[worry]

From what I can tell, the figure 27,000 refers to the number of times BBM has been mentioned online in relation to the riots (in any context). It's not a number that represents the number of BBM messages that were used to coordinate rioting. http://business.fina...s-of-u-k-riots/ under "Calls for suspension" section. If you have a source for what you're claiming I would like to see it. It's clear that communications tech is being used by plenty of people here, though I'd hesitate personally to create a pie chart of rioter motivations (at all, let alone one with no divisions). But as of now, I kind of think the "all have smartphones" claim is bogus/exaggerated/essentially a wild guess born of anger.

[Illuyankas]

Besides, a blackberry on contract is something like £10 to £20 a month. That's one cheap status symbol and luxury.

[Coco with marshmallows]

A minor point but with regard to the issues of people rioting because of a lack of jobs - the areas with the highest unemployment rates in the UK are in Hull and Wales - No rioting

The most socially deprived areas in the UK are in Scotland - no rioting

So although these issues may be a source of anger, they're damn sure not the main cause.

[Battalion]

Rioting because of lack of jobs? Most of these people aren't old enough to work yet.

Here's the problem. They're given such bad examples by their parents that they BELIEVE there are no oppotunities out there, but there are. After all, at 16 years old, how many job interviews have you had turned down? Not many. They are dragged up to believe that there are no jobs out there, because their parents are the type of lazy shits that sit around on their arses all day taking benifits and moaning about how bad the area they live in is, dispite never raising a finger to do anything to improve it, then heading off at nighttime to sell drugs to the locals to supplement their own habbits.

I know, I grew up in a council estate in Brent, and I saw it with my own eyes. Some of us made something of ourselves, and some of us didn't. My theory is, it comes down to your parents which way you went. Me and both my brothers got jobs straight from school, and have never been out of work since. My my mate nextdoor never worked. He never knew his father. He left school when he was 12. He was selling drugs when he was 14. He beat up and robbed a pizza delivery man with another two guys and all three of them got banged up when he was 16. I still know him now. He's got six children with four different women, he smokes crack, he drinks super strength lager every day and he still sells drugs. He rarely sees four of his kids. I'd be amazed if they weren't envoled in the riots. If he was younger, he'd be there without doubt. He had the same 'oppotunites' as me. Incidentally, one of the other guys involved in that pizza robery died a few years later from a heroin overdose. The third man of the trio is the now infamous Martin Mubanga of Camp X Ray fame.

And saying there are no jobs in Tottenham is laughable. How many people work right on their doorstep? I never have.

The botton line is, it isn't hopelessness that sparks these riots, it's bad parenting.

I'd also like to ask these people who advocate a softly softly approach, what you would do if a couple of 15 year old little shit burst into your homes and started smashing up the place and threatening your kids? You better believe I'd react with violence.

[Cause]

As Gothos has already said no one from the UK should be rioting about poverty. The way the average poor person lives in my country would be a human rights violation in the UK. If you have community housing, food and even spending money after what are you really complaining about? At some point you need to take responsibility for yourself and improve your own lot in life. Is it fair that prince Harry was born a millionaire and you were born to parents on welfare. It might not seem like it but that's life. You can either do something about it (not riot) or accept it.

Looting is a major crime, burning down buildings a major crime. People who act like criminals should be treated like ones. This is not black people given no rights, allowed no opportunities and oppressed by the law rising up for their rights, in which case violence might be an acceptable tool. This is self centered idiots who are already given more than most demanding more.

[Flawed]

I heard that police have had their hands tied further. Some jobs worth in the EU has decided that their truncheons are offensive and may cause psychological distress to criminals. Apparently they have contacted Timmy Mallet and asked him if they can instead use his Mallet.

True, every word of it........

[Battalion]

Illuyankas, on 11 August 2011 - 02:39 AM, said:

Besides, a blackberry on contract is something like £10 to £20 a month. That's one cheap status symbol and luxury.

