Riots

[Lateralthinking1]

On ahinton's point about this not being a question of seeking redistribution, a courtesy response. ah - you say that there is no identifiable process of the rioters taking from one group and giving to another, or words to that effect. I think that point works when it comes to the rioters taking from small shopkeepers because actually I don't believe that there was any thought or care there really. I doubt therefore that it was a political point about those shopkeepers. I ventured into Sherwood Forest thinking some days ago. You will find it earlier on this thread. Robin Hood allegedly stole from the rich to give to the poor. Small shopkeepers are hardly what you would call rich. Furthermore, the rioters aren't walking round Victoria giving Adidas out to the homeless people, of which incidentally there are many. Given those facts, they are not political either in RH's sense.

Nevertheless all this new robbin' in the 'hoods - most of those involved are hardly rolling in money. You can imagine that most of the loot will be kept for themselves and then some will go to mates. Bear in mind "mates" here doesn't mean what we understand as mates. These are people who live on estates where gear is "affectionately" traded. They have 900 "mates" on Facebook. There is a whole community of youth with which they identify - the dubious end of it - which is a country within a country. So it is redistribution, if only to themselves and those with whom they feel connected, and from.....well, from whom? If it isn't small shopkeepers, who is it? The companies who make the products? The Government? No, I don't think so. I think it is more vague - a kind of theft from social inequality perhaps - which is in fact overtly political. It is just that the shopkeepers are the medium.

What gets me most is that one of the Government's principal duties is to create the conditions where the ordinary public are protected. They have failed on that abysmally and can do nothing now for me to reverse it. Of course, it has happened very close to my turf. I also know from family background what it is like to be a very poor shopkeeper - the shop was rented - and it is therefore a symbol that is close to me emotionally. And it follows on rapidly from being made unemployed as a Government employee where inadequate protection was also the issue. I have my faults. Many. I also tend to be fair minded and something of a natural weather vane. What worries me most is that I am now in a position where I just loathe the system. This tells me that it has huge problems. If I am where I find myself now - I would say that it has been so overwhelming that it has led to personality change - I am in no doubt that millions of the older, lower middle class, will be there too within three years.

[ahinton]

On ahinton's point about this not being a question of seeking redistribution, a courtesy response. ah - you say that there is no identifiable process of the rioters taking from one group and giving to another, or words to that effect. I think that point works when it comes to the rioters taking from small shopkeepers because actually I don't believe that there was any thought or care there really. I doubt therefore that it was a political point about those shopkeepers. I ventured into Sherwood Forest thinking some days ago. You will find it earlier on this thread. Robin Hood allegedly stole from the rich to give to the poor. Small shopkeepers are hardly what you would call rich. Furthermore, the rioters aren't walking round Victoria giving Adidas out to the homeless people, of which incidentally there are many. Given those facts, they are not political either in RH's sense.

Nevertheless all this new robbin' in the 'hoods - most of those involved are hardly rolling in money. You can imagine that most of the loot will be kept for themselves and then some will go to mates. Bear in mind "mates" here doesn't mean what we understand as mates. These are people who live on estates where gear is "affectionately" traded. They have 900 "mates" on Facebook. There is a whole community of youth with which they identify - the dubious end of it - which is a country within a country. So it is redistribution, if only to themselves and those with whom they feel connected, and from.....well, from whom? If it isn't small shopkeepers, who is it? The companies who make the products? The Government? No, I don't think so. I think it is more vague - a kind of theft from social inequality perhaps - which is in fact overtly political. It is just that the shopkeepers are the medium.

Yes - what I was referring to was a fundamental redistribution of wealth of a kind and on a scale that some of the more left-wing socialists seek to advocate (I'm sure that I used that word "fundamental" somewhere) and which would chnge the natiopnal landscape beyond recognition, rather than the kind that we've witnessed. The rationale that you posit in your penultimate sentence may indeed be somewhat nearer the mark but I fear that it might be very difficult to identify and prove. The acts concerned (well, the rioting ones as distinct from the looting ones, anyway) were acts of angry violence rather than of methodical money-moving, which is why I used the term "pent-up frustration" when referring to the fons et origo of the riotous behaviour. I suppose that my principal concern about it all now is that a surfeit of over-simplified thinking is almost certain to make matters worse and stand in the way of learning about it for the future; this applies not only to knee-jerk public and (occasionally also) journalistic reactions and attitudes to what has happened but also to rushed and ill-considerd judgements in the hard-pressed courts.

What gets me most is that one of the Government's principal duties is to create the conditions where the ordinary public are protected. They have failed on that abysmally and can do nothing now for me to reverse it. Of course, it has happened very close to my turf. I also know from family background what it is like to be a very poor shopkeeper - the shop was rented - and it is therefore a symbol that is close to me emotionally. And it follows on rapidly from being made unemployed as a Government employee where inadequate protection was also the issue. I have my faults. Many. I also tend to be fair minded and something of a natural weather vane. What worries me most is that I am now in a position where I just loathe the system. This tells me that it has huge problems. If I am where I find myself now - I would say that it has been so overwhelming that it has led to personality change - I am in no doubt that millions of the older, lower middle class, will be there too within three years.

