RIOT!

[gb2000ie]

I might agree and say it's wrong to say nothing has changed: I just don't think it's for the better. From what I've heard racism is one of the underlying reasons here.

If that's true, then why am I seeing predominantly white teens wrecking London? Is that because the looters are not in fact the people in need, but just opportunists? Or because racism is actually not the big issue here?

B.

 

[777]

If that's true, then why am I seeing predominantly white teens wrecking London? Is that because the looters are not in fact the people in need, but just opportunists? Or because racism is actually not the big issue here?

B.

The bigger picture doesn't change even when things get out of hands. What my friend in London said the whole thing started with blacks and chavs (not my words) which supports everything I've written here.

 

[hawtsean]

If that's true, then why am I seeing predominantly white teens wrecking London? Is that because the looters are not in fact the people in need, but just opportunists? Or because racism is actually not the big issue here?

B.

This is the crux of my critique of all the earnest and sincere claims voiced in this forum and elsewhere, regarding the reason(s) for the riot. Everyone seems to see the underdog - the poor and disenfranchised - acting out in a demand for a better life and a more equitable share of the cookie. But the bodies seen doing the damage aren't of that class.

SlimJim wasn't kidding about expensive clothes, footwear, smartphones and such being normal possessions of these "poor" rioters. Several media outlets up this way have done frame and image enhancement of some of the released videos of the melee, and it is fairly easy to spot the model of the Blackberries being used by these malefactors as they trash the city. The real poor can't afford enough to eat, so how would they purchase an expensive smartphone and pay a monthly service plan fee that is worth more than their welfare payments!

Neither do I believe for one second that a bunch of rich, arrogant and spoiled brat teens are "helping out" their poor cousins by doing the burning and looting on their behalf.

 

[ritsuka]

There is still massive institutional racism in the police force, and in places like Tottenham, it is rightfully seen as an outside occupation--the police officers don't live there, and don't treat young black poor folks as part of their community. The police are now allowed to stop and search anyone, with no reason or due process whatsoever, and this is disproportionately used to harass and humiliate the same young black men which rose up when an innocent peer of theirs, Mark Duggan, was murdered by the police who didn't even have the decency to inform his family in the aftermath. A total of 333 people have died in or following police custody over the past 11 years, but no officer has ever been successfully prosecuted.

White people telling black slum dwellers that there is no institutional racism is just like straight people telling us that homophobia and discrimination against LGBT people are a thing of the past. Personally, I choose to rely on the actual community under siege, not David Cameron's spokesperson on answering that question (and on all others, actually.)

 

[hawtsean]

The bigger picture doesn't change even when things get out of hands.

I'm sorry but that statement is patently unacceptable. Things getting out of hand definitely change the entire reasoning for this horrible violent outburst. It is no longer a question of why people are angry, the ones committing mayhem have nothing whatsoever to do with the problem, they are using it as an excuse to commit crimes. If your theory were to be applied universally, than anarchy is acceptable if something sufficiently bothers us. When your home is burned down and your possessions trashed, and your life threatened - even though you did not create someone's burden or spit in their soup, I believe you would not propose that this bigger picture still justifies any level of violence.

 

[hawtsean]

The police are now allowed to stop and search anyone, with no reason or due process whatsoever

That is the current law of the land, not some arbitrary decision by the police themselves. That cannot be cited as something to riot about. If one disagrees with prevailing law, then they need to leave. Criminal acts don't qualify as a defense against laws which one doesn't like. Homeland Security regs in the USA provide exactly the same powers if senior officials need to invoke them. Due process is not a factor.

A total of 333 people have died in or following police custody over the past 11 years, but no officer has ever been successfully prosecuted.

May I ask the source of that statistic. please? And is that a raw number without further breakdown? Someone dieing FOLLOWING police custody could well be due to police brutality,...or other factors for which the police are being blamed but over which they had no control.

Personally, I choose to rely on the actual community under siege, not David Cameron's spokesperson on answering that question (and on all others, actually.)

I'm not certain we have actually heard from those who are truly under siege - but much has certainly been uttered by "sources" purporting to speak on their behalf. I too should like to hear from those who are racially and economically discriminated against, not the hoodlums, not some mouthpiece.

 

[gb2000ie]

The police are now allowed to stop and search anyone, with no reason or due process whatsoever, and this is disproportionately used to harass and humiliate the same young black men which rose up when an innocent peer of theirs, Mark Duggan, was murdered by the police who didn't even have the decency to inform his family in the aftermath.

When someone pulls a convincing replica gun on you and refuses to put it down, is it even SLIGHTLY reasonable to call it murder? Really?

