Rioting in UK capital

[Errata]

The emboldened part will likely be 100% wrong. The only way the riots would affect Bush snr would be any lack of his administrations law & order reply against the rioters.
.

Well it wasn't so much a lack of a response, as much as there was disagreement about the response. Some people thought the national guard should not have been activated. Some people thought it should have been activated sooner. Some thought they should have been on alert the moment the jury came to a decision. Some thought the national guard should have been activated, but not bring in the Army and the Marines. Some people thought the cops should not have been pulled out of the area. Quite a few people thought he should have shown some sympathy for the social problems that created the powder keg.

And a good deal of this was not his fault or even his decision. But it was an election year, and that's a bad time to find yourself in a no-win situation. And our elections are more direct than England's, so Presidents often find their elections based on some of the strangest things. We had a really strong Democratic candidate get tanked because of a weird sounding scream of excitement he gave at a rally. So it's less about Bush's failure, and more about his perceived failure.

[jason_c]

I'd give him apostrophe lessons so he could educate himself out of poverty and pay for the kung fu lessons himself.

Interesting how the London rioters had their ripple effect round the country, before boredom set in again, plus rain in Manchester (who would have guessed?) and the flooding with extra coppers stopped play - but the talking about it goes on, and on.

And there's a different opinion on cause, effect, punishment and future prevention for every one of the silly (as in simple) sheep who joined in.

Love,

Caz
X

I was literally throwing stuff at Ed Miliband on tv earlier.

[caz]

http://wiw.org/~jess/wp-uploads/ninjabeg.jpg

I'd give this guy money.

I'd give him apostrophe lessons so he could educate himself out of poverty and pay for the kung fu lessons himself.

Interesting how the London rioters had their ripple effect round the country, before boredom set in again, plus rain in Manchester (who would have guessed?) and the flooding with extra coppers stopped play - but the talking about it goes on, and on.

And there's a different opinion on cause, effect, punishment and future prevention for every one of the silly (as in simple) sheep who joined in.

Love,

Caz
X

[brummie]

So David Cameron thinks it about time he fixed our 'broken society',well theres been a lot said on this thread about taking personal resposibility but I don't suppose Cameron and his chancellor will come anywhere near taking their share of responaibility for the governments sustained assault on the working classes.
Cameron when he came to office (with a minority of voters) stated he would be about reducing the deficit but "we're all in it together" ,surely the most assinine sound bite for decades.The reality is that it is the lower members of society who have to carry the biggest burden as usual.While people are losing their homes and jobs Camerons idea of being in it together is probably to put the butler on a 3 day week or get a slightly smaller Daimler.
It is somewhat obnoxious when the government spends all its time cutting jobs then in pandering to the tabloid mentality by branding anyone without a job as a workshy scrounger and cuuting their benefits.If you want to mend "broken Britain" Cameron you might want to start looking close to home.If you leave people with no money,no job and no hope why would they want to be part of your society?

[jason_c]

The politics thing may be more of an American phenomenon than a British one. Certainly there were quite a few people who attributed George Bush's failure to win re-election to the LA riots.

And political or establishment targeting almost never lasts more than 24 hours, though I was under the impression that London police officers were attacked a couple days running. It's like we just don't have the focus and commitment for a reign of terror anymore. We devote maybe a night to political or social upheaval, and the next three days perfecting the five finger discount. There was an interview I watched in sociology class of someone from the LA riots, and he said for about 12 hours after the verdict, he felt sort of a righteous hatred for law enforcement, and as it started to fade he got scared of cops again, and turned towards less targeted more anonymous destruction to vent. I wouldn't think that's uncommon.

My teacher said that the way you know that looting isn't always about acquisition was that a ski supply store was completely emptied. If you live in South Central LA, you don't ski. A: it's not a super popular sport amongst American blacks and b: it's an expensive hobby. Even the shelves in that place were taken, and probably saw a lot more use than the skis ever did. I mean, electronics and liquor are very popular with looters, but then there's the occasional plumbing supply store that get emptied to sort of make you wonder about the real motivation of it all.

I can't say rioting looks fun. But then again, I'm not big on crowds and I hate being pushed around. If I could riot in a giant hamster ball to preserve my personal space, I might be more open to it.