Tell me. If you haven't got a job and don't EARN any money, what right have you to EXPECT luxury iteams of any sort, regardless of how cheap you think they are?

Luxuries are rewards for success. Smart phones ARE luxuries, hard-working families who have to count every single penny just to pay the bills will testify to that -- They get zero disposible income meaning £20 every month, which they have to use on absolute essentials, would ammount to a luxury item. Ergo, these 'destitute' rabble that you're so desperate to defend, are actually more socially well-off than the true working classes. They have more personal time to spend with freinds and family, apparently more disposible income, no worries about endless pay-freezes or even pay-reductions, zero worries about increasing cost of mortgages, zero worries about the impending housing market crash -- BECAUSE THEY HAVE EVERYTHING GIVEN TO THEM FOR FREE. Their kids are paid for, their clothes are paid for, their food is paid for, their houses are paid for. AND WHEN THE GOVERNMENT INFORMS THEM THAT THE BENIFIT SYSTEM WILL BE OVERHAULED BECAUSE IT IS UNSTASTAINABLE, THEY RIOT. They smash up their own towns.

'I'm reducing your benifits.'

Response A. Find a job at all costs.

Response B. Tighten my belt, try to make do with the new benifits while looking for a suplimentary part time job.

Response C. Organise a peaceful demonstation out the gates of DOWNING STREET, explaining my fears.

Response D. Issue a call to arms to others in similar circumstances as me, travel to my local shops (which have zero political relavence) smash them up, loot them, burn the places to the ground. At no cost should I steal things which will be vital for my future. I should target trainers primarily, so I can look good, even though the ones on my feet look ok, I should then aim for a widescreen t.v so I can watch the results of my heroic and revalutionary actions, and I should also try to set fire to as many bins and cars as I possibly can.


Looks like Response D was favorite.

[worry]

Cause, on 11 August 2011 - 08:28 AM, said:

People who act like criminals should be treated like ones.

Exactly. They should be arrested, jailed, prosecuted, defended, judged by a jury of their peers based on testimony/evidence, and if found guilty, face the consequences. I think we're saying the same thing here.

[Silencer]

worrywort, on 11 August 2011 - 10:09 AM, said:

Cause, on 11 August 2011 - 08:28 AM, said:

People who act like criminals should be treated like ones.

Exactly. They should be arrested, jailed, prosecuted, defended, judged by a jury of their peers based on testimony/evidence, and if found guilty, face the consequences. I think we're saying the same thing here.

The problem, as I said before, is in the underlined step, unfortunately. If the people cannot be arrested, the rest of the judicial process cannot be pursued.

[Gothos]

It's a sort of a problem if Mets indeed have to individually take everyone to the station upon arrest, as in a riot there's way too many people for the Mets to arrest them all. Unless you can just pack a van with 10 people at a time?

[worry]

Indeed, Silencer, but that's exactly as it should be. You don't get a jail/prison sentence for committing a crime, you get one for being convicted of that crime. That's the extent of the government's power over its constituency. Barring Patriot Act-type exceptions I suppose.

On the other hand, if being born into a family of welfare recipients instead of millionaires is just a "life isn't fair" situation, so is living in an area where the police force isn't sufficient to handle exceptional crime waves. If you want to whine about no jobs in your area, move to where the jobs are, right? Likewise, if you want to live in an area willing to finance a large, efficient, effective police force, move to such an area. Don't whinge about it. It's that simple, isn't it? Life is simultaneously unfair and arbitrary, and full of readily apparent direct solutions with minimal variables to consider. Rioters are simultaneously tech-savvy spoiled privileged teenagers, and hardcore thugs. That might be because their parents are simultaneously lazy welfare-recipients who never lift a finger, and stealthy drug dealers and hustlers. The riots were caused by the combustible combination of hope, opportunity, and bad parenting. Officers of the law should break that law in order to enforce it. It's only bleeding heart liberals who enjoy a hands-off government response to a social crisis while it's the conservative position that government agents should enact a blanket crackdown on citizens. The fact that the available police force is undermanned, underpaid, and undertrained is unfortunate but not really anybody's fault. You've always got an army to send in. With that in mind, suggesting that violators of the law should be prosecuted responsibly according to law and protocol is the same as defending -- even excusing -- the behavior of looters and ruffians. Since when push comes to shove, you're either with us or you're with the enemy (who are, broadly speaking, those in a riot-affected area who are outdoors instead of indoors).

