RIOT!

[777]

I think that you are correct in this conclusion, 777. Especially when you talk about these kids. England has about 8 million youngsters (age 14 - 24, male + female). So you are talking about a very small percentage of rioters.

The great majority of the youngsters behave themselves correct.

Exactly. Most kids do fine and find their places in society without trouble.

Politicians tend to show strength, even when wisdom is needed.

In the sixties of the last century we (I was a youngster at that time) had great ideals based on love and understanding. Most of us forgot those ideals and ended greedy and egocentric. So we carry a lot of guilt for that.

It is from an educational point of view important that the criminals will get appropriate punishment.
But... it is important that the action is tailored to this specific group. The majority of the youngsters must not be brought into disrepute!

I have complete confidence in our youth.

I agree. I'd also stress the word appropriate, not just punishing them without a thought to who they are and why they were there.

 

[hawtsean]

Suffering from memory loss?

No, are you? I responded to some points you brought forward. That you don't care for the response or for me, is immaterial. Post public, take what comes.

In what way does this answer to the statement that


Social problems (like unemployment, substance abuse, domestic violence etc) usually pile up to certain areas and people because the poor and uneducated are living or forced to live in poor neighbourhoods that encourage similar behaviour, not discourage it.

I didn't offer to answer that, since I wished to deal with only the two assertions as noted. I believe that you have mistaken correlational data for causation. But, it seems that you are convinced, so why waste forum space debating it. Long debates of this sort, especially here, seem to develop into personal flames when valid data is requested to back up statements. Thus, I wasn't treading onto the waters you mention, especially due to your initial remark. It seems you find everything rubbish when it counters your assertions. As stated earlier, this area of the topic is not a good one for this thread. PM me if you REALLY want to debate it, however since you had preferred that I bypass your initial remark, that alone says volumes about your inability to present your issues and discuss them civilly with someone who disagrees with your premise.

Please rant on as you wish, I won't bother to respond to you again. There now, that make you a happy little puppy?

 

[c750dt]

Rioting in perspective: I'm pissed at the government so I'm gonna loot from and threaten neighbors and other people totally unrelated to the issue. That'll show them!

They really need discipline. Any hint of a message is lost in the process of purposely making life hell for those who actually contribute to society. This chip on the shoulder attitude that one is entitled is one of the reasons we can't have nice things.

 

[ritsuka]

These events would definitely not be possible without the violence and looting committed by the state and large corporations, given automatic excuse and legitimacy by the same actors that so strongly condemn these angry young folks. I'm sure that the people in Iraq rightly felt the same way when their houses were bombed by Tony Blair, that after all, they were innocent and should not be held responsible for the actions of the government. Certainly if a peaceful protest march would cause those in power to be receptive to their concerns and change things accordingly, none of this would be necessary, but we should all know it doesn't work that way.

The way these young people act tells me that they should have been treated kinder and with more generosity, by the social welfare state, schools, the police, and their families (in that order, yes.) Personally, I can understand and even sympathize with their anger at the system that leaves them to rot with no opportunities, no future except more dire poverty, police harassment, discrimination and hatred from an ever-innocent society that of course has nothing to do with their problems and can look down on them from posh suburbs. Deep-seated inequalities leave with them with nothing to lose.

By the way, statistics show that 71% of young adults in the UK experienced corporal punishment in their childhood, so unfortunately the practice is far from over, especially among the lower economic strata.

 

[c750dt]

They may have reason to be angry. Doesn't justify their actions which scare the general public and give police more reason to be harsh. Senseless violence towards fellow citizens and destruction of common people's property won't fix things. Instead of working to make their own lives better, they would rather work to make other people's lives worse. That can't be justified. The government probably was in the wrong in many regards. However, that doesn't justify worse things being done or, as they teach in kindergarten, two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[gb2000ie]

Certainly if a peaceful protest march would cause those in power to be receptive to their concerns and change things accordingly, none of this would be necessary, but we should all know it doesn't work that way.

This is an argument that drives me up the wall - it most certainly CAN work that way! It's EASIER to just thrash the place, but it's counter-productive!

Lets take a look at history - it's filled with truly great leaders who were man enough to side-step the simplistic "smash smash steal steal" mentiality at play here today and actually achieve their goals.

The first example that always springs to mind for me is Ghandi - why did he succeed while decades of wanton violence failed? Because he was able to claim the moral high ground, and get the whole world to see British oppression for what it was. It takes real courage to respond to violence with non-violence, INFINITELY more than to respond with primeval criminality!