The emboldened part will likely be 100% wrong. The only way the riots would affect Bush snr would be any lack of his administrations law & order reply against the rioters.

You realise ski's can be sold? In L.A. I doubt it would be difficult to sell them on to someone.


I apologize as i may be coming across as a troll. Im typing with an on screen keyboard so my posts are fairly brief.

[Errata]

Since 1968 riots have barely any significance to a politicians career. All riots do is in the short term they turn the populace right wing. If a politician doesnt react to this rightward backlash then it may then hurt him/her. Reacting to a riot is a no brainer for any competent politician.

Apart from a brief period on Saturday night no establishment group was being targeted. The rest was simple gang induced theft.

And ive noticed something about rioting. Despite the theft, destruction, fire and occassional death, rioting looks like its fun.

The politics thing may be more of an American phenomenon than a British one. Certainly there were quite a few people who attributed George Bush's failure to win re-election to the LA riots.

And political or establishment targeting almost never lasts more than 24 hours, though I was under the impression that London police officers were attacked a couple days running. It's like we just don't have the focus and commitment for a reign of terror anymore. We devote maybe a night to political or social upheaval, and the next three days perfecting the five finger discount. There was an interview I watched in sociology class of someone from the LA riots, and he said for about 12 hours after the verdict, he felt sort of a righteous hatred for law enforcement, and as it started to fade he got scared of cops again, and turned towards less targeted more anonymous destruction to vent. I wouldn't think that's uncommon.

My teacher said that the way you know that looting isn't always about acquisition was that a ski supply store was completely emptied. If you live in South Central LA, you don't ski. A: it's not a super popular sport amongst American blacks and b: it's an expensive hobby. Even the shelves in that place were taken, and probably saw a lot more use than the skis ever did. I mean, electronics and liquor are very popular with looters, but then there's the occasional plumbing supply store that get emptied to sort of make you wonder about the real motivation of it all.

I can't say rioting looks fun. But then again, I'm not big on crowds and I hate being pushed around. If I could riot in a giant hamster ball to preserve my personal space, I might be more open to it.

[Archaic]

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.

Are you aware that many "whites" are Muslim?

To be a Muslim is to be a follower of Islam.

It's a religious faith and has nothing to do with skin color.

Archaic

[jason_c]

That was a for example inequalities in the system. It's a problem every government has in some form or fashion, and it makes an easy example.

Most looters don't do it because they need something (though clearly in cases like Hurricane Katrina some did). Typically it starts with defacement and arson, and then people decide to grab a TV before burning a place, and it goes on from there. Most people think they deserve a flat screen, but that's not what makes them break in and take it. The desire is to strike fear into the hearts of the people they perceive as being part of the problem.

You can have a decent job, and one day notice that the only time you ever see cops with guns is in your mostly black neighborhood and you have the right to be angry about that. Or realize that most people you know who have had run ins with the police get hurt. Or get mad when the only thing keeping your kid out of a gang gets cut by the government. Or just hate it that nobody cares that you can't catch a break, and you think someone should care. It can be a lot of things. And the first actions are usually targeting people perceived as the problem. Police officers, government buildings, mail boxes, whatever. But beyond that, the mob can target white people for looking down on them, or businesses that don't hire people like you, or who won't help people like you. And then yes, some people show up who just want a Wii.

But the best way to stick it to a government you think is not on your side is to riot and to loot. The citizens will blame you, and rightfully so. But they will also blame the government for not protecting it's citizens, for not securing the streets, for not arresting enough people, for not preventing it in the first place. Administrations are tanked over this kind of thing. Rioting and looting is an extremely effective form of punishment, and the punished often cannot recover.

If you want to change hearts and minds, have a sit in. If you want to ruin political careers, have a riot.

Since 1968 riots have barely any significance to a politicians career. All riots do is in the short term they turn the populace right wing. If a politician doesnt react to this rightward backlash then it may then hurt him/her. Reacting to a riot is a no brainer for any competent politician.

Apart from a brief period on Saturday night no establishment group was being targeted. The rest was simple gang induced theft.

