Notices
Results 1 to 57 of 57
Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By kojax
  • 1 Post By Dave Wilson

Thread: The UK Riots: Why Did They Happen?

  1. #1 The UK Riots: Why Did They Happen? 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    The widely held view concerning the recent unrest across the UK is that the rioting represented criminal acts committed by irresponsible thugs. The rioting had nothing to do with valid political protest but was simply opportunistic criminal behaviour.

    The Attorney General went further, as did others, in suggesting that the rioting had been orchestrated by criminal gangs. The suggestion is that a strong criminal element had invited others onto the streets to get involved in the rioting via social networking.

    Indeed the same allegation had been made in the case of the Los Angeles riots of 1992. The six nights of rioting in L.A. had been sparked off by the police beating of Rodney King.

    However this was only part of the problem. There was also a general perception that the police themselves were not doing enough to stop the rioting. Politicians who took to the streets after the worst of the rioting were bombarded with the question, “Where were the police when we needed them?” Of course the police made their excuses but if you watch the footage of the first few nights of the unrest the police do seem to hold back somewhat and the crowds of youths take delight in mocking them.

    Also the news footage covering the worst of the rioting on Monday evening shows a deplorable response from the fire service. We see buildings set on fire and nothing is done for an ordinate amount of time. Eventually the whole building is ablaze in a huge conflagration and adjacent buildings are also beginning to catch fire. It is only then that the fire services eventually turn up when it is far too late and then make the excuse that it is difficult for them to do anything because of the heat of the blaze. But if they had turned up earlier they wouldn’t have had one tenth of the work to do in putting the fire out.

    But what really made a big impression on myself was the Home Secretary, Teresa May’s reaction the day after the mayhem of Monday evening. Rather than answering calls for tougher action from the police she instead spoke of ‘policing by consent’ and insisted that current police methods were more than adequate to cope with the current situation. ‘Policing by consent’? How does that help in dealing with arsonists, people who throw bricks at police lines and who also mug innocent passersby?

    The TV news programme Russia Today suggested that the rioting was eventually largely quelled by neighbourhood vigilante groups and not by the police. And it seems that as many as five vigilantes lost their lives while attempting to protect their livelihoods.

    Now we are being treated to the spectacle of huge inconsistencies in the sentencing. While some are being let off apparently lightly, others are receiving a six month prison sentence just for stealing bottled water valued at £3.50. Some rioters and looters are threatened with loss of social housing which may make many of them homeless. But considering the circumstances which are said to have sparked off the riots is this really a wise thing to do? When people have nothing to lose they are far more likely to do wanton damage and in the end prison may at least offer a bed for the night.

    The question that comes to my mind is, if a gang culture was responsible for the UK riots, then what actually are these gangs and what do they do? Do people join gangs just to look ‘cool’? Or do they just sell drugs? If ordinary street gangs are able and willing to co-ordinate several days of sustained mayhem as is claimed then as far as they are concerned there must surely be something large at stake that is worth the effort?

    So many questions raised in the media remain unanswered.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    Welfare cuts and tuition costs are partly to blame.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by gottspieler View Post
    Welfare cuts and tuition costs are partly to blame.
    I doubt many of the rioters were hoping to go to university. I don't doubt that many of them are unemployed, however.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Nirgendwo und Ueberall
    Posts
    1,296
    You'd be surprised. Many people go to school in the US for the sole reason of obtaining a refund check (in the amount of $2,000-3,000 a semester after tuition and books are paid for). I don't know how the system works in the UK, yet I'm certain that many people from all walks of life want to attend University, albeit for different reasons. I know many people who would attend simply to have some time away from their often abusive family lives.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I doubt these riots, the LA ones or riots just about anywhere have much if anything to with gangs. It's just an excuse used by failed governments to vilify their unhappy citizens who's taking things to the streets.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    The police are probably afraid they'll be put on trial for whatever tactics they employ to quell the violence, more than they are afraid for their lives. Everyone wants them to "do something" until they pull out a gun, or even just a taser or pepper spray and start actually using it. Then it's all "police brutality!" "police brutality!!". What are they supposed to do? Politely approach the rioters, and ask them nicely if they would please stop?

    It's just an impossible situation. I'd hate to have to be in their shoes.
    Treanor1 likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I doubt these riots, the LA ones or riots just about anywhere have much if anything to with gangs. It's just an excuse used by failed governments to vilify their unhappy citizens who's taking things to the streets.
    What?? The failed governments have started the riots so they can have an excuse to vilify their unhappy citizens?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    There are two alternative explanations to the 'gangland' thesis:

    1. That the recent riots across the UK are a natural development from the student riots earlier on in the year. It has been noted that there was a strong youth element in the recent riots. Perhaps rioting has become a 'craze' amongst young adults?

    2. That the unrest is a follow on from the unrest in the Arab world where social networking was used extensively to rally protesters.


    What are people's opinion on this second point. Are the recent protests in the Arab world different or did the protesters also resort to what the state would describe as 'hooliganism'? In Libya, for example, the protesters were branded as little more than 'drug addicts'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,037
    Policing by consent, the police have my consent, and the consent of many other law abiding citizens to use plastic bullets on this scum. The Social Engineers coupled with the European Human Rights Law, is destroying this country.
    msafwan likes this.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    There's a strong youth movement in most riots. Social networking is just another form of communication, a tool.