You simply can't argue that your side can break that law while the other side cannot. Or they should break the law because the other side did it first. Or because they're the good guys and the other side is the bad guys. I mean, you can make that argument, but anyone who buys it has a fundamental misunderstanding of the rule of law, as well as the explicit, deliberate division of labor, power, and responsibility within the legal system.

[Cause]

WorryWort I don't disagree actually. However I think you have taken an extreme view in your defense of the legal system. I don't believe the cops should shoot anyone they find on the streets, Im not saying keep them in holding cells without charge. However when an illegal gathering takes place in the streets and the police have a more than reasonable expectation they are out to do harm I believe they can, should and legally I believe they also have the right to disperse it. I believe that includes tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets and truncheons to the face. If a small crowd of rioters flee from the cops thats resisting arrest and again I believe that tackles and truncheons to the ace are acceptable means of apprehending the suspects. I don't actually see where your objections enter into it.

[QuickTidal]

worrywort, on 11 August 2011 - 02:31 AM, said:

But as of now, I kind of think the "all have smartphones" claim is bogus/exaggerated/essentially a wild guess born of anger.

I'm afraid you're deluding yourself WW if you think that all these thugs don't have the #1 status icon amongst society today.

[QuickTidal]

worrywort, on 11 August 2011 - 10:09 AM, said:

Cause, on 11 August 2011 - 08:28 AM, said:

People who act like criminals should be treated like ones.

Exactly. They should be arrested, jailed, prosecuted, defended, judged by a jury of their peers based on testimony/evidence, and if found guilty, face the consequences. I think we're saying the same thing here.

Yeah, because the system won't let them off. LOL.

You and I BOTH know that most of these little twits will get a slap on the wrist tops.

In places like the UK (and even Canada with the YOA) young people have TOO MANY rights. and they know it. end of story.

This post has been edited by King Kazma: 11 August 2011 - 12:33 PM

[QuickTidal]

Case in Point: A kid who goes to school with my niece. He's 13. His father grounded him for one night and sent him to bed without eating as punishment for skipping school that day. That kid called the police and told them his father was keeping him locked up and starving him. As much of an exaggeration the kid made in what had happened, child services is investigating the father and claiming that since he did not provide dinner for his child, then even that is considered abuse.

W

T

F

I can't count on my hand the amount of times I went to bed hungry because I'd messed up as a kid. That's not abuse, that's parenting.

This post has been edited by King Kazma: 11 August 2011 - 12:48 PM

[QuickTidal]

worrywort, on 10 August 2011 - 11:43 PM, said:

Riots do tend to be pretty ineloquent, inherently, even when they have legit issues at heart, and they have to fight an uphill battle already since people dismiss them out of hand, and media focus on sensationalism at the expense of everything else.

I'm going to have to pretend you used the word protests instead of riots....because the word riots as your jumping off point negates everything else you said.

A protest gets attention paid and can support lawfully being against things, and usually gets decent media attention for the problem or issue at hand, not to mention the gov't if they are involved. People peacefully protest on the Queen's Park lawn (Toronto seat of Gov't) all the time. Their point makes it out the masses and the gov't, and normally it's a step to rectifying whatever the gripe is. Normally anyways.

A riot never has legit issues at its heart. Ever. Ever. There is never a cause to riot. Rioting is the equivalent of a petulant child who is losing at a board game who knocks it onto the floor. Riots are bullyish and childish, and should not be stood for.