By "the" government do you mean the present British one or most or all of them in recent years? I ask this only for the sake of clarity and mindful of the fact that the present go vernment has only been in office for just over 15 months.

[amateur51]

In the face of 11/9 and 7/7 attacks our government's response was to seriously infringe on personal liberties for the greater security of all.

In the face of these riots our government's response is to attempt to bully the courts into handing out harsher sentences than they might otherwise do.

I wonder what has happened in Norway?

[amateur51]

Lat, regarding Newcastle.

According to 2009 figures,[63] the city's ethnic make-up is as follows:

White British: 83.6%
White Other: 4.1%
Asian: 7.0%
Black: 1.6%
Chinese: 1.3%
Mixed-race: 1.4%
Other: 1.0%

Croydon
59.8% White British
1.9% White Irish
4.8% Other White
1.5% White & Black Caribbean
0.5% White & Black African
1.1% White & Asian
1.0% Other Mixed
7.5% Indian
2.6% Pakistani
0.6% Bangladeshi
2.3% Other Asian
7.9% Black Caribbean
5.6% Black African
1.1% Other Black
0.8% Chinese
1.0% Other

There is your reason why there were no riots in Newcastle.

With calculated cowardice you decline to make your conclusion, BTS because you know that to do so would probably get you into hot water for a racist post.

I challenge you to draw your own conclusion from the evidence that you have provided.

[scottycelt]

Be my guest; if you really feel that this would be a necessary preamble to try to justify some of your remakrs, then by all mean go ahead.

Thank you, mine host!

No, it was, I think, your goodself who appeared to suggest that it is 'selective' not to adopt this practice as a necessary preamble. Previously, I had merely highlighted the parts of your text that I considered relevant to the point I was making. If I may be so bold, I shall now revert to adopting that rather more helpfully concise and meaningful of practices, as, after all, your valuable contributions are always here for any eager forum member to read in full, if they so wish.

We are indeed talking about crime - but, in so doing, we are - or at least one of us is - trying to point out (a) that there's a vast gulf of difference between first-degree murder and nicking a few litres of water and (b) whatever your interpretation of "zero" may be it has no direct impact upon appropriate attituds towards sentencing.

As far as I'm aware the argument is not about the startlingly obvious differences between certain categories of crime. I understood we are currently supposed to be discussing 'appropriate' sentencing issued by judges for crimes committed during the recent rioting and looting. If you have some information that some poor criminal has been handed down a sentence for 'nicking a few litres of water' that might normally be given for first-degree murder please do share that information with us. The UK media, especially what appears to be the encyclopaedic font of knowledge for the overwhelming majority of active members here, The Guardian, will be most interested, I'm sure.

Yet again I must point out that I am not personally responsible for the only official definition of the word 'zero'. If my favourite football team (Partick Thistle ) is sadly defeated 1-0, I have been hitherto unable to protest to the SFA that my own 'interpretation' of 'zero' (at least for that match) is 'two' .. now, there's an idea ... thank you, ahinton!

No - only listeners who think as you appear to do would "naturally assume" that; the rest of us would be "very much in favour of" appropriate sentencing and would certainly not favour sentencing for any relatively petty crime that is harsher than it might otherwise be purely because of the background of the riots.

Maybe what you actually mean by 'appropriate' sentencing is 'lighter' sentencing for what you consider 'petty crime', though your view may not necessarily be shared by any of the victims. To put your mind at rest, the BBC reported last night that a number of those charged have been set free and others merely issued with a stern warning by the judge. Would you prefer that criminals are given the judge of their choice?

Rather more seriously, if zero-tolerance means 'appropriate sentencing' or more accurately 'light sentencing' in your case, why on earth do notable liberals like the good Baroness Hamwee get so hot under the collar about the term?

I mean what I say - and I've said it above.

I now accept that ... you mean what you say ... that zero doesn't necessarily mean zero. Apologies for any misunderstanding.

But why should a particular "example" be made just because of the riots? A crime is a crime is a crime, surely? Would you expect harsher or less harsh sentences to be dispensed to criminals at any level of criminal activity just because of the riots background? Perhaps you would. This is one are where you and I differ.

Yes I would, as quite a few senior police and other authorities have already pointed out, whilst using terms like 'extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary measures'. In fact, without laboriously checking back, I think I used that very term myself very near the beginning of this or an associated thread. Now that we can least agree on where we differ, that surely has to be one major step forward for both of us, don't you think?.

Fair comment, but my concern here is that of different attitudes to the same crimes just because of the riots background, as I've already made clear.

I've also made clear that I readily understand why the 'riots background' has changed attitudes to the same crimes in certain cases (but by no means all) ... it would be astonishing and indeed deeply worrying for many law-abiding citizens if that were not the case.

As a Scot, I do not need reminding of that, thanks! That said, perhaps you'll accordingly accept that such independence of thought allows for difference such as those betgween us on some of these issues.

