who are the rioters?

[Michael Hardner]

An excellent exchange of opinions in the Post regarding the motivations for the wastrels and scruff who were rioting last week.

B. Kay contradicts herself in pretty short order. How can the economic landscape not be at issue ?

The extensive social safety net is the problem. They have no responsibilities and no purpose. As those quoted in news reports made clear, there was no grand social or economic issue here.

[Michael Hardner]

Well I thought we were having a fairly intelligent discussion on probing what's at the heart of the matter. I don't expect either of us to come up with real answers. Just food for thought.

We can at least enlighten each other and learn something - don't you think ?

On the other hand I don't understand your criticism that "it makes it difficult for people to make progress in the discussion". Did you read the next 20 or so posts? How's this for making progress?

No - but I read them and ... yes.... Shwa and Thorn aren't going anywhere with that tiff.

[Saipan]

“Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated.” - George Bernard Shaw

Remember that.

[Thorn]

B. Kay contradicts herself in pretty short order. How can the economic landscape not be at issue ?

I suppose that depends on what you mean by the economic landscape. But I think a point made, there and elsewhere, about poverty not being the real reason for violence is worth noting. The "poor" in Great Britain live in a generous welfare state which has made every effort over the past generation to respond to their needs and requirements. They get free food, free housing, free clothing, and can get free education and skills training. But lacking motivation, many don't bother.

People come from all over the world to work there. They find jobs. Why can't these people?

Further, not all those arrested are poor or unemployed. University students and star athletes have been arrested, along with people who have decent jobs. Hell, a social worker has been arrested with 4 big screen TVs in her flat. Maybe she was collecting them to give out to the poor and downtrodden?

Edited August 13, 2011 by Thorn

[CANADIEN]

B. Kay contradicts herself in pretty short order. How can the economic landscape not be at issue ?

No surprisingly coming from Barbara Kay and Co., what we've got is an oversimplistic neo-conservative analysis, where the basic blame is to be put on social programs, progressive taxation, and the neglect of "family values" (code word for "If you are poor and marginalized, there is something wrong with you period, and if there is no father around scr*w you).

Not to deny, of course, the fact that a lot of the rioters are nothing more than criminals or morons who believe it's their right or a fun thing to break, loot and steal. But (unless you are in the downtown area of a North American city at the end of the playoffs ), this type of riots does not just happen like that. They do not start with a few bored kids on a Saturday evening tweeting to each others "let's go break some windows".

Tottenham is a good example. Here's a poor neighbourhood, marginalized, with constant frustration and anger. The spark - the police shooting someone dead, then a peaceful demonstration demanding answers, hijacked by criminals and morons.

Bill Bratton, the former (and successful) police chief in Boston, New York and Los angeles, made it clear that, while restoring law and order (and going after gang leasers) is the first thing to day, it is not enough of a solution. Calming tension by engaging community leaders is part of the solution.

[Thorn]

No surprisingly coming from Barbara Kay and Co., what we've got is an oversimplistic neo-conservative analysis, where the basic blame is to be put on social programs, progressive taxation, and the neglect of "family values" (code word for "If you are poor and marginalized, there is something wrong with you period, and if there is no father around scr*w you)

I think it's been pretty well proven that single parent families are more likely to result in children who don't get the requisite care and discipline as others. And as I said above, these people are not starving, not poor like the poor of Africa, who, you might note, are not rioting despite their thieving, corrupt governments. There are opportunities in England which draw people from around the world. Why can't these people find jobs if they're really looking? If they have no skill or education why not? Where does individual responsibility enter into it?

Tottenham is a good example. Here's a poor neighbourhood, marginalized, with constant frustration and anger. The spark - the police shooting someone dead, then a peaceful demonstration demanding answers, hijacked by criminals and morons.

Yes, but it spread around the country, and not to people desperately angry over the state of society, but to people who thought "Hey, we can smash and steal things with impunity! Yaaay!"

There has always been that strain of young man who exults in smashing things. Always. Probably the first time ancient man piled stones together into a rudimentary shelter some drooling idiot kicked it down for his own amusement. Lacking sufficient enforcement of order, that breed of person will come oozing out from the cracks and start smashing and burning, and will keep doing it as long as he can get away with it. The welfare state has clearly done nothing to remove that strain. On the contrary, it appears to have enhanced it.

