Rioting in UK capital

[Fleetwood Mac]

Sorry Fleetwood Mac- this is one spot of bother that can't be blamed on the Muslims. In fact, in many instances they have shown themselves to be outstanding defenders of their communities and admirable citizens,forming groups to protect local shops and businesses- what the three Muslim men in Birmingham were doing when they were tragically killed. And well done to the Turks in Dalston for setting on the looters and making them turn tail and run!
I lived in London for many years- for a time even on the notorious Broadwater Farm Estate in Tottenahm, and I've seen it all, and believe me- Muslims are not the problem!

What are you talking about? When did I say muslims are the problem?

If you want to know what I think I'd take a wild stab in the dark that as a % of the population more whites break the law than muslims; and I'd be surprised in the event this theory proved to be wide of the mark.

This is about idiots breaking the law and other idiots excusing their behaviour.

[Limehouse]

Oh dear god. There's always an excuse isn't there. Always someone else to blame. When is this country going to wake up. Probably never. We're so far gone with this 'society is to blame' bollocks that it's become second nature. What an absolute shambles of a situation and what an insult to those of us who abide by the law of the land and do not go round smashing things up because 'we see someone else doing something'.

Are you so idiotic that you watch what other people do and copy their actions? Are you really saying that? And, out of curiosity, why are you not out there smashing the place up?

Are you such an idiot that you can't read my whole post?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Are you such an idiot that you can't read my whole post?

'It's really their version of what they see others doing'.

Your words.

Do you want to reply to my questions? I'd imagine not, prefering to swerve the issues instead, and pop up in post number 1,150 repeating the 'it's not their fault' mantra.

How did we ever come to this? How did the left gain such a foothold within the sphere of political thought, preaching everything from 'equality' and 'fairness' for the 'disenfranchised' breaking the law. Well, I know how I suppose.....it's a more a matter of shaking one's head than a question begging an answer.....

[Limehouse]

'It's really their version of what they see others doing'.

Your words.

Do you want to reply to my questions? I'd imagine not, prefering to swerve the issues instead, and pop up in post number 1,150 repeating the 'it's not their fault' mantra.

How did we ever come to this? How did the left gain such a foothold within the sphere of political thought, preaching everything from 'equality' and 'fairness' for the 'disenfranchised' breaking the law. Well, I know how I suppose.....it's a more a matter of shaking one's head than a question begging an answer.....

What questions am I suppose to be answering?

I have certainly not swerved the issues. My posts have strongly condemned the behaviour of the rioters and I have never said 'it's not their fault'. What I have said is that in recent times the highest in the land have been caught breaking the law and dodging their responsibilities and whilst this does not excuse the behaviour of the rioters it certainly does not set them a good example.

[Fleetwood Mac]

What questions am I suppose to be answering?

I have certainly not swerved the issues. My posts have strongly condemned the behaviour of the rioters and I have never said 'it's not their fault'. What I have said is that in recent times the highest in the land have been caught breaking the law and dodging their responsibilities and whilst this does not excuse the behaviour of the rioters it certainly does not set them a good example.

And so you're linking the two. And espousing the idea that political elites govern our behaviour through their 'example'. Do they really? Seriously? Do these people not have a choice? What exactly is the point in democracy in the event the best we can do is, out of no choice of our own, imitate the actions of our masters? May as well concede that we are like lemmings better suited to a benevolent dictator than a democratic system. Do you see the absurdity of your position?

[Chris]

Then you aren't listening. We have BBC journalists pontificating about how it's not their fault, no doubt retiring to liberal middle-class surburbia forthwith. Want the names of these journalists?

You're claiming that a BBC journalist has said "it's not their fault"?

Can you provide a link, please?

[Fleetwood Mac]

You're claiming that a BBC journalist has said "it's not their fault"?

Can you provide a link, please?

a) Evidently, you're not listening.

b) You want me to do your homework and provide links.

c) Google it. You'll find the BBC describing them as protestors, as opposed to criminals.

Do your own homework, mate.

[jason_c]

I don't actually see the greedy bankers taking personal responsibility for the havoc they caused.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with these riots/lootings.

[Chris]

Fleetwood Mac

Of course, the fact is that if any BBC journalist had said "it's not their fault," that in itself would have been headline news, and they would have been demonised mercilessly by the rest of the media.

It didn't happen. You just made it up.

[Errata]

Is there some reason that the the idea that society is to blame for a great deal of these people's problems is considered mutually exclusive to the idea that they are still in fact responsible for their own actions?

I'm not entirely sure why it has to be one or the other, when really in no other aspect of life is it one or the other. Some of these people have been seriously screwed over. That doesn't mean they get to be violent. If you walk in on some guy screwing your wife, you have every right to be angry. You don't have the right to kill them.