Similarly, lets look at Dr. King and his successful campaign to end segregation in the south.

Lets look at how the French farmers and unions can get their way simply by bringing in sheep and tractors and what not into the city and blocking traffic.

Lets look at how the white march in Brussels took down a government and totally reformed the justice system in light of the state collusion in child abuse.

Of course there are other options to wanton destruction!

The way these young people act tells me that they should have been treated kinder and with more generosity, by the social welfare state, schools, the police, and their families (in that order, yes.) Personally, I can understand and even sympathize with their anger at the system that leaves them to rot with no opportunities, no future except more dire poverty, police harassment, discrimination and hatred from an ever-innocent society that of course has nothing to do with their problems and can look down on them from posh suburbs. Deep-seated inequalities leave with them with nothing to lose.

If this was really about the state, then why were they not attacking the state? Why then were they looting and pillaging for personal gain, and taking pleasure in destruction?

Also - you seemed to imply that somehow the owners of the small family businesses who took the brunt of this damage deserved it. I really hope I just mis-understood, and that you are not including these hard-working people desperately trying to survive the recession caused by the rich as agressors here.

B.

 

[gb2000ie]

These events would definitely not be possible without the violence and looting committed by the state and large corporations, given automatic excuse and legitimacy by the same actors that so strongly condemn these angry young folks. I'm sure that the people in Iraq rightly felt the same way when their houses were bombed by Tony Blair, that after all, they were innocent and should not be held responsible for the actions of the government.

I agree with you in condemning the war in Iraq, destroying the lives of innocent people is wrong. I think it is ALWAYS wrong, you seem to think it's OK sometimes, like now. How does that make you different to Blaire? You think it's OK sometimes, so does he!

Also - I am one of the people condemning this horrific terrorism of ordinary hard working people here, and I am not in any way giving "automatic excuse and legitimacy" to the UK government or the UK police, or large corporations. I'm against ALL injustice, not just that perpetrated by the rich!

B.

 

[XMan101]

Here's an example from tonight.

There was a call to a radio station the early hours of today from a guy who found a car set alight underneath a small block of flats. He hammered on the doors and got the people out before it blew.

In the top flat was an old couple , the man was very difficult to move and was on oxygen. The lights went whilst he had to carry him down the stairs in the pitch black.

The flats now have to be fumigated before they can be lived in again.

There was another case last night -a guy was knocked down in the street, injured. Whilst being helped another behind him decided to rob him !

This is not an attack on any government or system. You can keep any text book liberal preachings, it's common human intelligence that this behavour is wrong and against humanity. Any intelligent human being KNOWS instinctively that this is wrong. What is it going to achieve to any cause by attacking the most vulnerable - your neighbours who are no better off than yourself ? None of this is ever justifiable !

If these people hadn't been allowed to get away with this sort of thing for so long that they don't see right from wrong then the problem is the lack of discipline for far too long.

Discipline creates self respect and restraint and therefore respect for others.

In the not too distant past we had many who were far worse off than these kids today in this society, there was none of this. One caller tonight hit the nail on the head, it's money! They all want to get fast money and get anything they want as quickly as they can.

Society will always be unequal, there are many things wrong, but anarchy won't solve anything, especially for the people involved, they might find their lives will be worse after this!

Wouldn't surprise me if the easy availabilty of drugs now doesn't have some contribution either.

 

[ritsuka]

Quite to the contrary, there were political riots in response to police violence in the same place in the past, such as in 1981 and the Broadwater Farm uprising in 1985*. The young black people back then were also called undisciplined animals in need of correction, and no one with power bothered to learn any lessons from that, so things came back to the same point. I've even read about student riots at Oxford in the 19th century, so things have happened before, and it isn't apolitical or ahistorical. Britain has not been this economically unequal since the 1930's (with the minority black community taking the strongest hit), and there was certainly great unrest back then as well.

*This article explains the Broadwater Farm Uprising and it's connection to the current crisis by someone from inside the black community in London, which is the analysis I prefer:
http://anonym.to/http://www.counterpunch.org/austin08092011.html


People already starving in the ghetto are not going to win their demands via a Gandhian hunger strike either. No, in the real world governments like the one the UK has right now game the flawed, pseudo democratic system to pursue their wildly unpopular agenda and do not bend to demonstrations like the ones that have already taken place against their austerity measures. It's easy to preach to the disadvantaged that it is actually their fault that things are the way they are, but those with education and influence are the ones who should be held responsible for not using their power and skills to make things better, to stop the elite economic agenda and extreme violence of the state (which is excused while poor people are expected to act like Gandhi), which those rioting are the greatest victims of.