And ive noticed something about rioting. Despite the theft, destruction, fire and occassional death, rioting looks like its fun.

[Robert]

Well, at least that's inventive!

[Errata]

Ha! Good one. I liked what Keith Waterhouse wrote about beggars - how they were always giving hard luck stories and swearing that the money was for a good purpose. Waterhouse said that he did give money to a beggar in America, because he told him that the money would be put to no good use whatsoever!

Shaw once told a story of how his father or grandfather used to help the poor, but one man infuriated him because, when asked why he wasn't in work, replied "Because I'm too lazy."

http://wiw.org/~jess/wp-uploads/ninjabeg.jpg

I'd give this guy money.

[Errata]

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

That was a for example inequalities in the system. It's a problem every government has in some form or fashion, and it makes an easy example.

Most looters don't do it because they need something (though clearly in cases like Hurricane Katrina some did). Typically it starts with defacement and arson, and then people decide to grab a TV before burning a place, and it goes on from there. Most people think they deserve a flat screen, but that's not what makes them break in and take it. The desire is to strike fear into the hearts of the people they perceive as being part of the problem.

You can have a decent job, and one day notice that the only time you ever see cops with guns is in your mostly black neighborhood and you have the right to be angry about that. Or realize that most people you know who have had run ins with the police get hurt. Or get mad when the only thing keeping your kid out of a gang gets cut by the government. Or just hate it that nobody cares that you can't catch a break, and you think someone should care. It can be a lot of things. And the first actions are usually targeting people perceived as the problem. Police officers, government buildings, mail boxes, whatever. But beyond that, the mob can target white people for looking down on them, or businesses that don't hire people like you, or who won't help people like you. And then yes, some people show up who just want a Wii.

But the best way to stick it to a government you think is not on your side is to riot and to loot. The citizens will blame you, and rightfully so. But they will also blame the government for not protecting it's citizens, for not securing the streets, for not arresting enough people, for not preventing it in the first place. Administrations are tanked over this kind of thing. Rioting and looting is an extremely effective form of punishment, and the punished often cannot recover.

If you want to change hearts and minds, have a sit in. If you want to ruin political careers, have a riot.

[lynn cates]

honesty

Hello Robert. Quite true and refreshing.

This past summer, on the road between campuses (campi?) I passed a lad, same corner every day, with a cardboard sign which read, "Why lie? I need a beer."

I truly appreciated his candour.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Ha! Good one. I liked what Keith Waterhouse wrote about beggars - how they were always giving hard luck stories and swearing that the money was for a good purpose. Waterhouse said that he did give money to a beggar in America, because he told him that the money would be put to no good use whatsoever!

Shaw once told a story of how his father or grandfather used to help the poor, but one man infuriated him because, when asked why he wasn't in work, replied "Because I'm too lazy."

[lynn cates]

four letter word

Hello Robert. I came across a clipping in "Lloyd's Weekly" in which a beggar accosted an old lady on the street.

"If you please, miss. Just a shilling and you will save me from something I greatly fear and dread."

"You poor man!" she replied, giving him a shilling. "Now that I have helped you, can you please tell me the dread thing I have saved you from?"

"Going to work." was his quick reply.

Cheers.
LC

[Robert]

Once a week Mr Smith used to pass a certain beggar, and each time he did so Mr Smith put money in the beggar's bowl. Then one day, out of the blue, the beggar went bersek and mugged Mr Smith of all his money. Smith called in the police and the beggar went up before the beak.

Needless to say, the beggar was soon back on the streets. However, from that time on Mr Smith refused to put any money in the beggar's bowl - Smith was a rather retarded fellow who had not had the benefit of attending a Rioting Awareness Course, and he actually believed that the beggar didn't deserve his money. Hard to understand, I know, yet true.

Some time later, the unfortunate Mr Smith was mugged again, this time by someone who was in work. That person too went up before the beak, and was soon back on the streets.

Mr Smith realised that he couldn't stop giving money to the second mugger - because he hadn't been giving any before. So, in the interests of equality, he recommenced putting money in the first mugger's bowl.

Mr Smith often tells this story with pride, to anyone who visits him at the asylum.