    What?? The failed governments have started the riots so they can have an excuse to vilify their unhappy citizens?
    Of course not. But almost by definition riots are a symptom of a failure in government. After the riots stop (whether by force, boredom or something else), the government needs to take a hard look at the actual causes, not just the superficial ones getting press now (e.g. youth, twitter, gang thuggery etc), to prevent another episode.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Policing by consent, the police have my consent, and the consent of many other law abiding citizens to use plastic bullets on this scum. The Social Engineers coupled with the European Human Rights Law, is destroying this country.
    I agree that the police were far too lenient with the rioters and this was at least half the cause of the problem. What the police were doing is in need of explanation as is the Home Secretary's position on 'policing by consent'.

    However I would stop short on using plastic bullets which were controversially deployed in Northern Ireland. Plastic bullets are actually dangerous.

    Water cannon may have worked for quickly dispersing a group of rioters from a confined area but a tactic that was being used was for the crowd to disperse and reassemble elsewhere. So in the end water cannon may only have been partially successful.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Plastic bullets are actually dangerous.
    So is setting fire to buildings.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Plastic bullets are actually dangerous.
    So is setting fire to buildings.
    True.

    But the plastic bullets may not necessarily be targeted at those suspected of arson only.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Policing by consent, the police have my consent, and the consent of many other law abiding citizens to use plastic bullets on this scum. The Social Engineers coupled with the European Human Rights Law, is destroying this country.
    I agree that the police were far too lenient with the rioters and this was at least half the cause of the problem. What the police were doing is in need of explanation as is the Home Secretary's position on 'policing by consent'.

    However I would stop short on using plastic bullets which were controversially deployed in Northern Ireland. Plastic bullets are actually dangerous.

    Water cannon may have worked for quickly dispersing a group of rioters from a confined area but a tactic that was being used was for the crowd to disperse and reassemble elsewhere. So in the end water cannon may only have been partially successful.
    And that attitude is exactly why your police did nothing. Either they have to waste their time using ineffective tactics that won't achieve anything, or the citizenry will vilify them (rather than the thugs who rioted) after the fact.

    In hindsight, I'm sure it will always appear that they could have shown up with their riot shield in one hand, and a feather pillow in the other, and hit rioters over the head with the pillow to quash the riot.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Policing by consent, the police have my consent, and the consent of many other law abiding citizens to use plastic bullets on this scum. The Social Engineers coupled with the European Human Rights Law, is destroying this country.
    I agree that the police were far too lenient with the rioters and this was at least half the cause of the problem. What the police were doing is in need of explanation as is the Home Secretary's position on 'policing by consent'.

    However I would stop short on using plastic bullets which were controversially deployed in Northern Ireland. Plastic bullets are actually dangerous.

    Water cannon may have worked for quickly dispersing a group of rioters from a confined area but a tactic that was being used was for the crowd to disperse and reassemble elsewhere. So in the end water cannon may only have been partially successful.
    And that attitude is exactly why your police did nothing. Either they have to waste their time using ineffective tactics that won't achieve anything, or the citizenry will vilify them (rather than the thugs who rioted) after the fact.

    In hindsight, I'm sure it will always appear that they could have shown up with their riot shield in one hand, and a feather pillow in the other, and hit rioters over the head with the pillow to quash the riot.
    Absolutely correct, if plastic bullets had been used by the police on day one, most of the trouble would have been over by day one. I am not talking about one or two baton rounds being fired, I am talking about thousands of baton rounds being fired. The phrase " Shock And Awe " springs to mind. In all probability, if this tactic had been used in London, and was available every where else in the UK, the copycat riots that followed in other cities would not have happened. The Liberal Elite that infest our institutions at the highest levels need to be thrown out onto the streets. The very streets that these people have handed over to thugs and scum. We need to reclaim our streets, and we will.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    2
    Just like in the LA riots (I was there), it's just a matter of frustration bubbling up and waiting for a spark. Eventually if enough bad things happen to people and the people around them it all adds up.

    ----------------
    "Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you will get."
    kunma@mail.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Wilson View Post
    Policing by consent, the police have my consent, and the consent of many other law abiding citizens to use plastic bullets on this scum. The Social Engineers coupled with the European Human Rights Law, is destroying this country.
    I agree that the police were far too lenient with the rioters and this was at least half the cause of the problem. What the police were doing is in need of explanation as is the Home Secretary's position on 'policing by consent'.

    However I would stop short on using plastic bullets which were controversially deployed in Northern Ireland. Plastic bullets are actually dangerous.

    Water cannon may have worked for quickly dispersing a group of rioters from a confined area but a tactic that was being used was for the crowd to disperse and reassemble elsewhere. So in the end water cannon may only have been partially successful.
    And that attitude is exactly why your police did nothing. Either they have to waste their time using ineffective tactics that won't achieve anything, or the citizenry will vilify them (rather than the thugs who rioted) after the fact.

