no one realized it at the time. It might be of interest to you. As literature, the novel was pitiful--the only three dimensional character in the book gets killed off on either page two or three--but Clancy managed to write a good page turner in that one. (If you have seen the movie, you've seen almost everything good in the book.) Towards the end he imagined the crew of the Soviet sub, having been "rescued" by the US, being driven to the Washington DC airport for their flight back home. The Americans in charge of them deliberately chose to have the bus take route through some of DCs' slum areas; Clancy explained the point, as narrator--in terms of the characters, the point remains unspoken--that the Soviet sailors, seeing the slums, would be able to compare the reality against Soviet propaganda depictions of what like in the US was like, and also compare it with life for the average Soviet citizen--not necessarily to the advantage of back home (meaning the abundance of relatively new and large cars, clothes that may have been cheap but were definitely fashionable, air conditioning, plentifully stocked businesses all over the place, etc.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 11, 2011, 05:06:48 PM
Reed, and most of the others who write on Lew Rockwell, should be taken with a grain of salt. Sometimes several grains, and occassionally a whole shakerful.
His basic point stands, though. If people riot because they're starving, sure, I can understand that. But when rioters go for flat-screen TVs instead of food, something else is going on.
Quote from: Lethe Dmitriyevich Shostakovich on August 11, 2011, 05:03:27 PM
It's definitely the same old unworkable snap reaction from a government that doesn't really understand how the internet works (does any?). It's less ridiculous than it sounds from a soundbyte: there were apparently people on Twitter, etc, actively saying "this is our next target", clearly amongst the looters, and there was no mechanism to stop this. But I can't see how any such block could be workably put into place without severe collateral damage, and I'd be surprised if it gets through even in modified form, even if only for PR reasons (comparisons to the Saudis). The PM possibly even knows this, but is looking to deflect the increasing amount of crosshairs pointing in his direction from critics of his cuts to the police budget (although a large part of the problem seems to have been police internal policy).
I think some sort of government control over social media is inevitable, because of its mass broadcast nature, which as we've seen can motivate and coordinate people in a way unprecedented by the telephone and "live" rabble-rousing. It probably won't pass through Parliament, because the legislation would be very complex, but it wouldn't surprise me if MI5 developed some sort of "brake" which it could apply to Facebook, Blackberry etc in emergencies. Service would persist but be very slow and patchy, enabling plausible deniability.
Quote from: Velimir on August 11, 2011, 10:59:27 PM
His basic point stands, though. If people riot because they're starving, sure, I can understand that. But when rioters go for flat-screen TVs instead of food, something else is going on.
Seconded.
Quote from: eyeresist on August 11, 2011, 11:57:26 PM
I think some sort of government control over social media is inevitable, because of its mass broadcast nature, which as we've seen can motivate and coordinate people in a way unprecedented by the telephone and "live" rabble-rousing. It probably won't pass through Parliament, because the legislation would be very complex, but it wouldn't surprise me if MI5 developed some sort of "brake" which it could apply to Facebook, Blackberry etc in emergencies. Service would persist but be very slow and patchy, enabling plausible deniability.
I was in London on the day of the second underground bombing attempts. ie the ones that did not work. Mobile phone services were interrupted. The excuse was that they can be used to trigger bombs. Of course it was a bit of a double edged weapon in that it meant people could not phone out to say they were OK or be reached to confirm their whereabouts. But it might be a possible way of interrupting organised plans in future.
This week my wife was working in central Birmingham. She was upstairs in a restaurant across from the hotel she was staying in. Under the hotel is a row of shops and she watched about 40 people gather outside an electrical shop. She phoned the police to suggest it looked like something was going to kick off. When there were a couple of hundred gathered, they broke into the shop and looted it. The police arrived much too late.
Having been locked into the restaurant; once the street was cleared, she and her colleagues were locked into the hotel; but asked to stay in the 1st floor bar area rather than go up into the tower block, as the police were concerned that the shops I mentioned might be firebombed.
Looting electrical goods is not about poverty; it is about opportunism.
In London I saw news coverage of people stealing PACKETS of crisps! (That's chips in USSPEAK). An especially pathetic demonstration of opportunism; but the same wellspring.
Mike
Quote from: knight66 on August 12, 2011, 04:00:21 AM
Looting electrical goods is not about poverty; it is about opportunism.
Word.
Grazioso, I think you've summarized half of Eastwood's movies, several of which are spaghetti westerns with an international staff. :D It seems like your post is a snide way of saying that we are all libertarians yearning for personal freedom over the tyranny of government. Here in the US those type of people are in a very small minority. And I do not see posts on this thread to motivate your allegory.
Quote from: knight66 on August 12, 2011, 04:00:21 AM
In London I saw news coverage of people stealing PACKETS of crisps! (That's chips in USSPEAK). An especially pathetic demonstration of opportunism; but the same wellspring.
When I was a kid, I fantasised about breaking into the barbecued chicken place. That was my idea of nirvana.
The hormones they pump into that stuff....just as well you never had an unbridled opportunity. Might have ended up needing an outsize bra.