But just because they did get violent doesn't negate the underlying issues. It would if it were a high school debate class, but it's not. Fixing say, inequalities in the system is not "giving in". Neither side is relieved of it's responsibilities by the misbehavior of the other.

And anyway, it's ridiculously easy to make the government look barbaric and cruel without stooping to violence. Why give up good press to get what you want?

[Archaic]

Homework

a) Evidently, you're not listening.

b) You want me to do your homework and provide links.

c) Google it. You'll find the BBC describing them as protestors, as opposed to criminals.

Do your own homework, mate.

Fleetwood Mac- thanks for the laugh, however inadvertent it was on your part.

Never thought I'd hear someone on Casebook accusing Chris of not doing his homework!!

Frankly, it would be quite difficult to find a Casebook member who is more dedicated in the "doing one's own homework" department.

Archaic

[Chris]

The irony is that after the riots of the early 1980s in Brixton, Toxteth and elsewhere, the government of Margaret Thatcher commissioned the Scarman Inquiry into the causes of the problems, and sent Michael Heseltine to Liverpool to try to improve conditions there.

Nowadays, in contrast, there seems to be a knee-jerk condemnation of any suggestion that social conditions may have played a part in causing civil unrest. Instead the government is coming out with ultra-simplistic ideas about stopping benefits and evicting people from council housing.

Remarkably, this government's approach seems to be more illiberal than Thatcher's thirty years ago. But at least the American "supercop," Bill Bratton, appears to be advising the government that "it's not just a police issue, it is in fact a societal issue." Perhaps having called him in as adviser, Cameron will feel some obligation to take notice of what he says:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14514429

[Errata]

Remarkably, this government's approach seems to be more illiberal than Thatcher's thirty years ago. But at least the American "supercop," Bill Bratton, appears to be advising the government that "it's not just a police issue, it is in fact a societal issue." Perhaps having called him in as adviser, Cameron will feel some obligation to take notice of what he says:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14514429

I had a sociology prof state that "the Rodney King beating and the L.A riots were the best thing to happen to sociologists since the late 60s". And aside from the rather stereotypical amoral scientist word choice, he wasn't far wrong. It was so well documented that there were sociologists categorizing facial expressions to determine the intent of various individual rioters. Governments, law enforcement, sociologists, everyone knows how this happens. (Evidently they even learned that rioting can help eradicate sexually transmitted diseases in the area) Now, I can understand it if a government somehow didn't think it would happen to them. I cannot understand them taking more than 50 years worth of research on the subject, and dismissing it as wrong, or inapplicable. It's like a kid who has an accident, and when you ask him about it he says "no I didn't". Deny it all you want, but a: it isn't going to change what happened and b: you're just ensuring that you get to spend the foreseeable future covered in your own **** rather than getting the mess cleaned up.

[harry]

Why do people do things.Sometimes it is because of the simple fact it can be done. In modern times,the largest,in scope,act of looting that I remember was in Germany just after the end of the second world war.By seemingly honest,upright citizens.Troops of American and British forces.Who,by their willingness to commit crime,by engaging in unlawful activities through the black market,in one case,nearly destroyed their own country's currency.And who were the worst offenders.Why,the people that led them.Why did we do it.Because the oportunity was there.

[Limehouse]

The irony is that after the riots of the early 1980s in Brixton, Toxteth and elsewhere, the government of Margaret Thatcher commissioned the Scarman Inquiry into the causes of the problems, and sent Michael Heseltine to Liverpool to try to improve conditions there.

Nowadays, in contrast, there seems to be a knee-jerk condemnation of any suggestion that social conditions may have played a part in causing civil unrest. Instead the government is coming out with ultra-simplistic ideas about stopping benefits and evicting people from council housing.

Remarkably, this government's approach seems to be more illiberal than Thatcher's thirty years ago. But at least the American "supercop," Bill Bratton, appears to be advising the government that "it's not just a police issue, it is in fact a societal issue." Perhaps having called him in as adviser, Cameron will feel some obligation to take notice of what he says:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14514429

I love your posts Chris. Reasoned and informed and no knee-jerkism!

Re the idea of stopping benefits and evicting people from their council accommodation - I have two points to make:

1. What will Cameron do with the very wealthy under-graduate who is neither on benefits or living in a council house?
2. There is a risk that some people will be punished three times (ie evicted with loss of benefits plus fine or whatever else sentecne is passed) whilst others (like the 'lady' above) in work and private accommodation will just get a straightforward sentence.

Cameron displays nothing but distain and contempt for the majority of the electorate. He is arrogant and out of touch. I can almost warm to Thatcher compared with him - and that's saying something!