A protest I don't mind, and I even fully endorse (whether or not I agree with the issue at hand) as a way to stimulate change in how things are run.

This post has been edited by King Kazma: 11 August 2011 - 01:11 PM

[masan's saddle]

King Kazma, on 11 August 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:

worrywort, on 10 August 2011 - 11:43 PM, said:

Riots do tend to be pretty ineloquent, inherently, even when they have legit issues at heart, and they have to fight an uphill battle already since people dismiss them out of hand, and media focus on sensationalism at the expense of everything else.

I'm going to have to pretend you used the word protests instead of riots....because the word riots as your jumping off point negates everything else you said.

A protest gets attention paid and can support lawfully being against things, and usually gets decent media attention for the problem or issue at hand, not to mention the gov't if they are involved. People peacefully protest on the Queen's Park lawn (Toronto seat of Gov't) all the time. Their point makes it out the masses and the gov't, and normally it's a step to rectifying whatever the gripe is. Normally anyways.

A riot never has legit issues at its heart. Ever. Ever. There is never a cause to riot. Rioting is the equivalent of a petulant child who is losing at a board game who knocks it onto the floor. Riots are bullyish and childish, and should not be stood for.

A protest I don't mind, and I even fully endorse (whether or not I agree with the issue at hand) as a way to stimulate change in how things are run.

Need to be careful here KK as historically speaking rioting has been the last gasp action of many people all over the world for centuries. I don't think you can call the inhabitants of Soweto, Wattstown or the participants of any number of civil liberty disputes in the USA, or turn of the century Industrial disputes in the UK "..petulant, childish or bullyish". They had serious gripes with a state/ govt/ system that was oppressing them and not paying any attention to their protests.

That said though with regards to the current Riots, whilst one always has to acknowledge the socio-political climate and environment that has bred them (riots), in this case I find myself having very little sympathy for the rioters. I see no coherent agenda or voice for social or political change. To me it appears to be the logical progression of steadily worsening behaviours that have been displayed on weekends in cities and market towns the length of the country for the last 20 years. They in no way resemble the Toxteth, Broadwater Farm or Miner's "disputes" of the 80's. Also a very valid point that Coco raised upthread was that some of the most socially disadvantaged places in the country are in Scotland and Wales, as well as parts of England ( Hull, Sheffield etc etc). The fact that there was no rioting whatsoever is interesting considering the fact that the last decent riot in Cardiff that wasn't football related was kickstared by an argument over the price of a loaf of bread in a cornershop in Ely (seriously). Obviously we have a more gentrified underclass over here, that or they just don't like getting their trainers dirty.

[QuickTidal]

masan, on 11 August 2011 - 02:39 PM, said:

King Kazma, on 11 August 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:

A riot never has legit issues at its heart. Ever. Ever. There is never a cause to riot. Rioting is the equivalent of a petulant child who is losing at a board game who knocks it onto the floor. Riots are bullyish and childish, and should not be stood for.

A protest I don't mind, and I even fully endorse (whether or not I agree with the issue at hand) as a way to stimulate change in how things are run.

Need to be careful here KK as historically speaking rioting has been the last gasp action of many people all over the world for centuries. I don't think you can call the inhabitants of Soweto, Wattstown or the participants of any number of civil liberty disputes in the USA, or turn of the century Industrial disputes in the UK "..petulant, childish or bullyish". They had serious gripes with a state/ govt/ system that was oppressing them and not paying any attention to their [i]protests.

I stand by what I said. Rioting is a bully tactic plain and simple. The rioter is a person who can't figure out another way to get things accomplished. Historically, protesting has had more long term good effects than rioting ever will. When people remember hippies protesting the war in Vietnam in Washington D.C., they remember it fondly as a large number of society getting up and saying, no this is wrong...and you know what, the effect that those types of protests had on the war in Vietnam was kind of impressive, in a way shutting down the US war machine because the public stopped believing that they were there for the right reasons.