Mike
Quote from: Soapy Molloy on August 12, 2011, 07:04:02 AM
Peter Oborne in the Telegraph is attracting a lot of attention for an article he's written (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100100708/the-moral-decay-of-our-society-is-as-bad-at-the-top-as-the-bottom/) pointing out, amongst other things, the hypocrisy (to say the least) of British politicians pontificating about "moral failure" in others when over half of them were found to have fiddled their expenses, often to the tune of many tens of thousands of pounds, apparently on the basis that whatever you can get away with should be considered acceptable.
Hear hear!!
And hear, hear, here.
The MP Gerald Kaufman, mentioned in the item, was one of the more notorious MP expenses claimants. One claim was for £80 for two matching crystal grapefruit dishes. When asked why two? He said he wanted one for each home, he liked the routine of being able to eat his grapefruit out of identical dishes irrespective of which house he was in. He also claimed an astonishing amount for repairs to the second home. This, explained as dilapidations over many years; that meant he had to catch up with the repairs. Amongst the claims was some thousands of pounds for a B&O TV.
As far as I recall nothing happened to him. Shortly after this was exposed, I found myself in a lift with him at Westminster. He kept his eyes on the ground. It took me all I could to NOT spit on him. I restricted myself to very pointedly saying "£80 for grapefruit dishes". as I walked past him out of the lift.
Now he lectures about how others should be treated.
Mike
On reflection, the UK riots are perhaps less a special case for England and more a general indication of what happens when social networking technology becomes widely disseminated amongst the uneducated criminal classes - the madness of crowds ³ (i.e. cubed). Consider the "flash mob", originally nothing more sinister than an art school prank, now a significant law and order problem (just Google "flash mob philadelphia"). We'll be seeing more of this :(
I can appreciate such articles opening with lines like:
"MAYOR NUTTER has sent a new wake-up call to the teens participating in street-mob violence."
It certainly beats "MAYOR JOHNSON".
8)
I had to Google to find out what the hell that meant. You probably wouldn't get far with that surname in the UK.
Quote from: eyeresist on August 14, 2011, 05:59:00 PM
8)
I had to Google to find out what the hell that meant. You probably wouldn't get far with that surname in the UK.
I misunderstood: I thought the headline was about Johnson.
Mike
[/move]
Quote from: chasmaniac on August 10, 2011, 02:26:02 AM
Let me guess! Miscegenation, right?
Close. Comes on guys, surely, you cannot fail to notice that there is one common factor in all those cases of civil unrest, whether is flash mobs in America or those riots in the UK. You cannot be as blindfolded as that.
If you are specificaly tying it to miscegenation; I am relieved that no one has been foolish enough to hand you any authority over the lives of others.
To attempt to differentiate races by physical or mental characteristics is understandable, if ultimately pointless. To differentiate by moral categories is ridiculous.
One comment about opportunism, if I may, now that things have calmed down a little.
There's a) someone who's starving, literally, will obviously steal food first.
However, there's also b) someone who's starving in the slower and less literal sense, i.e. cannot afford food sometimes. In other words, one whose financial situation is at the level where at a given time they may not be able to afford a meal.
Though I am by no means a specialist in social psychology, the latter situation may not necessarily lead to physical harm, but framed in the scenario of an agent withholding food from someone when they're hungry, it would be torture.
Further, since the individual on which the latter situation is inflicted will eventually eat, upon finding an opportunity to improve their general lot in life, it is rational and intuitive that they will go for the television - what they would not otherwise hope to get. These 'underprivileged', the desperate and destitute, are people who have lived watching others enjoy their TVs and cars and lavish houses, per the widely disseminated stereotype of success they are incessantly exposed to; and now they have a (perceived) chance to achieve something comparable - a chance to join the club.
Will it truly make a difference in their lives? No. But the reason 'we' know this is that we already have a TV and, for some, a house and car and luxuries; it's not just about money. On account of my financial connection to Greece, I have lost much of my previous spending power, as a member of a comfortably upper-middle-class household. Nevertheless, I retain the luxuries this spending power previously permitted me to acquire. And if I didn't, I would retain the knowledge, even looking at just my adult life, of how much they do or do not matter. My past experience gives me the perspective to prioritise.
How could these people have the perspective you attribute to them?
Who taught them? Who showed them? When did they get the chance to find out themselves? This kind of unintentional myopia brought this situation about - by which I do not mean the criminal act, but the enabling circumstances for it.
Pardon the rant, but I see this enough in moral philosophy and epistemology to want to bash my head against the desk until it (the desk) breaks; and I've seen it in the Commons last week. So I'd rather maybe see it a little less in GMG, at least! ;)
Quote from: eyeresist on August 14, 2011, 05:12:03 PM
On reflection, the UK riots are perhaps less a special case for England and more a general indication of what happens when social networking technology becomes widely disseminated amongst the uneducated criminal classes - the madness of crowds ³ (i.e. cubed). Consider the "flash mob", originally nothing more sinister than an art school prank, now a significant law and order problem (just Google "flash mob philadelphia"). We'll be seeing more of this :(
On the other hand, when you have the same technology in the hands of the educated classes you get junk bonds, credit crunch, subprime mortgages, trillions of dollars evaporating and and entire countries going under because of speculation.