 

[c750dt]

^ So if I break into your house, set your car ablaze, steal your TV and piss on your furniture, it's okay because I once lived in a poor area and the government doesn't want to give me any handouts.

The fact of the matter is a riot isn't justified. It must also be acknowledged that it's not the government's job to raise a kid. If you're unfit to raise a child on your own, then use birth control or shut your legs! It's ultimately up to the parent to make sure the kid gets a proper start. If you just must pop one out the shoot, put it up for adoption.

If some kid broke into your house, set your car ablaze, tried stealing expensive items, smash furniture and threatened and put in extreme danger family and loved ones, are you going to give a damn about his upbringing or are you going to do what you must to restore personal safety and order?

Act like an ape, society will treat you like an ape. Act like a human, society will treat you like a human. Or, in other words, instead of lashing out with senseless violence, give us reason to believe you're human and deserve a helping hand, not a handout.

EDIT: Ritsuka, I will share your concern with why these kids were able to get to this point; lashing out in such a manner. They most likely were done wrong at some point. However, the difference between them and anyone else who's been done horribly wrong at one time (a.k.a. anyone else) is that the latter moved on and worked for something better whereas the former harbored a chip on the shoulder and decided there's nothing more to do except receive handouts and steal. The ends do not justify the means. You work for something, you help yourself and society. You take and you harm many others for the sole purpose of a selfish gain.

 

[XMan101]

This little clip sums up the type of thing we're hearing. "Good fun" they say!

 

[hawtsean]

Rioting in perspective: I'm pissed at the government so I'm gonna loot from and threaten neighbors and other people totally unrelated to the issue. That'll show them!

They really need discipline. Any hint of a message is lost in the process of purposely making life hell for those who actually contribute to society. This chip on the shoulder attitude that one is entitled is one of the reasons we can't have nice things.

That is the crux of this whole issue, an inappropriate and imagined sense of entitlement. It's been expressed in several other posts that many more people than the rioters are suffering poverty, illness, deprivation, etc. But those folk are not joining the riot. Also previously expressed is the clear idea that innocent middle class folk, who have nothing to do with the supposed cause of the riot, are the ones suffering from the violence. That alone, to my mind, is reason enough to severely punish every single rioter with long jail sentences and public shaming - face and name published in all the media.

But there is a double standard in play here. What would happen if a band of angry citizens whose property had been damaged or stolen, decided to extract a little justice of their own. By virtue of the excuses uttered that appear to justify the rioting, that same justification should allow physical punishment of those identified as perpetrators during the riot. Of course, if a vigilante mob were to target those fools who rioted and beat them bloody, all the apologists for the rioters would turn their coats immediately and scream for the police to take action. Anarchy never resolves any issue, but escalates upward in a violent spiral; and that is what seems to have been overlooked by those who find some reason to justify the riot.

 

[c750dt]

The rioters should just shut up and go back to sipping on their tea and stuffing their faces with spotted dicks.

 

[hawtsean]

This article explains the Broadwater Farm Uprising and it's connection to the current crisis by someone from inside the black community in London, which is the analysis I prefer:

Rather disingenuous of you. Certainly, the "analysis" of a riot from the rioter's POV will always self-justify. So then, that same logic dictates that my preferred analysis is just as righteous and valid (the riot was an excuse to criminally act out without reason), even if my analysis ignores the injustices that festered as a trigger to the riot.

Riots don't spare the innocent. What would happen if your property and safety (and that of your family) were harmed, despite your apologetics and agreeing with the reasons for a riot? I feel certain you'd be singing a drastically different tune.

 

[777]

^ So if I break into your house, set your car ablaze, steal your TV and piss on your furniture, it's okay because I once lived in a poor area and the government doesn't want to give me any handouts.

The fact of the matter is a riot isn't justified. It must also be acknowledged that it's not the government's job to raise a kid. If you're unfit to raise a child on your own, then use birth control or shut your legs! It's ultimately up to the parent to make sure the kid gets a proper start. If you just must pop one out the shoot, put it up for adoption.

If some kid broke into your house, set your car ablaze, tried stealing expensive items, smash furniture and threatened and put in extreme danger family and loved ones, are you going to give a damn about his upbringing or are you going to do what you must to restore personal safety and order?

Act like an ape, society will treat you like an ape. Act like a human, society will treat you like a human. Or, in other words, instead of lashing out with senseless violence, give us reason to believe you're human and deserve a helping hand, not a handout.