Once again, it was not myself who appeared to equate a particular nationality with a single line of opinion, and I acknowledge that you have now apparently retreated from that rather novel position.

OK - but I cannot tell what people's attitudes to the local police may be in either principality sorry I mean country and, since no one has yet come forward with convincing arguments as to why it is that Scotland and Wales seem largely to have escaped the worst of the problems, we'll just have to wait and see and maintain our own respective counsel in the meantime, I guess..

To refer to Scotland, however mistakenly, as a 'principality' is rather odd, but then again this whole discussion might be described thus. If 'maintaining our own respective counsel' means that we both shut up for a bit, I'm sure the overwhelming majority of members, who have not yet had the sense to put us both on 'ignore', may well, I feel sure, breathe one mighty, collective sigh of relief ..

[eighthobstruction]

Smashing....

....due to this dialogue Scotty has now learned how to systematically quote item by item [I suggest to frustrate him we all only give him one item per day].... Am51 now has to up his game....

....as to the end of your first paragraph....I'm eager....Oh so very very eager....

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

"everyone deserves a second chance"

...

David Cameron ....context is all eh ...

[amateur51]

...

David Cameron ....context is all eh ...

Exactly, Calum! What a plonker

[eighthobstruction]

It is all part of the plonkerisation of politics and politicians....Discourse is all....action a possible outcome....

....Muppets....

[BBMmk2]

I see that Ian Duncan Smith has had an interview in The Spectator. He was saying something about this is a warning of what the root causes are with these riots?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

the full online version is here IDS is worth a hearing even if you disagree

[Anna]

Thanks Calum, I'll read the IDS when I come back online later. In the meantime I mentioned an article about the gangs of Glasgow, this isn't the one I had in mind but it's near enough the same, interesting reading in that they're not trying to break up the gangs as they acknowledge the gangs are necessary but with the violence taken out, the success figures are impressive.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/11/glasgow-gangs-peace-crackdown

[Lateralthinking1]

By "the" government do you mean the present British one or most or all of them in recent years? I ask this only for the sake of clarity and mindful of the fact that the present go vernment has only been in office for just over 15 months.

Between 1974, my first "political" year, and 2009, I was always angry or sad about many policies of Governments. That was a part of my identity. However, I can't recall any time when these feelings were on my own behalf. They were generally on behalf of other people. This meant that while I engaged with the issues emotionally, I was more inclined to consider them academically.

Between 1974 and 2006, I could believe in "the political system" because I always considered that there were better democratic alternatives to the Governments of the day offered by other parties. Since then, I have been given good reason to believe that this is not the case.

Until around 2006, I believed that for all of the dreadful and often diabolical things that had been done by Governments since 1976, one could still see a line of moral progress in terms of Governments having improved the lives of the majority of average people from 1945 onwards. Since 2006, I haven't believed that the line has continued.

Until around 2006, I also believed that while the personal ethics of MPs had been declining steadily since 1990, and had not been good in the 1970s, most MPs were still sound. That changed too. I recognise that this point is more about Parliament.

Until 2009, I didn't feel personally attacked by Governments but proposals in 2009 suggested that this was beginning to happen.

Until 2010 I wasn't attacked by Governments in the sense of having effectively been chucked over a cliff economically. And until 2011 my area of the country had not been turned into flames under any Government - a metaphor for everything it had done to me the previous year and was doing to me and many other people in a range of ongoing policies.

Between 1974 and 2006 I recognised that Governments could often be quite mad but I never really doubted their sanity. However, around 2006 this changed and since 2009 I have believed them genuinely to be insane.

Obviously this is a simplistic summary but there is no point in going into more detail. People will either get it or they won't.

[amateur51]

the full online version is here IDS is worth a hearing even if you disagree

It all reads very well and all credit to IDS for listening to some experts. However it’s sad that he doesn’t appear to have or to want access to expert youth & community workers from UK, who would be very useful to him, but they wouldn’t be as glam as The Man Who Knows From The US of A.

It was all going well until I read the name Louise Casey, Blair’s former Homelessness Tsar (we’ll solve it be re-jigging the definition), ASBO Tsar (ASBOs became a badge of achievement in some quarters), Respect Tsar and finally Brown’s Victims Tsar. She has got a poor track record, doesn’t listen and should be parked pronto.

All good luck to him. His biggest obstacle will be HM Treasury, of course. It’s the Prime Minister’s job to get Gideon to keep them off IDS' back so that he can see it through :ok

[amateur51]

Thanks Calum, I'll read the IDS when I come back online later. In the meantime I mentioned an article about the gangs of Glasgow, this isn't the one I had in mind but it's near enough the same, interesting reading in that they're not trying to break up the gangs as they acknowledge the gangs are necessary but with the violence taken out, the success figures are impressive.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/au...eace-crackdown

Thanks for this Anna - good stuff as you say

There's also some good stuff that's been tried & evaluated in Northern Ireland. This is what I mean by using UK youth & community work expertise in my post #598