Yes, the gun was un-able to fire, but it was designed to look convincing, and it was being used to threaten police. Put yourself in that officer's shoes for just one second!

White people telling black slum dwellers that there is no institutional racism is just like straight people telling us that homophobia and discrimination against LGBT people are a thing of the past. Personally, I choose to rely on the actual community under siege, not David Cameron's spokesperson on answering that question (and on all others, actually.)

Why do people who rush to make snap judgements and categorise people by race always play the race card?

You have assumed that I am white. How do you know? You have assumed that I am taking the word of David Cameron for what I am saying - I am not!

You are being exceptionally judgemental here, and projecting prejudices on to those of us with a different point of view that are every bit as unfair as any racism that still exists in the police force.

Now - I know there are community officers in the police force assigned to work with ethnic communities, that is a FACT. That did not used to be a fact, it is now a fact, that is progress!

And the person who's word I am taking on the progress made was a black police man who was working as a community police office in a black community in London.

B.

 

[777]

I'm sorry but that statement is patently unacceptable. Things getting out of hand definitely change the entire reasoning for this horrible violent outburst. It is no longer a question of why people are angry, the ones committing mayhem have nothing whatsoever to do with the problem, they are using it as an excuse to commit crimes. If your theory were to be applied universally, than anarchy is acceptable if something sufficiently bothers us. When your home is burned down and your possessions trashed, and your life threatened - even though you did not create someone's burden or spit in their soup, I believe you would not propose that this bigger picture still justifies any level of violence.

By bigger picture I mean the social problems, racism, politics that lead to people reacting this way. It isn't justifying violence when one says they understand how it came to be.

 

[gb2000ie]

It isn't justifying violence when one says they understand how it came to be.

here here!

B.

 

[hawtsean]

When someone pulls a convincing replica gun on you and refuses to put it down, is it even SLIGHTLY reasonable to call it murder? Really?Yes, the gun was un-able to fire, but it was designed to look convincing, and it was being used to threaten police. Put yourself in that officer's shoes for just one second!

That's a common issue with shooting investigations in North America, probably most of Europe as well. The public, and even senior officers who don't do active patrol, are not aware of the split-second decisions that police must make to save lives (their own and others) and defend property. None of this excuses actual brutality - of which there is much, still. But the whole outrage over the shooting is a bunch of bullshit, people whipped up in a frenzy over misreporting and false reporting. As I have said several times, the public tend to exhibit a knee-jerk response, usually anti-authority, when a shooting by a cop is at hand.

If someone points a gun at me, and I am armed, I absolutely will not take the time to invite the gunman to tea in order to inquire after the ballistics capability of his weapon. His ass is gonna get shot after a warning, if he threatens me with his gun, and I have no way to determine the real or non-real status of the weapon. I've gone out on ride-alongs with police officers. I don't mind telling you that I was somewhat nervous when they pulled over a suspicious vehicle at night, on a check of ownership and routine observation. Cops don't have an easy job in any city. All these calls for balanced, truthful coverage of the riot seem to overlook that police are not paid to stand and be targets for punks.

Why do people who rush to make snap judgements and categorise people by race always play the race card?
You have assumed that I am white. How do you know? You have assumed that I am taking the word of David Cameron for what I am saying - I am not!
You are being exceptionally judgemental here, and projecting prejudices on to those of us with a different point of view that are every bit as unfair as any racism that still exists in the police force.

Amazing how the error of judgmentalism creeps into the very attempt to point that out in others.

 

[777]

That is the current law of the land, not some arbitrary decision by the police themselves. That cannot be cited as something to riot about. If one disagrees with prevailing law, then they need to leave. Criminal acts don't qualify as a defense against laws which one doesn't like. Homeland Security regs in the USA provide exactly the same powers if senior officials need to invoke them. Due process is not a factor.

I don't really even know how to say anything to the "if one disagrees with prevailing law, then they need to leave"... I thought laws are made by people and can be changed by people. Something like this is a perfect example of something that would need to be taken seriously by the law makers to decide have they been doing something right or not. Also, I'd say voting for people who are against these kinds of laws is far wiser than leaving. By leaving you achieve absolutely nothing, even less than by rioting.

Even if people have the authority do something it doesn't mean that they need to use it roughly. It just tends to be that people, who police are too, take things too far for many reasons, like some are high on power, some are afraid, some just do as others do... It's not good enough to expect people to use power justly, it has to be followed through too by taking steps to prevent overreacting and other misconducts.