    In hindsight, I'm sure it will always appear that they could have shown up with their riot shield in one hand, and a feather pillow in the other, and hit rioters over the head with the pillow to quash the riot.
    Absolutely correct, if plastic bullets had been used by the police on day one, most of the trouble would have been over by day one. I am not talking about one or two baton rounds being fired, I am talking about thousands of baton rounds being fired. The phrase " Shock And Awe " springs to mind. In all probability, if this tactic had been used in London, and was available every where else in the UK, the copycat riots that followed in other cities would not have happened. The Liberal Elite that infest our institutions at the highest levels need to be thrown out onto the streets. The very streets that these people have handed over to thugs and scum. We need to reclaim our streets, and we will.
    I feel the situation is becoming polarized somewhat.

    On the one hand feather pillows are being suggested and then 'thousands of baton rounds' of plastic bullets.

    I detect someone leaning ever so slightly to the right taking the opportunity to criticize liberals (yet again!), when in actual fact the correct action would have been somewhere in the middle.

    Don't forget heavy handedness from the police can actually provoke riots, and I am thinking of the beating of Rodney King, the shooting of Mark Duggan (still under investigation) and the alleged beating of the 17 year old girl at the protest demo at Tottenham shortly after.

    The problem is you lot have such short memories.

    And with the police apparently pointlessly lashing out every now and then it is no wonder they get into such problems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Alright. Let's consider some middle of the road possibilities.

    1) - Police use a high pressure water hose on the rioters.

    Outcome: One rioter in one riot falls down, gets a concussion, and dies of complications before they reach the hospital.
    Conclusion: Everyone hates the police. They are remembered to have been worse than the protesters.

    2) - Police use tear gas on the crowd.

    Outcome: A single asthmatic person in one crowd inhales the gas and chokes to death.
    Conclusion: Everyone hates the police. They are remembered to have been worse than the protesters.

    3) - Police use clubs

    Outcome: A large number of both protesters and police are injured. The tactic makes little difference, because it's not sufficiently asymmetric to give the police a meaningful edge over the crowd.

    Conclusion: The fact the police themselves sustained injuries calms some of the public outcry. However, the riots still remain out of hand.


    Are there any other tactics you would like to consider?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Alright. Let's consider some middle of the road possibilities.

    1) - Police use a high pressure water hose on the rioters.

    Outcome: One rioter in one riot falls down, gets a concussion, and dies of complications before they reach the hospital.
    Conclusion: Everyone hates the police. They are remembered to have been worse than the protesters.

    2) - Police use tear gas on the crowd.

    Outcome: A single asthmatic person in one crowd inhales the gas and chokes to death.
    Conclusion: Everyone hates the police. They are remembered to have been worse than the protesters.

    3) - Police use clubs

    Outcome: A large number of both protesters and police are injured. The tactic makes little difference, because it's not sufficiently asymmetric to give the police a meaningful edge over the crowd.

    Conclusion: The fact the police themselves sustained injuries calms some of the public outcry. However, the riots still remain out of hand.


    Are there any other tactics you would like to consider?
    Don't blame me, it's not my fault.

    Now let's be honest. What impression does it make on your mind when you see protesters being hit by police batons until they fall to the ground, protesters being knocked off their feet by water canons and protesters running from fired tear gas cannisters?

    Do you smile with glee and think what a wonderful world we live in?

    I bet not.

    It's always an unpleasant sight but something has to be done to maintain some semblance of order.

    However this 'something' clearly wasn't done with the recent unrest in the UK and the rioters got the upper hand. Seeing their opportunity the rioting quickly spread to other cities outside of London. For a while the whole country was getting a little nervous.

    I am not an expert on crowd control I admit, but clearly something was lacking as far as the police response was concerned.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    27
    A Public Service Announcement

    *Image removed - KALSTER
    Seriously?
    Last edited by KALSTER; August 17th, 2011 at 02:03 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Gustav, that seems inappropriate. You appear to be supporting those assholes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Don't blame me, it's not my fault.

    Now let's be honest. What impression does it make on your mind when you see protesters being hit by police batons until they fall to the ground, protesters being knocked off their feet by water canons and protesters running from fired tear gas cannisters?

    Do you smile with glee and think what a wonderful world we live in?

    I bet not.

    It's always an unpleasant sight but something has to be done to maintain some semblance of order.
    I think that's the one biggest problem with democracy. It's not that unqualified people are making decisions. It's that the public never wants to have to make the hard decisions. They want an elected official to make it, and then they'll promptly vote that guy out for being too "defeatist", and giving in to necessity rather than somehow managing to achieve their fairy tale.

    The smartest political move available to the police is the one they took. They stood back and let it happen. The person who made that call might still lose his position, but at least he won't be public enemy #1 when he steps down, like what probably would have happened to his career if he had authorized the fire hose/tear gas/clubs/plastic bullets option.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    As riots go these were extremely mild. In most placed these would get virtually no press coverage. UK should put that into perspective somewhat before bringing down any hammer.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Don't blame me, it's not my fault.

    Now let's be honest. What impression does it make on your mind when you see protesters being hit by police batons until they fall to the ground, protesters being knocked off their feet by water canons and protesters running from fired tear gas cannisters?

    Do you smile with glee and think what a wonderful world we live in?

    I bet not.

    It's always an unpleasant sight but something has to be done to maintain some semblance of order.
    I think that's the one biggest problem with democracy. It's not that unqualified people are making decisions. It's that the public never wants to have to make the hard decisions. They want an elected official to make it, and then they'll promptly vote that guy out for being too "defeatist", and giving in to necessity rather than somehow managing to achieve their fairy tale.

