London riots

hip hop bunny hop · 08-11-2011, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Conservative goverments are just bad for this country, get Labour in fast.

O RLY?

This seems to be the classical Conservative argument against welfare benefits acting itself out; when you give a people a set of entitlements they do not have to earn, they do not have to work for, you are effectivelly selling votes. "Vote Labour! I'll give you more stuff for free!"

Gee, imagine, you create an entire class of people who get something for nothing. How will these people react when it gets taken away? With civility? Will they take it to the polls?

Really, Labour back in power? Where will labour magically get the cash for these entitlements from? Will raise the tax rate on Leprechauns?

Sneer · 08-11-2011, 10:20 PM

Who ever sits in power sends this country to shit, been the same for well over a decade. The last Labour government was useless.

Ben Butler · 08-12-2011, 04:45 AM

The Times coverage of the riots
Especially it's links with poverty is nothing short of a disgrace. I will look particularly at Matthew Paris's article and that of David Aaronovitch.

Quotes from Matthew Paris's -

'It is first simply not ture that Britain is or has ever been notable for our socal coheshion. Historically the English in particular have been a notoriously unruly lot. The London Mob used to be the terror of continental observers. As a nation we've been ace rioters and overturners of the gentry's carriage - our hoolaginism is legendary. In imperial days we led the world in racism. There have been past riots in Toxteht, Brixton, Bristol St.Pauls.'

So because it has happened before it makes it acceptable this time?

'And we have always cheerfully disregarded a rotting underclass.E.g.s Oliver Twist, 1914-1918 WW1. What distinguishes this week's rioting from the class and time honoured English riot is that our underclass is now so small. The white working class is disappearing; a black middle class is growing; and the residue cannot amount to more than one per cent of our population. They are concentrated in cheerless and decaying pockets, they have no prospects, no education, nothing to lose and many are socially dysfunctional and barely employable.'

Underclass is such an offensive term, it is not just a small amount of population in poverty. No, you can't compare it to the level of past times but it's still very high and that's not really the point anyway. I thought underclass was prejudice, but to describe a human being as 'residue' is going to far! So should we just give up on them?

'I take neither satisfaction in observing that disorder among them will be dealth with, as when our property is threatened, we have always dealt with disorder - a sharp amount of order backed by overwhelming force.'

No, that is not the answer. The rioters/looters will just hate people like you even more and will want to do it again.

David Aaronovitch -

'Not many people took part in the violence. It doesn't take many to cause mayhem. They're mostly teenage boys from poorer areas, black from black areas, white from white areas, the same demographic as that for young violence, street robbbery and vandalism.'

So you think the problem is confined to just a few hundred young males? For a start there are more people suffering from poverty than just the rioters, they were just the ones that stood up and took the action. Are you stereotyping again? Blaming young males for everything as usual.

They are also not affected by cuts, lack of attention to their education or area. There are newly rebuilt schools with highly motivated teachers who teach them citizenship and a emphasis on social responsibility'. Also, they are less likely than their fatehrs to have suffered from police harrassment and violence. They are not forgotten and marginalised, a lot of time and effort has been spent on them'. Ok, whatever! So you are just in denial? If that's the case, then why are there so many young people like this? Will you not take any of the blame? Any of the responsibility like your fellow sidekick Cameron and his snobby party?

'Because, yes, we have been before, with a relatively small number of young men, high on violence and low on personal skills, finding away to drive the rest of us mad. Difficult violent young men will always be with us. The number, matter of course and we can and should whittle away at them with firmness.'

So just blame the whole thing and confine the issue of poverty and social deprivation to a few young, white males? What an absolute pile of dog crap!

These people need help and if you can get them to stand on their own feet and want something then maybe we can start to tackle these obvious problems such as a poor education system, lack of jobs etc... I.e. The Guardian/liberal stance is the right one.

The coverage in their paper of the riots is excellent. We actually get a view from the rioters and the 'other side' (poor people) whereas with The Times, you just see it through their prejudiced eyes. The poor to them are a group to look down on, to be feared, to wash away with.

It makes me feel absolutely sick. This is what I hate about the Conservative party, they do not have the best interests of the people of this country, it's high them they were taken off their high and mighty horse!