 

[hawtsean]

By bigger picture I mean the social problems, racism, politics that lead to people reacting this way. It isn't justifying violence when one says they understand how it came to be.

I agree, that justification is not automatic when one declares their understanding of something. But that is not what seems to be coming forth. The unfortunate part of saying that one understands how a violent act came to occur is that this statement seems to be sandwiched in with other words that appear to justify the mayhem. Understanding the anger that poverty brings, is not the same thing as saying one understands why disconnected teens who are not part of the situation, are rampaging for the hell of it.

The former is empathy, the latter is foolishness.

 

[gb2000ie]

I don't really even know how to say anything to the "if one disagrees with prevailing law, then they need to leave"... I thought laws are made by people and can be changed by people. Something like this is a perfect example of something that would need to be taken seriously by the law makers to decide have they been doing something right or not. Also, I'd say voting for people who are against these kinds of laws is far wiser than leaving. By leaving you achieve absolutely nothing, even less than by rioting.

Even if people have the authority do something it doesn't mean that they need to use it roughly. It just tends to be that people, who police are too, take things too far for many reasons, like some are high on power, some are afraid, some just do as others do... It's not good enough to expect people to use power justly, it has to be followed through too by taking steps to prevent overreacting and other misconducts.

Saddly the normal reaction from any nation hit by terrorism is to give the state draconian powers. I disagree strongly with the UK laws, but it could be worse, the UK didn't opt for a PATRIOT act.

The increase in police power after 7-7 was very popular, and not just by the upper class or the police. People were horrified at the carnage, and wanted a robust response. Saddly, they have yet again proven that laws written in a haze of haste and emotion tend to be very bad laws.

B.

 

[hawtsean]

I don't really even know how to say anything to the "if one disagrees with prevailing law, then they need to leave"... I thought laws are made by people and can be changed by people.

In this particular cirstance, parliamentary procedure does not take place, as provision is already voted in by a majority, for emergency powers to be invoked for the purpose of maintaining order. This is true in the UK, the USA, Canada and probably other nations as well.

Even if people have the authority do something it doesn't mean that they need to use it roughly. It just tends to be that people, who police are too, take things too far for many reasons, like some are high on power, some are afraid, some just do as others do... It's not good enough to expect people to use power justly, it has to be followed through too by taking steps to prevent overreacting and other misconducts.

Okay, no real disagreement here. But aren't you accepting hearsay when you state that police are using (or might be using) their special emergency authority too roughly? Such emergency search and detain powers do need to be executed without a please and thank you. The very nature of the violence that causes the need for such extraordinary powers, mitigates against long discussions before the fact with a person being dealt with by the police. The specific training and expectation is that the citizen either cooperates immediately or is dealt with as a potential suspect. If one has never seen such an occurrence in their city or town, I expect it would be frightening and shocking.

I'll cite the example of being suddenly and innocently being dropped into such a maelstrom of violence......the concept of correct application of authority ceases to be academic and quickly devolves into survival.

 

[777]

I agree, that justification is not automatic when one declares their understanding of something. But that is not what seems to be coming forth. The unfortunate part of saying that one understands how a violent act came to occur is that this statement seems to be sandwiched in with other words that appear to justify the mayhem. Understanding the anger that poverty brings, is not the same thing as saying one understands why disconnected teens who are not part of the situation, are rampaging for the hell of it.

The former is empathy, the latter is foolishness.

I don't see how the so called disconnected teens are not part of the situation. I see it as a part of the whole change in the culture that promotes selfish behaviour, competition and winning above anything else. Isn't it said that you reap what you sow... though people tend to go along with things that they normally wouldn't if there's enough other people doing it. Who knows.

I don't know where I might have written something that seems approving of violence, whether it's by rioters or police. I disagree with a lot what has been said in this thread, and anything I've written has been to answer those points. A lot seems to derive from perceiving individual versus society in different ways, to which the "reap - sow" is also directed to. If everything is just about individuals, not social groups or the society as a whole, then I don't see how a situation like this could be solved at all. Some people are punished and things continue the way they were until the next time - just as it has before.

 

[hawtsean]

Saddly the normal reaction from any nation hit by terrorism is to give the state draconian powers. I disagree strongly with the UK laws, but it could be worse, the UK didn't opt for a PATRIOT act.

The increase in police power after 7-7 was very popular, and not just by the upper class or the police. People were horrified at the carnage, and wanted a robust response. Saddly, they have yet again proven that laws written in a haze of haste and emotion tend to be very bad laws.

B.