    The smartest political move available to the police is the one they took. They stood back and let it happen. The person who made that call might still lose his position, but at least he won't be public enemy #1 when he steps down, like what probably would have happened to his career if he had authorized the fire hose/tear gas/clubs/plastic bullets option.
    In answer to your first point, you are very likely saying the exact same thing kojax. Don't you have your own fairy tale?

    On the second point, this very much sounds like giving in to gang intimidation. An individual 'on the street' was interviewed on TV the other day who claimed that the local police had given free license to the local gang on condition that they didn't go anywhere near a single police officer. This had apparently been in response to an unarmed officer having a gun waved in his face by a gang member.

    And while we are on the subject an opinion was made by a BBC TV journalist that the gang members responsible for the rioting were being treated lightly but everyone else was being made an example of. But this may just have of been a rhetorical question.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    As riots go these were extremely mild. In most placed these would get virtually no press coverage. UK should put that into perspective somewhat before bringing down any hammer.
    Yes, and I couldn't help noticing that you don't actually live in the UK.What was the coverage like in the US?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I don't know. I don't watch the major news outlets. I can tell you this: When you've still got tens of thousands of your young people committed to another country who looses more than 70 lives in the same day (Iraq last week), some of your own riots kills dozens (Rodney king riots killed over 50) and you loose a dozen or so just during Halloween "celebrations," its hard to get upset about the comparatively small amount of unrest in the UK. I don't think I'm being dismissive and have sympathy for the families of those killed and property owners who's stuff was burnt down, but the UK need not sacrifice their very freedoms by over reacting to this small amount of violence and turn their efforts to figure out and repair the root causes before something really bad happens.
    Last edited by Lynx_Fox; August 17th, 2011 at 04:57 PM.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    What was the coverage like in the US?
    They gave a lot of air time to the video of that dude stealing stuff from the mugging victim's backpack. Man, that was cold.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I don't know. I don't watch the major news outlets. I can tell you this: When you've still got tens of thousands of your young people committed to another country who looses more than 70 lives in the same day (Iraq last week), some of your own riots kills dozens (Rodney king riots killed over 50) and you loose a dozen or so just during Halloween "celebrations," its hard to get upset about the comparatively small amount of unrest in the UK. I don't think I'm being dismissive and have sympathy for the families of those killed and property owners who's stuff was burnt down, but the UK need not sacrifice their very freedoms by over reacting to this small amount of violence and turn their efforts to figure out and repair the root causes before something really bad happens.
    I think the chaos is more problematic than the death toll. We don't want thugs just roaming about feeling like they're free to act out whenever, and however they want all the time. Then a common citizen would have to live their whole life in constant fear or being the next one the thugs go after.

    Your basic freedoms don't exist if you can't enforce them. If all it takes is inadvertently saying the local gang leader has a bad haircut, and you and your girlfriend get cornered by a bunch of armed thugs and beaten down, then you've lost the freedom of speech in a way much more fundamental than anything the government is likely to do. Freedom matters more than life. Everyone dies sooner or later. But if you give up your freedoms, then you're giving them up for your children and their children after them. Ultimately a larger number of people are affected by that decision than the number that are affected if you choose instead to kill or otherwise deter whoever is trying to deprive you of those freedoms.

    Realistically, there will always be a certain portion of society that doesn't consent to granting others their basic freedoms. You can't change their mind without thought police, but you can change their actions with the right amount of force.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    [

    In answer to your first point, you are very likely saying the exact same thing kojax. Don't you have your own fairy tale?
    In my fairy tale, the police don't use plastic bullets. They use real ones.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    I reject your very characteristic of the protestors which you've implied are being all thugs. Good people of conscience sometimes take to the streets and get caught up in the group mentality that leads to bad things happening to get a nations attention.


    Now I'm fully in agreement that those guilty of damage, injuring others and killing need to be prosecuted--but it shouldn't be in monkey trails, disproportional to their individual crimes or otherwise tainted by the general condemnation that everyone involved is "just a thug."

    Was Samuel Adams a thug because he signaled the Boston Tea Party? Or was he a good man who willingly incited civil disobedience and destruction of property to send a clear message to his nation? Like back then, is UK going to listen now or ignore the root causes and hope it doesn't grow into something far worst?
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I reject your very characteristic of the protestors which you've implied are being all thugs. Good people of conscience sometimes take to the streets and get caught up in the group mentality that leads to bad things happening to get a nations attention.


    Now I'm fully in agreement that those guilty of damage, injuring others and killing need to be prosecuted--but it shouldn't be in monkey trails, disproportional to their individual crimes or otherwise tainted by the general condemnation that everyone involved is "just a thug."

    Was Samuel Adams a thug because he signaled the Boston Tea Party? Or was he a good man who willingly incited civil disobedience and destruction of property to send a clear message to his nation? Like back then, is UK going to listen now or ignore the root causes and hope it doesn't grow into something far worst?
    And I reject your characterization. What do you think they are protesting? Systematic police brutality? That is laughable. The UK actually goes way, way out of its way to coddle lawbreakers. There is no legitimate protest going on, just thuggery.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    It's people who mistake bad economic conditions for injustice. Entitlements blurr the lines between the two, and then when the government starts to come up short of supply for all the wonderful gifts the people expect to have bestowed upon them, people mistake inability to deliver for wanton, malicious, and deliberate refusal to deliver.