The Monkey · 08-12-2011, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop

O RLY?

This seems to be the classical Conservative argument against welfare benefits acting itself out; when you give a people a set of entitlements they do not have to earn, they do not have to work for, you are effectivelly selling votes. "Vote Labour! I'll give you more stuff for free!"

Gee, imagine, you create an entire class of people who get something for nothing. How will these people react when it gets taken away? With civility? Will they take it to the polls?

Really, Labour back in power? Where will labour magically get the cash for these entitlements from? Will raise the tax rate on Leprechauns?

The problem is that there are more unemployed than there a jobs. Sure, there will always be one or two lazy sods, but the vast majority of unemployed want to work, but can't find anything. What do you reckon society should do with these people, let them starve to death?

FETCHER. · 08-12-2011, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu

Edinburgh's in the midst of anarchy now too.

Total carnage

.

Zer0 · 08-12-2011, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu

She's out of control. It's facinating how a video of someone knocking over a wheelie bin can get 395,851 hits on Youtube!

hip hop bunny hop · 08-12-2011, 01:21 PM

Quote:

The problem is that there are more unemployed than there a jobs. Sure, there will always be one or two lazy sods, but the vast majority of unemployed want to work, but can't find anything. What do you reckon society should do with these people, let them starve to death?

I recognize that unemployment occurs when there's more people looking for jobs than there are jobs available, and that a person as classified as "unemployed" only when they are activelly searching for work. Otherwise, economists don't count them as part of the labour pool.

Now, really, did I suggest these people starve? Are they facing starvation? No, they are not. Were they facing starvation, they would not organizing via smartphones, and they certainly wouldn't be looting for TVs, Jewelry, and Apparel.

Really, though; let's just say Britain wanted to keep these social programs going. How would they be financed?

You seem to be forgetting that the reason why the cuts are so drastic is because they couldn't afford these programs to begin with; if they couldn't afford them in '05, why on earth do you think they'd be able to afford them in '11??

Mojo · 08-13-2011, 07:17 AM

To be quite honest, I find the fact that some people will refuse to accept that alot of what happened is nothing more than mindless violence rather worrying.

Do I believe that so many people could suddenly turn violent and begin to destroy and steal for no good reason? No, actually I don't. I'm not arguing that there are underlying issues that need to be addressed. These riots can't just be swept under the carpet, leaving people to feel invisible. However, do I believe that apart from initial, root causes for unrest, 90% of these riots are people simply practicising criminality, for the sake of it and also for personal gain? Damn right I do.

I don't see what's so hard to believe about the fact that there are a HELL of a lot of people out there who would break the law, attack and steal whatever they want, and the only thing holding them back is the threat of having to pay consequences for their actions. You remove that threat, and people will do what they please.

Paedantic Basterd · 08-13-2011, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mojopinuk

I don't see what's so hard to believe about the fact that there are a HELL of a lot of people out there who would break the law, attack and steal whatever they want, and the only thing holding them back is the threat of having to pay consequences for their actions. You remove that threat, and people will do what they please.

100% agreed on this. I think the underlying problem is actually in human nature, not in after school programs or what have you.

Mykonos · 08-14-2011, 02:50 AM

So scanning over the government/media reaction to this, I see that video games/teenagers in general have both been pretty high up in taking the blame for this whole fiasco. Fuck it, I'm so leaving this country when I get the chance.

08-11-2011, 10:20 PM	#72 (permalink)
Sneer Let it drip Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 5,430	Who ever sits in power sends this country to shit, been the same for well over a decade. The last Labour government was useless. __________________ LastFM Sneer's Emporium of Sound Fright Team radio show

08-13-2011, 07:17 AM	#78 (permalink)
Mojo Melancholia Eternally Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: England Posts: 5,018	To be quite honest, I find the fact that some people will refuse to accept that alot of what happened is nothing more than mindless violence rather worrying. Do I believe that so many people could suddenly turn violent and begin to destroy and steal for no good reason? No, actually I don't. I'm not arguing that there are underlying issues that need to be addressed. These riots can't just be swept under the carpet, leaving people to feel invisible. However, do I believe that apart from initial, root causes for unrest, 90% of these riots are people simply practicising criminality, for the sake of it and also for personal gain? Damn right I do. I don't see what's so hard to believe about the fact that there are a HELL of a lot of people out there who would break the law, attack and steal whatever they want, and the only thing holding them back is the threat of having to pay consequences for their actions. You remove that threat, and people will do what they please. __________________ Last.FM \| Echoes and Dust