Quote from: knight66 on August 15, 2011, 01:13:27 AM
If you are specificaly tying it to miscegenation
I'm tying it to race, not miscegenation.
Quote from: eyeresist on August 15, 2011, 02:43:27 AM
To attempt to differentiate races by physical or mental characteristics is understandable, if ultimately pointless. To differentiate by moral categories is ridiculous.
And yet, the culprits are always the same, anywhere and everywhere.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 15, 2011, 01:45:37 PM
And yet, the culprits are always the same, anywhere and everywhere.
Yup. They're all humans, good, bad and ugly.
(http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa264/oddryd/Tottenham.jpg)
Quote from: chasmaniac on August 16, 2011, 02:16:50 AM
Yup. They're all humans, good, bad and ugly.
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m499/HumStats/UKRiots/Address_Riot_Ethnicity.jpg)
hu hu
I love how the author of that diagram has the nerve to indict the media for their inaccuracy, while at the same time
demonstrating how utterly ignorant he is of the concept of correlation. :D White master race, right there.
Quote from: Renfield on August 16, 2011, 11:02:06 AM
I love how the author of that diagram has the nerve to indict the media for their inaccuracy, while at the same time
demonstrating how utterly ignorant he is of the concept of correlation. :D White master race, right there.
Really:
(http://i1128.photobucket.com/albums/m499/HumStats/UKRiots/Addresses_Education.jpg)
Still in denial, huh?
(http://news.m3n4.com/wp-content/uploads/protestg20PA_450x3001.jpg)
Anyone can play this game. Try googling "science" for a corrective.
Some honest self-appraisal wouldn't hurt either.
Enough.
JdP: Yes, really. And the second picture suggests what its author is trying to 'refute', more than it does anything else.
Obviously, the UK Parliamentary expenses scandal stands as an indictment of the white race's natural instinct to thievery.
Twas not exclusively a white preserve.
Mike
Quote from: Renfield on August 16, 2011, 01:17:56 PM
JdP: Yes, really. And the second picture suggests what its author is trying to 'refute', more than it does anything else.
Here's the full report:
http://humstats.blogspot.com/2011/08/uk-riots-ethnicity-statistics.html
The correlation is too obvious to ignore. David Starkey on the subject:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8711621/UK-riots-Its-not-about-criminality-and-cuts-its-about-culture...-and-this-is-only-the-beginning.html
The word is in folks. Multiculturalism has failed, as it was bound to fail, as it will always be bound to fail.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 21, 2011, 03:34:25 AM
The word is in folks. Multiculturalism has failed, as it was bound to fail, as it will always be bound to fail.
News alert 1: Human history is three thousand plus years of multiculturalism. If multiculturalism is bound to fail, then humans are bound to fail.
News alert 2: Human progress has been fastest when different cultures interact, and slowest when different cultures seal themselves off from each other.
IOW, Josquin, your conclusions are faulty because your premises are faulty.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 21, 2011, 03:34:25 AM
The correlation is too obvious to ignore. David Starkey on the subject:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8711621/UK-riots-Its-not-about-criminality-and-cuts-its-about-culture...-and-this-is-only-the-beginning.html
But Starkey contradicts your point - he says the problem is culture,
not race.
Quote from: eyeresist on August 21, 2011, 04:37:21 PM
But Starkey contradicts your point - he says the problem is culture, not race.
No, he merely got half way. If he had gone the whole nine yards he would have doubtlessly found himself ostracized, and without a job.
Quote from: Jeffrey Smith on August 21, 2011, 06:50:35 AM
News alert 1: Human history is three thousand plus years of multiculturalism. If multiculturalism is bound to fail, then humans are bound to fail.
News alert 2: Human progress has been fastest when different cultures interact, and slowest when different cultures seal themselves off from each other.
Both statements are patently false, if you actually understand anything about history, culture and the nature of civilization.
Quote from: Josquin des Prez on August 21, 2011, 05:53:31 PM
Both statements are patently false, if you actually understand anything about history, culture and the nature of civilization.
We are all praying and hoping that you NEVER EVER become a prime minister or president of your country. The sad thing about it is you are not the only one who thinks the way you do.
That is a very scary thought, in this day and age.
Quote from: eyeresist on August 21, 2011, 04:37:21 PM
But Starkey contradicts your point - he says the problem is culture, not race.
If you knew him through his many media outlets and followed him; you would understand that he said exactly what he meant and that the whole nine yards is your own assumption. He totally lacks caution once he is engaged in debate. By the way: he is gay. He has a whole slew of opinions which would prevent him from being your poster boy.
Mike
Are these riots still happening in the UK?
Anarchy in the UK!
Or just another country
Another council tenancy.
Your future dream is a shopping scheme