EDIT: Ritsuka, I will share your concern with why these kids were able to get to this point; lashing out in such a manner. They most likely were done wrong at some point. However, the difference between them and anyone else who's been done horribly wrong at one time (a.k.a. anyone else) is that the latter moved on and worked for something better whereas the former harbored a chip on the shoulder and decided there's nothing more to do except receive handouts and steal. The ends do not justify the means. You work for something, you help yourself and society. You take and you harm many others for the sole purpose of a selfish gain.

That's where should see that you are indeed well off when you have the skills to do something about your life. If no-one has ever taught you respect others and yourself, nobody has ever shown you compassion,and you don't know how to show it others (because it's seen as weakness), how do you know what is right and wrong? We don't learn such things automatically. Morality isn't inborn in any of us, it has to be taught. If things are bad at home, often you have resources elsewhere too, like in schools and friends, but if it's all the same... where does that leave you? Reality is a subjective matter, so is justice.

Only well-off people are allowed to have children?

 

[c750dt]

I don't say only well-off people should have children. I say you should only have children if you can raise them. If you're a single mom living in section 8 working the front counter of KFC and switch jobs about 4 times a year and have a thing for wine-addicted men who would punch you and walk out the door after sex before even thinking about commitment, then maybe you should have the common decency to not bring a child into that environment. A child requires serious commitment so again, if you can't properly care for the child and make the necessary commitment, then get birth control, use condoms or shut your legs.

 

[777]

I don't say only well-off people should have children. I say you should only have children if you can raise them. If you're a single mom living in section 8 working the front counter of KFC and switch jobs about 4 times a year and have a thing for wine-addicted men who would punch you and walk out the door after sex before even thinking about commitment, then maybe you should have the common decency to not bring a child into that environment.

Often you end up being such after the fact. If you'd have resources, namely money, the future might look very different. In many families, communities etc it's basically an unwritten rule that you won't get rid of the baby, you also might not have the choice at all. And hey, sometimes you think you can really do it and have something nice in your life!

But since the reality often comes up different, should all poor/drug addicted/alcoholic/abused women be sterilised if they can't stop popping up the babies on their own, you know, in the name of common decency?

ETA: And why women? Should those words maybe be addressed to men who should have the common decency to keep their dicks in their pants...

 

[c750dt]

If they're running downhill and have a history of trouble and, as you say, can't stop popping out babies, maybe a tying up of the tubes would be good.

Unless it's a rape, the lady has the ability to say no or to demand use of a condom. It's her vagina and thus her responsibility. I don't advocate shorting someone of their rights; however, I'm against bringing a child into a life no child deserves to be brought into. For the kids who wind up there, I do believe government could do a little more to watch after them. However, the more kids there are who need care, the harder the job is and the lesser the quality. The government is there to make sure we're safe in our own land, not to fix our mistakes and then bear the brunt of blame when they fail to do so.

I understand to many, they start off well enough and hard times come after the fact. Hard times happen to the best of us. Many find ways to make it through and the kids, in those situations, typically have had enough time to see the better in this world. It's not entirely about money though that's important. It's also about being able to make sure you can make the kind of commitment a kid requires. You can't just drive a car without providing any maintenance and then when it breaks, blame the auto maker but if you bring a baby into this world you can't and/or won't support then blame society for the outcome, it's essentially the same thing.

 

[Whisper]

All right, I have tried to not to participate to this side-track of the original conversation, but this just was too much.

If they're running downhill and have a history of trouble and, as you say, can't stop popping out babies, maybe a tying up of the tubes would be good.

Unless it's a rape, the lady has the ability to say no or to demand use of a condom. It's her vagina and thus her responsibility.

Yes, control the women, men has nothing to do with making babies.

Do you really believe that? Do you really believe that every women has the luxury to say no? Yes, it's her body, her vagina, and in theory, her responsibility. The reality is not always the same, unfortunately.

Women = the root of all evil?

I thought this thread was about something else...

 

[yoyo888]

I just cant believe those two girls that are been interviewed in that YouTube clip. How F'ing selfish. They are having a great time. How disgusting. causing vandalism and destruction and not thinking of the consequences. Peoples homes have been destroyed. What would they think if we went around to their place and torched it and all their worldly possessions (including their hoodies). I dont think they would be so happy then.

They have reached my town apparently, but nothing in the town centre. They tried and failed to set alight the new Tesco here..

Get the Army out is what I think and warn then in advance. If you are out and about causing aggravation, YOU WILL BE SHOT!

Or even better still, send all the trouble makers out to Afghanistan to let off their frustrations over there and let them sort out the trouble spots