    I don't have respect for people running around and breaking things because they're mad that they themselves were foolish enough to demand the impossible and didn't get it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    27



    A great deal has been made over the past few days of the greed of the rioters for consumer goods, not least by Rotherham MP Denis MacShane who accurately remarked, “What the looters wanted was for a few minutes to enter the world of Sloane Street consumption.” This from a man who notoriously claimed £5,900 for eight laptops. Of course, as an MP he obtained these laptops legally through his expenses.

    Yesterday, the veteran Labour MP Gerald Kaufman asked the Prime Minister to consider how these rioters can be “reclaimed” by society. Yes, this is indeed the same Gerald Kaufman who submitted a claim for three months’ expenses totalling £14,301.60, which included £8,865 for a Bang & Olufsen television.

    Or take the Salford MP Hazel Blears, who has been loudly calling for draconian action against the looters. I find it very hard to make any kind of ethical distinction between Blears’s expense cheating and tax avoidance, and the straight robbery carried out by the looters.
    (link)
    Attached Images
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I don't know. I don't watch the major news outlets. I can tell you this: When you've still got tens of thousands of your young people committed to another country who looses more than 70 lives in the same day (Iraq last week), some of your own riots kills dozens (Rodney king riots killed over 50) and you loose a dozen or so just during Halloween "celebrations," its hard to get upset about the comparatively small amount of unrest in the UK. I don't think I'm being dismissive and have sympathy for the families of those killed and property owners who's stuff was burnt down, but the UK need not sacrifice their very freedoms by over reacting to this small amount of violence and turn their efforts to figure out and repair the root causes before something really bad happens.
    As a soldier it seems you are a little blase' when it comes to death and destruction!

    It may or may not seem a little ironic but one of the rioters who was prosecuted had recently signed up for the army.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Dishing out disproportionate sentences for comparatively minor offences is one thing but what about David Cameron and Boris Johnson's role in the notorious Bullingdon Club? The club has a reputation for smashing things up during their drunken get together's.

    Bullingdon Club - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    I don't know. I don't watch the major news outlets. I can tell you this: When you've still got tens of thousands of your young people committed to another country who looses more than 70 lives in the same day (Iraq last week), some of your own riots kills dozens (Rodney king riots killed over 50) and you loose a dozen or so just during Halloween "celebrations," its hard to get upset about the comparatively small amount of unrest in the UK. I don't think I'm being dismissive and have sympathy for the families of those killed and property owners who's stuff was burnt down, but the UK need not sacrifice their very freedoms by over reacting to this small amount of violence and turn their efforts to figure out and repair the root causes before something really bad happens.
    As a soldier it seems you are a little blase' when it comes to death and destruction!

    It may or may not seem a little ironic but one of the rioters who was prosecuted had recently signed up for the army.
    Probably having real bullets shot at you does put things in perspective. Also, I don't think it's fair to smear the Army on the basis of a person who had merely signed up. The military is good a place where many young men go to learn discipline, but the process only begins after they report for duty. That's one of the indirect services the military provides. Sometimes people are actually even given a straight up option by a judge: go to jail, or join the army. Hopefully that rioter will learn a thing or two, if he's actually allowed to go through with it.

    I don't think the destruction is the big concern, though. We're talking about a country that used to get hit by bombing raids during WWII. This is probably nothing to them. It's the idea of a mass of grown men acting like little children and throwing a tantrum because they can't get what they want, and then.... turning around and expecting to be treated with respect? Like they're not children?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Guess what? No police bullets, plastic or metal, no water cannons, and the riots are over. I have just returned from England and no one, absolutely no one I met or spoke, and no one on the news reports thought extreme violence by the police would make things better. Only fools think that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I don't think the destruction is the big concern, though. We're talking about a country that used to get hit by bombing raids during WWII. This is probably nothing to them.
    I live in the UK and can tell you that this is just nonsense.

    You can't compare the recent rioting and looting to the Blitz. Hitler's bombing of London could never justify any wanton acts of arson at all.


    300px-Stpaulsblitz.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    It's people who mistake bad economic conditions for injustice.
    As long as only the mistaken are blameworthy. The people who correctly observe that their bad economic conditions are consequences of injustice get cut a lot of slack, right?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    There are two alternative explanations to the 'gangland' thesis:

    1. That the recent riots across the UK are a natural development from the student riots earlier on in the year. It has been noted that there was a strong youth element in the recent riots. Perhaps rioting has become a 'craze' amongst young adults?

    2. That the unrest is a follow on from the unrest in the Arab world where social networking was used extensively to rally protesters.


    What are people's opinion on this second point. Are the recent protests in the Arab world different or did the protesters also resort to what the state would describe as 'hooliganism'? In Libya, for example, the protesters were branded as little more than 'drug addicts'.
    I think the similarity between the 'Arab Spring' and what we saw in the U.K. was dissatisfaction/skepticism with the PTB. Unlike Libya this isn't about throwing out a dictator but I think a lot of people, and not just the 'youth,' are skeptical of the ability of their leadership to do them good. In many ways I agree with them although destruction of property, arson, and other mayhem is where I draw the line. I'm surprised we are not seeing more of this kind of thing. All one needs is a spark, the internet to rally the masses, that "group mentality" Lynx_Fox alluded to, and you have what we all saw.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I don't think the destruction is the big concern, though. We're talking about a country that used to get hit by bombing raids during WWII. This is probably nothing to them.
    I live in the UK and can tell you that this is just nonsense.