[Bonam]

And as I said above, these people are not starving, not poor like the poor of Africa, who, you might note, are not rioting despite their thieving, corrupt governments.

You mean except for Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, Sudan, and Western Sahara?

[DogOnPorch]

Tottenham is a good example. Here's a poor neighbourhood, marginalized, with constant frustration and anger. The spark - the police shooting someone dead, then a peaceful demonstration demanding answers, hijacked by criminals and morons.

Tottenham is only 'poorer' by South Kensington standards. That is to say it is a typical London bedroom community with it's own services and transportation systems...not Mogadishu.

[CANADIEN]

I think it's been pretty well proven that single parent families are more likely to result in children who don't get the requisite care and discipline as others.

Care to show your stats?

And as I said above, these people are not starving, not poor like the poor of Africa, who, you might note, are not rioting despite their thieving, corrupt governments.

Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Yunisia, Lybia...

[There are opportunities in England which draw people from around the world. Why can't these people find jobs if they're really looking? If they have no skill or education why not?

Marginalization has actually little to do with abject poverty, or not having a job (and by the way, nobody is talking about starvation). It is about a sense that one doesn't count, is not listened to, has no voice. It is about not being able to get ahead even when working full time.

Where does individual responsibility enter into it?

Good question. Individual responsibility, though is an empty word when the underlying message is "you're on your own, lunless you are rich in which case we'll find ways to help you get even richer". Where is the personal responsibility of those CEO who caused the crisis of 2008 then got bonuses while throwing their employees on the street? where is the personal responsiblity of US politicians, right and left, who are bringing us to the brink again because they are more interested in scoring political points than in actually serving their constituents? Strangely enough, they are rarely, if ever, lectured about personal responsibility.

The welfare state has clearly done nothing to remove that strain. On the contrary, it appears to have enhanced it.

People who were there to witness how a little moustached loser took the frustrations and feeling of marginalization of millions of his fellow citizens may have a hard time believing that "the welfare state" is making things worse.

[bush_cheney2004]

Where is the personal responsibility of those CEO who caused the crisis of 2008 then got bonuses while throwing their employees on the street? where is the personal responsiblity of US politicians, right and left, who are bringing us to the brink again because they are more interested in scoring political points than in actually serving their constituents?

That is not "personal" responsibility.

If you are dependent on "personal responsibility" in the United States, you have even bigger problems right at home.

[Oleg Bach]

That is not "personal" responsibility.

If you are dependent on "personal responsibility" in the United States, you have even bigger problems right at home.

Why would personal responsiblity be even considered a dependancy or addiction - or bad habit? Our American friend is not making any real sense here. Apparently what BC our American correspondent is trying to say is that there is no such thing as personal responsiblity - and if that is the case there is no such thing in America as public responsbility! In the over view of it all...their whole political system is simply irresponsible. They fail to respond to them selves and fail to respond to those around them - Could it be that they are the walking dead - that zombies run the nation? Just because a person is red blooded and breathing does not mean they are alive. To be alive you have to be animated by a soul...looks like it is finally clear that America has lost it's life force and soul a long time ago - now comes the smell.

[Thorn]

Care to show your stats?

If you want to open a new topic of discussion with regard to single parent families you can do so elsewhere.

I'm stating it as a known and accepted fact.

Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Yunisia, Lybia...

The Arabs (Yemen and Syria are not in Africa, btw) are not rioting because the government isn't giving them big screen TVs and fashionable footwear.

Marginalization has actually little to do with abject poverty, or not having a job (and by the way, nobody is talking about starvation). It is about a sense that one doesn't count, is not listened to, has no voice. It is about not being able to get ahead even when working full time.

And to repeat my earlier question. Why should anyone pay attention to people who, for the most part, lack drive or motivation or ambition, and who spend their time on welfare drinking, fornicating and fighting while complaining about the sorry state of their lives? In a country like the UK ones lifestyle tends to be somewhat closely related to the choices one makes. Choose to get drunk and drop out of school and have a kid without a job or a mate to support them and guess what, it's not society's fault you're poor.

Good question. Individual responsibility, though is an empty word when the underlying message is "you're on your own,

What exactly do you want the government to do for these individuals? They're already doing everything but holding their peckers when they take a leak. Do you want them to do that too?

Edited August 13, 2011 by Thorn

[bush_cheney2004]

Why would personal responsiblity be even considered a dependancy or addiction - or bad habit? Our American friend is not making any real sense here. Apparently what BC our American correspondent is trying to say is that there is no such thing as personal responsiblity - and if that is the case there is no such thing in America as public responsbility!