08-14-2011, 02:50 AM	#80 (permalink)
Mykonos AWhatup Ganache? Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 381	So scanning over the government/media reaction to this, I see that video games/teenagers in general have both been pretty high up in taking the blame for this whole fiasco. Fuck it, I'm so leaving this country when I get the chance. __________________ 'Not that Becktionary, the Rhyming Becktionary!'- Bender Bending Rodriguez

08-12-2011, 04:45 AM	#73 (permalink)
Ben Butler Music Addict Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Rudheath Posts: 393	The Times coverage of the riots Especially it's links with poverty is nothing short of a disgrace. I will look particularly at Matthew Paris's article and that of David Aaronovitch. Quotes from Matthew Paris's - 'It is first simply not ture that Britain is or has ever been notable for our socal coheshion. Historically the English in particular have been a notoriously unruly lot. The London Mob used to be the terror of continental observers. As a nation we've been ace rioters and overturners of the gentry's carriage - our hoolaginism is legendary. In imperial days we led the world in racism. There have been past riots in Toxteht, Brixton, Bristol St.Pauls.' So because it has happened before it makes it acceptable this time? 'And we have always cheerfully disregarded a rotting underclass.E.g.s Oliver Twist, 1914-1918 WW1. What distinguishes this week's rioting from the class and time honoured English riot is that our underclass is now so small. The white working class is disappearing; a black middle class is growing; and the residue cannot amount to more than one per cent of our population. They are concentrated in cheerless and decaying pockets, they have no prospects, no education, nothing to lose and many are socially dysfunctional and barely employable.' Underclass is such an offensive term, it is not just a small amount of population in poverty. No, you can't compare it to the level of past times but it's still very high and that's not really the point anyway. I thought underclass was prejudice, but to describe a human being as 'residue' is going to far! So should we just give up on them? 'I take neither satisfaction in observing that disorder among them will be dealth with, as when our property is threatened, we have always dealt with disorder - a sharp amount of order backed by overwhelming force.' No, that is not the answer. The rioters/looters will just hate people like you even more and will want to do it again. David Aaronovitch - 'Not many people took part in the violence. It doesn't take many to cause mayhem. They're mostly teenage boys from poorer areas, black from black areas, white from white areas, the same demographic as that for young violence, street robbbery and vandalism.' So you think the problem is confined to just a few hundred young males? For a start there are more people suffering from poverty than just the rioters, they were just the ones that stood up and took the action. Are you stereotyping again? Blaming young males for everything as usual. They are also not affected by cuts, lack of attention to their education or area. There are newly rebuilt schools with highly motivated teachers who teach them citizenship and a emphasis on social responsibility'. Also, they are less likely than their fatehrs to have suffered from police harrassment and violence. They are not forgotten and marginalised, a lot of time and effort has been spent on them'. Ok, whatever! So you are just in denial? If that's the case, then why are there so many young people like this? Will you not take any of the blame? Any of the responsibility like your fellow sidekick Cameron and his snobby party? 'Because, yes, we have been before, with a relatively small number of young men, high on violence and low on personal skills, finding away to drive the rest of us mad. Difficult violent young men will always be with us. The number, matter of course and we can and should whittle away at them with firmness.' So just blame the whole thing and confine the issue of poverty and social deprivation to a few young, white males? What an absolute pile of dog crap! These people need help and if you can get them to stand on their own feet and want something then maybe we can start to tackle these obvious problems such as a poor education system, lack of jobs etc... I.e. The Guardian/liberal stance is the right one. The coverage in their paper of the riots is excellent. We actually get a view from the rioters and the 'other side' (poor people) whereas with The Times, you just see it through their prejudiced eyes. The poor to them are a group to look down on, to be feared, to wash away with. It makes me feel absolutely sick. This is what I hate about the Conservative party, they do not have the best interests of the people of this country, it's high them they were taken off their high and mighty horse!