    You can't compare the recent rioting and looting to the Blitz. Hitler's bombing of London could never justify any wanton acts of arson at all.


    300px-Stpaulsblitz.jpg



    Moderator: Why did my image of the Blitz not show in my previous post? The new forum layout looks a bit doddery.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by 'galaxender"
    The widely held view concerning the recent unrest across the UK is that the rioting represented criminal acts committed by irresponsible thugs. The rioting had nothing to do with valid political protest but was simply opportunistic criminal behaviour.
    That was also a widely held view across Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Libya, etc.

    It begs a question, though: what was the "opportunity" that these criminals took advantage of? If the riot itself was just criminals and thugs, I mean.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    what was the "opportunity" that these criminals took advantage of? If the riot itself was just criminals and thugs, I mean.
    The opportunity was the overwhelming numbers of rioters and the limited number of police in the first few hours. The individuals were not necessarily criminals until they stole something. I watched some of this on British TV. One youth said to a reporter something like "if there's a chance for a free telly I'd be stupid not take it". There was no political motive; they simply saw others stealing stuff and saw how easy it was so they jumped in.

    One complaint voiced on a radio call-in program was that there are no longer any neighborhood beat cops. Policing in Britain is accomplished by CCTV, which means for the most part thieves can get away with the goods but are likely to be tracked down when the police review the tapes (if they use tapes). In other words, police have given up on prevention before the fact and rely on punishment after the fact. As a sort of illustration of how policing works these days, my daughter and son in law rented a car in London (bad idea - I only ever rent one to get out of London). After returning home to the USA they received a ticket in the mail. Apparently they had managed to drive the wrong way up a one-way street and were unaware of it until they got the ticket. Not a policeman in sight, but they were caught on CCTV.

    The police chief also admitted that they made a mistake in applying riot control tactics instead of apprehending criminals.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    "what was the "opportunity" that these criminals took advantage of? If the riot itself was just criminals and thugs, I mean."


    The opportunity was the overwhelming numbers of rioters and the limited number of police in the first few hours. The individuals were not necessarily criminals until they stole something.
    So we're back to the beginning. Clearly the riots were not, in the beginning, just a bunch of thugs and criminals.

    And comparing the whole thing with US riots, it seemed pretty civilized. If that's the kind of riots you get by having wimp police, the US should look into modifying its police forces accordingly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury View Post
    police have given up on prevention before the fact and rely on punishment after the fact
    This bothers me. Why do we need a representative of the police force to look us in the eye and tell us what we're doing is wrong in order for us to avoid doing wrong?

    Does it matter that they are apprehended after committing the crime? Yes. That's generally when the law applies. I cannot imagine why we would want potential criminals arrested prior to committing an offence. "He appeared to be thinking about robbing that store" makes for a remarkably silly charge.

    As to why it happened; self interest, lack of personal ethics, conviction that the system is there to serve whilst contributing nothing, testosterone surplus and culpable group stupidity all played their part, I'm sure. Looking to ameliorate personal blame by pointing to the nefarious machinations of "the system" is not only exceedingly juvenile, it's insulting. Go ahead, ransack to your heart's content but don't expect sympathy when called to task for your actions.

    For the record, I reside in a country where this nonsense is a regular adventure in legislated idiocy. There is no excuse. Never has been and never will be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    "what was the "opportunity" that these criminals took advantage of? If the riot itself was just criminals and thugs, I mean."


    The opportunity was the overwhelming numbers of rioters and the limited number of police in the first few hours. The individuals were not necessarily criminals until they stole something.
    So we're back to the beginning. Clearly the riots were not, in the beginning, just a bunch of thugs and criminals.
    First thing to remember is that the rioting started after a peaceful demonstration about the killing of a suspect by the police. This incident is the subject of investigations and we should not jump to conclusions about whether or not the shooting was justified. This first riot could loosely be called political, if you want to look at ultimate rather than proximate causes - the people involved might have come from the housing estate where the deceased suspect lived, which is reportedly a low income area with high unemployment. The estate in question experienced riots back in the '80s in which a policman was killed, but from what I've read conditions are greatly improved since then and it is not the deprived ghetto it used to be. If frustration at joblessness and inequality resulting from neoliberal economic policies can be called political then the root cause could be called political.

    But the riots quickly changed in nature to simple smash and grab where any political motive, if it existed at all, was very deeply hidden beneath simple opportunism: the police seemed unable to prevent stealing, and the fact that CCTV was watching and recording faces was forgotten.