No, what I'm saying (no need for your clumsy translations) is that the examples cited were corporate in nature and devoid of any personal dimension.

Just because a person is red blooded and breathing does not mean they are alive. To be alive you have to be animated by a soul...looks like it is finally clear that America has lost it's life force and soul a long time ago - now comes the smell.

You can always go back to kissing and smelling the UK's hind end....hell, your queen still lives there.

[Sir Bandelot]

The corporation has the rights of a person, but not the obligations of a person.

[CANADIEN]

If you want to open a new topic of discussion with regard to single parent families you can do so elsewhere.

I'm stating it as a known and accepted fact.

In case you didn't notice, YOU brought the issue of single parenthod. Yet you will not back what you claim up with the stats that would prove it.

The Arabs (Yemen and Syria are not in Africa, btw) are not rioting because the government isn't giving them big screen TVs and fashionable footwear.

They still riot. And the fact that Syria and Yemen are not in Africa doesn't change that fact.

And to repeat my earlier question. Why should anyone pay attention to people who, for the most part, lack drive or motivation or ambition, and who spend their time on welfare drinking, fornicating and fighting while complaining about the sorry state of their lives? In a country like the UK ones lifestyle tends to be somewhat closely related to the choices one makes. Choose to get drunk and drop out of school and have a kid without a job or a mate to support them and guess what, it's not society's fault you're poor.

The only thing more simplistic (far more simplistic, in fact) that the "it's society's fault" explanation for poverty in our society is the "they have done something wrong" line. Like any other societal issue, poverty is a complex one, and there are no simple, or easy solution. Still, the "personal responsibility" mantra is too often an thinly veiled excuse to say "screw you" to the poor.

What exactly do you want the government to do for these individuals? They're already doing everything but holding their peckers when they take a leak. Do you want them to do that too?

I'll be content with treating human beings like human beings. Including holding them responsible for the crimes they commit.

BTW, drop that unhealty fixation on sexual organs, will you.

Edited August 14, 2011 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

The corporation has the rights of a person, but not the obligations of a person.

More importantly, leaders of corporations feels that only their companies, but themselves, bear no responsibility for their decisions.

If they did, the CEOs of financial corporations who precipitated the 2008 crisis through their greed and lack of moral sense would have the decency to at least forgo their juicy bonus increases when hundrerd of thousands of people end up without a job or a house as a direct or indirect result of what they did. But taking responsibility for one's action is a slogan for them, not a way to conduct one's life.

[bush_cheney2004]

If they did, the CEOs of financial corporations who precipitated the 2008 crisis through their greed and lack of moral sense would have the decency to at least forgo their juicy bonus increases when hundrerd of thousands of people end up without a job or a house as a direct or indirect result of what they did. But taking responsibility for one's action is a slogan for them, not a way to conduct one's life.

Utter nonsense....greed is good. Live your life the way you think you should, not command others to do the same. Employees are paid for services rendered, and can be fired at will. People who can't afford houses shouldn't have them to begin with....preach morals and responsibility to them.

[jacee]

E a Of fir

Utter nonsense....greed is good. Live your life the way you think you should, not command others to do the same. Employees are paid for services rendered, and can be fired at will. People who can't afford houses shouldn't have them to begin with....preach morals and responsibility to them.

ya that's the ticket! A bit of fire and brimstone in the streets too!

[Shwa]

Utter nonsense....greed is good. Live your life the way you think you should, not command others to do the same. Employees are paid for services rendered, and can be fired at will. People who can't afford houses shouldn't have them to begin with....preach morals and responsibility to them.

Exactly. Therefore people who lack an xBox and bicycle, should take the opportunity to live their lives they way they think they should and that means when riots happen, looting is morally OK. Especially if you can get away with it.

It's a bit of a problematic philosophy, but illustrative nonetheless.

[Shwa]

No - but I read them and ... yes.... Shwa and Thorn aren't going anywhere with that tiff.

No, but you are missing the larger picture. It is easy to simply parrot the ideological refrain and leave it at that - and two can play that partisan game at any time. There is no discussion or compromise by the very nature of that argument, only force.

Nevertheless I had a "riot" with Thorn by employing a "mob" of smileys and his tactic was to retreat like a cop in Tottenham.

[CANADIEN]

Exactly. Therefore people who lack an xBox and bicycle, should take the opportunity to live their lives they way they think they should and that means when riots happen, looting is morally OK. Especially if you can get away with it.

It's a bit of a problematic philosophy, but illustrative nonetheless.

Oh well... It is evident that people thinking of buying a house should assume personal responsibility for their decisions. That of course would include finding any way possible to screw the banks and financial insitutions. After all, we are talking about the same institutions whose management screwed mortgagees, their employees and the whole world economy.

Let,s just make sure, though, that any and all local bank manager or staff in charge of mortgages understand they don't have to assume any form of responsibility for what they do. If they're trying to make a lot of money in a reckless fashion, give bad loans after bad mortgages even when they know that,s a bad idea, and end up costing their employer money (and lots and lots and lots of it), they don't have to worry, or feel responsible in any way, shape or form. They may even end up with a nice little bonus. After all, they are only following the fine example set by their CEOs.

[Shwa]

Oh well... It is evident that people thinking of buying a house should assume personal responsibility for their decisions. That of course would include finding any way possible to screw the banks and financial insitutions. After all, we are talking about the same institutions whose management screwed mortgagees, their employees and the whole world economy.

Let,s just make sure, though, that any and all local bank manager or staff in charge of mortgages understand they don't have to assume any form of responsibility for what they do. If they're trying to make a lot of money in a reckless fashion, give bad loans after bad mortgages even when they know that,s a bad idea, and end up costing their employer money (and lots and lots and lots of it), they don't have to worry, or feel responsible in any way, shape or form. They may even end up with a nice little bonus. After all, they are only following the fine example set by their CEOs.

No, the CEO's are blameless, which is BC's point. The moral imperative that 'greed is good' is the underlying issue.

[Thorn]

In case you didn't notice, YOU brought the issue of single parenthod. Yet you will not back what you claim up with the stats that would prove it

I don't need to back it up. It's established fact. And I'm not going to allow the conversation to be diverted.

They still riot. And the fact that Syria and Yemen are not in Africa doesn't change that fact.

Fine then. But then it just illustrates my original point. Had the original riots in Tunis been crushed there would have been no spread through the Arab world. Had the authorities come out shooting and killed thousands of people, and held itself in power, the mobs in other Arab countries would not have been inspired to have a go too.

The only thing more simplistic (far more simplistic, in fact) that the "it's society's fault" explanation for poverty in our society is the "they have done something wrong" line. Like any other societal issue, poverty is a complex one, and there are no simple, or easy solution. Still, the "personal responsibility" mantra is too often an thinly veiled excuse to say "screw you" to the poor.

And still, you didn't answer my question.

I'll be content with treating human beings like human beings. Including holding them responsible for the crimes they commit.

In what way were the yobs who turned out to riot not treated like human beings?

[jbg]

This anarchy as you term it (I call it lawlessness) could have been extinguished early on if the UK law and order forces had not let it snowball out of control. It's interesting to look at how police services developed over the years in the UK to understand how law and order is administered there.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8691363/London-and-UK-riots-The-long-retreat-of-order.html

The policing issue is just one other element to consider when discussing this event, but an important one nevertheless. There are lessons to be learned here.

I read the article. To be fair the problem is more pervasive even than outlined in the article.

Prior to 1774 or so, Britain dumped many of its offenders in Georgia. That came to a stop because of the American Revolution. Australis came next. That lasted until New South Wales put a stop to convict delivery in or about 1829 and other states there in ensuing decades. Britain has always, then, had a space and money problem in terms of really locking up people needing prison. Add to that the fact that prison conditions were horrible.\

Britian has, especially since the loss of the U.S., Canada and Australia as colonies been a bit short on cash. So going soft of policing and imprisonment is always tempting whether under the guise of political correctness or fiscal cutbacks.

[jbg]

It's a Mao point.

I reject the black/white depiction of this issue. The government tends to act to ensure a social status quo in the economy as much as it can. For Britain, this means that the class system is regarded as being somewhat natural so the structures in place perpetuate that.

The wealthy are protected from entrepreneurial upstarts, naturally, by barriers to entry and the old boys' club. The poor are handed money because, well, no one can reasonably expect them to better themselves right ?

Is maintaning order and stopping rioting equal to protecting wealthy from entreprenurial upstarts? What's entreprenurial about the rioters?