I daresay that compulsory search and detention is not as draconian as the possible steps under Patriot Act of the USA. In fact, no one in the UK is being arbitrarily jailed unless they are on the street and acting out in an obvious way as part of the mayhem.

In Canada years ago in the Province of Quebec, soldiers patrolled the streets of Montreal, as part of the War Measures Act. This was, in October of 1970, the Canadian Federal government response to acts of terrorism (bombs killing several), apprehended threats against government officials, and finally the assassination of a Provincial Cabinet Minister. The terrorists were violent nationalists and avowed anarchists who demanded separation of predominantly French Quebec from the rest of Canada. Thousands were jailed without warrants, and held indefinitely under that Act of law. A number of journalists who chose to take sides with the terrorists were jailed as co-conspirators and seditionists.

In the end, almost all were released within 45 days, other than the few who were actually guilty of making and planting bombs. At first, Canada reeled at the thought of martial law, and the Prime Minister (Pierre Trudeau) was accused of taking dictatorship over the land. It wasn't until after a dozen hidden 'cells' were discovered around the city, where explosives had been cached by the ton along with other weapons, and the true nature of the apprehended insurrection was made public, that most Canadians, including a vast majority of French citizens in Quebec, expressed relief that their government took swift action to quell the danger.

Just an example from relatively recent history, less than 50 years ago in what is called one of the most civilized nations of the world..

 

[777]

In this particular cirstance, parliamentary procedure does not take place, as provision is already voted in by a majority, for emergency powers to be invoked for the purpose of maintaining order. This is true in the UK, the USA, Canada and probably other nations as well.

Okay, no real disagreement here. But aren't you accepting hearsay when you state that police are using (or might be using) their special emergency authority too roughly? Such emergency search and detain powers do need to be executed without a please and thank you. The very nature of the violence that causes the need for such extraordinary powers, mitigates against long discussions before the fact with a person being dealt with by the police. The specific training and expectation is that the citizen either cooperates immediately or is dealt with as a potential suspect. If one has never seen such an occurrence in their city or town, I expect it would be frightening and shocking.

I'll cite the example of being suddenly and innocently being dropped into such a maelstrom of violence......the concept of correct application of authority ceases to be academic and quickly devolves into survival.

According to my friend and some websites (also newspapers) I've been reading the police has been using for example the stop and search in situations where the people it's been done to and others around them have felt that the only reason they were stopped was their skin colour, not anything they have done. Of course now we can say that it's relative, the people don't know what the police feels etc etc... it's an endless guessing game. But what matters how people take the actions, and obviously the police hasn't corrected the way they behave or explained whys, which leaves people to guess.

 

[slimjim]

Well to put some perspective on the demographics of those involved:

Obviously these are likely to change as further arrests and charges are made but early statistics indicate 33% of those arrested so far are under 20; 36% between 20 - 24 ; 13% are 25 - 29; 11% are 29 - 34 and 7% above 35. 95% are male.

There have been charges against kids as young as 11yrs old for stealing and criminal damage. But as can be seen 31% are above 25yrs, and 67% are over 20yrs. Some of those detailed on the BBC report are working, one 29yr old male was a child mentor in a primary school and one 19yr old female student is apparently from a multi-millionaire family.

The worst statistic coming out of all this is that 5 people have been killed.. 3 killed in a hit-and-run in Birmingham; a man was shot in the head in Croydon and a 67yr old man who confronted rioters in London and was attacked has since died in hospital.

 

[hawtsean]

Of course now we can say that it's relative, the people don't know what the police feels etc etc... it's an endless guessing game. But what matters how people take the actions, and obviously the police hasn't corrected the way they behave or explained whys, which leaves people to guess.

In cirstances such as the need for emergency police powers, it is both dangerous and counter-productive to explain why. If a law is enacted, and the police are the official enforcers of that law, then any person who claims the right of citizenship is obligated to presume that the police are doing as ordered. Debate can ensue after the fact, not in the street when police are attempting to restore order and protect the innocent. If a rioting mob needs an explanation of why they are being arrested, then they need more than a stay in jail to fix their lack of common sense.

 

[hawtsean]

There have been charges against kids as young as 11yrs old for stealing and criminal damage. But as can be seen 31% are above 25yrs, and 67% are over 20yrs. Some of those detailed on the BBC report are working, one 29yr old male was a child mentor in a primary school and one 19yr old female student is apparently from a multi-millionaire family.

These are most definitely NOT the poor and deprived class. Hoodlums and thugs for the sake of acting out, and they should all be severely punished as examples. A child mentor in a primary school, willfully rioting, is beyond comprehension. How would he ever expect to be hired again, if that's the level of his moral character?