    And comparing the whole thing with US riots, it seemed pretty civilized. If that's the kind of riots you get by having wimp police, the US should look into modifying its police forces accordingly.
    Very interesting discussion I heard on the radio. Several callers suggested that the UK should adopt US style policing tactics, which were perceived to be much tougher than UK tactics. This did not relate to arming the police with guns (no one suggested that was a good idea) but to dealing with thieves in a more physical way. Presumably this would have meant baton charges and wrestling suspects to the ground and so on. The police chief, as I mentioned above, did admit that they used the wrong tactics intially, designed to containa civil disturbance rather than to apprehend a thief.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by iceaura View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 'galaxender"
    The widely held view concerning the recent unrest across the UK is that the rioting represented criminal acts committed by irresponsible thugs. The rioting had nothing to do with valid political protest but was simply opportunistic criminal behaviour.
    That was also a widely held view across Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Libya, etc.

    It begs a question, though: what was the "opportunity" that these criminals took advantage of? If the riot itself was just criminals and thugs, I mean.
    I find it interesting that none of you seem to take seriously the UK Government's suggestion that criminal gangs were behind the riots. It's almost as we have become conditioned into subconsciously disbelieving the official line.

    However the UK Government now appears to be changing its tune as to the cause of the riots and is now pointing the blame at discontent, poverty etc, etc.

    To answer iceaura's question, the UK Government has very much created the implication that the gangs were angered at the shooting of one of their own members.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Professor Dave Wilson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Northumbria UK
    Posts
    1,037
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury View Post
    Guess what? No police bullets, plastic or metal, no water cannons, and the riots are over. I have just returned from England and no one, absolutely no one I met or spoke, and no one on the news reports thought extreme violence by the police would make things better. Only fools think that.
    And back to your ivory tower.
    Latinos are Republican. They just don't know it yet.
    Ronald Reagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by rustypup View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury View Post
    police have given up on prevention before the fact and rely on punishment after the fact
    This bothers me. Why do we need a representative of the police force to look us in the eye and tell us what we're doing is wrong in order for us to avoid doing wrong?

    Does it matter that they are apprehended after committing the crime? Yes. That's generally when the law applies. I cannot imagine why we would want potential criminals arrested prior to committing an offence. "He appeared to be thinking about robbing that store" makes for a remarkably silly charge.

    .
    In a riot situation, the trouble with punishing after the fact is the people doing the crime know the prisons only have so much capacity. If thousands of people all commit crimes on the same day, they can be fairly confident the law isn't going to get around to prosecuting everyone.

    Making an example out of the first few people to do something is a good way to deter others from following in their footsteps, but what good is an example if nobody sees it in time to be deterred? The first store robber of the day needs to hauled away in chains where everyone can see him.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by rustypup View Post
    I cannot imagine why we would want potential criminals arrested prior to committing an offence. "He appeared to be thinking about robbing that store" makes for a remarkably silly charge.
    The context that apparently you missed was my reference to the absence of beat cops. This is what prevention means - preventing the crime from occurring by the simple deterrent of a visible police presence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox View Post
    As riots go these were extremely mild. In most placed these would get virtually no press coverage. UK should put that into perspective somewhat before bringing down any hammer.
    That's not what anybody wants to hear, but I think you're right. Thanks.



    An intriguing aspect of a recent riot in Vancouver, Canada (a hockey riot), was that this riot centered in the downtown business core but rioters came mostly from the suburbs. Rapid-transit enabled an impulsive gathering from other municipalities, that wasn't possible in prior decades. They were on a foreign adventure in a sense, trashing a city that was not their own. I wonder if the London rioters were Londoners?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    In a riot situation, the trouble with punishing after the fact is the people doing the crime know the prisons only have so much capacity.
    So there's some market force at play here? Opportunistic criminality increases as risk of reprisal decreases? In exchange for acts of pointless destruction and consumer electronics/clothes.

    What little I've read on white collar crime leads me to believe there's more to it than that. Given the opportunity of getting away with it, most people will cheat within certain limits. Is there a tipping point beyond which this would escalate into outright criminal acts of arson and theft?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury View Post
    preventing the crime from occurring by the simple deterrent of a visible police presence.
    I still challenge the assertion that young adults require someone in authority to point out to them that their actions are wrong. Legally and socially wrong. This may be a requirement for anyone below the age of 10, (at a push).

    Beyond that, with a few exceptions, we are quite capable of assessing our actions against an entire array of socially acceptable norms and determining for ourselves whether or not we're at fault. Making the police responsible for our inability to do so is simply.....surreal.

    As an aside, what ratio of police to populace would be an acceptable one for maintaining public civility?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I still challenge the assertion that young adults require someone in authority to point out to them that their actions are wrong. Legally and socially wrong. This may be a requirement for anyone below the age of 10, (at a push).
    This is not an assertion that I have made. Clearly most young adults are responsible, and some are not. Others normally responsible can become swept up in the activities of others and become temporarily stupid.

    Beyond that, with a few exceptions, we are quite capable of assessing our actions against an entire array of socially acceptable norms and determining for ourselves whether or not we're at fault. Making the police responsible for our inability to do so is simply.....surreal.
    The few exceptions evidently can create a lot of havoc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by rustypup View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    In a riot situation, the trouble with punishing after the fact is the people doing the crime know the prisons only have so much capacity.
    So there's some market force at play here? Opportunistic criminality increases as risk of reprisal decreases? In exchange for acts of pointless destruction and consumer electronics/clothes.