Meanwhile most riots are remembered in a poor light, with people being disgusted as to how such hooligans behave and run wild and the destruction they create. Add that to the fact that if a riot starts out as a legit protest and some yabos turn it into a riot then the point of the protest gets lost under the shitstorm that follows any riot. The peaceful G20 protests in Toronto will not be remembered and will forever be marred by the riots they turned into.

Gandhi and Martin Luther King are not remembered for inciting riots as a means to an end...they are remembered for KNOWING that rioting was not the way to behave.

Protests get things done as long as you can get enough people organized to do so.

Imagine if you will if all these rioting kids in the UK really WERE standing up for something worth protesting about.

Across the country.

All the kids rioting.

Imagine if they got together and stood as one in front of Ten downing St, or Hyde Park, or somewhere like that and held a peaceful protest. That would be thousands likely, and imagine the press and the response to soemthing like that. It would have been heard round the world as a protest that the gov't CAN'T ignore. I don't care how solid your policy is, once something hits the world stage like that you either have to deal with it or be branded a douche. That is what I am talking about. That last gasp you are talking about NEVER has to be. Ever. You organize and make sure the world sees you...and you'll get stuff done.

This post has been edited by King Kazma: 11 August 2011 - 03:04 PM

[worry]

Cause, on 11 August 2011 - 11:49 AM, said:

WorryWort I don't disagree actually. However I think you have taken an extreme view in your defense of the legal system. I don't believe the cops should shoot anyone they find on the streets, Im not saying keep them in holding cells without charge. However when an illegal gathering takes place in the streets and the police have a more than reasonable expectation they are out to do harm I believe they can, should and legally I believe they also have the right to disperse it. I believe that includes tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets and truncheons to the face. If a small crowd of rioters flee from the cops thats resisting arrest and again I believe that tackles and truncheons to the ace are acceptable means of apprehending the suspects. I don't actually see where your objections enter into it.

Well, I think that assumes too much about what I'm arguing. Easy to do, since some of the folks I've argued with here insist on confronting straw men "bleeding heart" caricatures. When I'm saying the police should do their job within protocol, that doesn't exclude proper riot-supression methods. My first response was to Sombra's call for a "shoot to kill" order, however, hence my insistence on the fact that police have a specific job to do within a broader legal system (not to call out Sombra, cuz we get along fine, but his original post was extreme IMO and where I entered the conversation). Others chimed in, not necessarily supporting the "shoot to kill" thing, but still equating expecting the police to do their jobs to somehow coddling the rioters. A lot of broad generalizations, absolutes, anger masked as certainty, and "damn liberals" talk ensued, and I suggested it was less than helpful, fairly short-sighted, and even somewhat distressing. Point being, you don't fight stupid with bigger stronger stupid, and you don't fight lawlessness with more lawlessness.

I didn't think it was necessary, since most people here lie within a nice spectrum of reasonable, to explain that individual acts of self defense are fine, that crowds of locals chasing off looters sounds heroic to me, and that legal and effective policework does of course include riot-readiness and crowd control tactics and equipment. It doesn't involve shooting people in the face for stealing TVs and sneakers. Or even getting into fistfights. I didn't even particularly address the social status of the rioters, since that has no bearing on how police should react, until Illy introduced a bit of nuance into the debate about who's doing the rioting, and got instantly jumped on as a thug-sympathizer. And to my surprise, the same people decrying riots for being the blunt, stupid, and ineffective means of a bloodthirsty thug culture, insist that a blunt, brutal, extralegal crackdown will be an effective answer. It's a petty, cursory answer to a complex problem. And as far as I'm concerned, nothing I've said approaches controversial, let alone extreme.

[Obdigore]

http://www.cnn.com/2....html?hpt=hp_c2