Rioting in UK capital

[mariab]

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".

Actually, Errata, this is pretty deep AND it cracked me up.
Also thanks to Chris Phillips for the insightful comparison to the Thatcher era in his post #177.

[Sister Hyde]

Here it's hard to get an objective point of view from the medias. the opinion we hear the most from the reporters is "It's very shocking for us french people to see that the UK is handling this situation with an "economic" perspective rather that an "social" perspective."... moron... it's lucky I don't live in a country where guns are legal cause I would probably need a new tv set every week.

[jason_c]

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?

Which inequalities are these? Many(not all) of these looters had decent enough jobs.

[Fleetwood Mac]

[QUOTE=Errata;186978]

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......

[\QUOTE]

Well, you wouldn't have to skim the pages of an introdcutory guide to philosophy to arrive at the conclusion that 'society is to blame for these people's problems' (which presumably means lacking the wherewithal to purchase a television) is akin to diluting individual reponsibility.

Yes. There is some reason.

That reason is called choice.

Now you or the next man could appeal to arbitrary notions such as 'inequality', which at best can only ever be a theory, and this will undoubtedly dilute individual initiative and responsibility. Like a self-fulfilling prophecy, those who are told they're unequal use it as an excuse to break the law and attempt to divert the blame elsewhere; in fact, anywhere but with themselves.

Accepting responsibility for your actions is a very uncomfortable proposition for many, not just law breakers, because it removes the safety net. You become the master of your own destiny: many people can't handle this. Shifting responsibility comes in many guises: fate, liberalism, society, god, the boss at work etc.

There is very good reason to accept that you are the master of your own destiny; similarly, there is very good reason to deny this (to deny one's own freedom has its advantages - see Simone de Beauvoir). Depends upon what you want to achieve in life I suppose, and whether or not you wish to be a fraud running round blaming everyone else for your choices and actions (general you).

[Limehouse]

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?

As always Errata - a great post.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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?