    What little I've read on white collar crime leads me to believe there's more to it than that. Given the opportunity of getting away with it, most people will cheat within certain limits. Is there a tipping point beyond which this would escalate into outright criminal acts of arson and theft?
    I had a lengthy conversation once with a cousin of mine who works in the penitentiary system (soon to retire). He told me that many of the criminals he knew in there had admitted to him point blank that that is exactly the thought process they use. It's a simple risk analysis. The odds of getting caught weighed against the cost of getting caught weighed against the benefit. He said it's always a good idea to lock your door even if it's a weak lock, because the difference between robbery and breaking and entering charges will influence the decision for a lot of criminals deciding whether to rob you.

    You must understand that some people are raised in homes or come from neighborhoods where there is an absolute perfect zero societal stigma on crime. You don't lose respect. You may even gain it. Also some people hold to philosophies that make them feel very very entitled, and usually they're not very hard working people as a result. A white collar worker, on the other hand, will most likely have expended real effort to get where they are. They won't want to just throw that away.



    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury View Post
    preventing the crime from occurring by the simple deterrent of a visible police presence.
    I still challenge the assertion that young adults require someone in authority to point out to them that their actions are wrong. Legally and socially wrong. This may be a requirement for anyone below the age of 10, (at a push).

    Beyond that, with a few exceptions, we are quite capable of assessing our actions against an entire array of socially acceptable norms and determining for ourselves whether or not we're at fault. Making the police responsible for our inability to do so is simply.....surreal.

    As an aside, what ratio of police to populace would be an acceptable one for maintaining public civility?
    That's only possible with thought police. Without thought police people are free to utterly reject those norms, and those who have rejected them are only going to be deterred by brute force, or threat of it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4
    All I have to say is how stupid half the people were in the riot itself by watching the news I could have counted the number of rioters hiding their faces on my hands, not to mention the amount of people posting there so called "exploits" on facebook.
    Though after all this there was a moment where I was proud to be British from the realization that there are still good people in the world; as members of society collectively organized clean ups of the street.

    My uncle helped police the riots and I asked him why they didn't do more and he told me that at the end of the day whaterver they had done if it had of been more or less, there would be people who thought that it was the wrong decision, but he said that this time round he thought the police got it wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    You must understand that some people are raised in homes or come from neighborhoods where there is an absolute perfect zero societal stigma on crime. You don't lose respect. You may even gain it. Also some people hold to philosophies that make them feel very very entitled, and usually they're not very hard working people as a result. A white collar worker, on the other hand, will most likely have expended real effort to get where they are. They won't want to just throw that away.
    The white collar crime rate in this country is almost certainly higher than the blue collar one. And there is no more arrogantly "entitled" group in this country than the Tea Party Republicans - what can you say about a bunch of middle-aged white men who used their leverage to get their taxes cut at the same time they were starting two wars? They certainly don't seem to attach any social stigma to large financial crimes - the influence peddlers and bribe payers and insider traders and derivatives salesmen and stock touters and credit abuse profiteers and commodity market leveragers and so forth and so on pay no social penalty I can see. They get invited to all the best parties, are given the plum jobs, see entire systems of government service delivery rigged in their favor, enjoy all but complete immunity from mistreatment by the police or courts, and so forth.

    Have the executives at BP suffered from any societal stigma in the wake of that well? Not so's anyone can see.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Maybe they think they're following the advice of the great Gordon Gecko. "Greed is good!!!". There's some "invisible hand" guiding the whole thing so that by serving themselves they must have been indirectly benefiting everyone, but the rest of us just weren't lucky.

    You're right. It is just as much an entitlement system, only much more devious than the ghetto version because it doesn't openly admit what it is. Gang bangers may parade around with their rap music, glorifying the thug lifestyle, but at least they know they're awful people for doing it.
    Last edited by kojax; August 27th, 2011 at 12:30 AM. Reason: removed the word "all", so as to be clear that I don't mean each and every last single one of them without exception.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    I think government cuts to playgrounds and poor people, gave the riots there energy to happen. Then once they started maybe criminals took it as a opertunity to steal some stuff.
    But the thing I dont understand about riots is this, If you are mad at the government, why would you burn down an old ladys bakery shop?
    If you are mad at the government , why would you burn down an apartment building ?
    A lot of riots happen because of anger towards the government or police , but then the rioters go out and burn down inocent peoples busineses. This makes no sense.
    If those young people were mad at the government they should have protested, or came together in large groups to block entrances to the government buildings that they were actually mad at.
    But instead of those rioters taking their anger out on the cause of their anger, they burnt down inocent peoples bakerys and apartments.
    Those rioter idiots took a situation were (maybe) they had the right to be mad , and then they did actions that made them criminal slime.
    If you are mad at the govenment or police you should take it out on them, and not burn down inocent peoples busineses.
    Its just plain stupid....
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. London student protest/riots....
    By GhostFacedKing in forum Politics
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: December 17th, 2010, 09:44 AM
  2. What could Happen IF??
    By ThaCrow187 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 7th, 2010, 03:54 PM
  3. What would actually happen...
    By ceire in forum Physics
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: September 4th, 2009, 11:05 PM
  4. what would happen if...
    By powderedtoastman in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2009, 11:37 PM
  5. What would happen if...
    By randytsx in forum Biology
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: August 26th, 2006, 10:26 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •