Would you like to comment on the London riots on Saturday, 8/6/11
Aug 10th, 2011, 09:29 AM
#241
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"how can you have respect when the top two politicians in the country should have been jailed for serious crimes."
Because personally I don't make my moral or life decisions based on what anyone else is doing, least of all hack politicians. Lame lame lame.
Because personally I don't make my moral or life decisions based on what anyone else is doing, least of all hack politicians. Lame lame lame.
Aug 10th, 2011, 09:40 AM
#242
Mob behaviour is a topic of endless study, where people who would NEVER do certain things normally will do them in a mob situation. "If those 20 people just walked away with a flat screen TV, shouldn't I be entitled to a free one as well"
Difficult dilemma if you are not a saint.
Difficult dilemma if you are not a saint.
Aug 10th, 2011, 11:04 AM
#246
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 8,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sue
I agree.
It makes no sense from a logical point of view that a poor person living in a poor neighborhood destroys the last bit of what is "home" to him and his neighbours.
You would assume that a poor person would rather rob, loot, and destroy an affluent neighborhood, steal real valuables (for most of us, a flatscreen TV isn't exactly a luxury good), and torch a Rolls-Royce instead of his neighbor's Fiesta. Not that that would be any better!
Yet, as kerouac said, mob behaviour has its own rules.
I read an interesting piece on the Guardian in which one eyewitness described the situation at the location where he was like a "carnival" - people with different colors of skin merrily looting side by side, spectators who brought their kids to the scene, looking as if they were not sure whether to join in or not, everyday people who - what he said - would not have looted themselves but also would not have hesitated to pick up a blue-ray player that someone else had dropped.
I'm sure that it was no "carnival" at all for those not interesting in wrecking their own neighborhood and who were sitting at home, scared to death probably.
May you live in interesting times.. sure is a curse.
I agree.
It makes no sense from a logical point of view that a poor person living in a poor neighborhood destroys the last bit of what is "home" to him and his neighbours.
You would assume that a poor person would rather rob, loot, and destroy an affluent neighborhood, steal real valuables (for most of us, a flatscreen TV isn't exactly a luxury good), and torch a Rolls-Royce instead of his neighbor's Fiesta. Not that that would be any better!
Yet, as kerouac said, mob behaviour has its own rules.
I read an interesting piece on the Guardian in which one eyewitness described the situation at the location where he was like a "carnival" - people with different colors of skin merrily looting side by side, spectators who brought their kids to the scene, looking as if they were not sure whether to join in or not, everyday people who - what he said - would not have looted themselves but also would not have hesitated to pick up a blue-ray player that someone else had dropped.
I'm sure that it was no "carnival" at all for those not interesting in wrecking their own neighborhood and who were sitting at home, scared to death probably.
May you live in interesting times.. sure is a curse.
Aug 10th, 2011, 12:13 PM
#247
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watching the news, I have only one thought: bring in the troops, shoot the looters!>
If that is a serious suggestion that is the most daft and stupid suggestion yet IMO - it would cause a 100 fold increase in violence for sure - frightening that someone would think that was solve everything. Maybe it should be done in Barcdelona where street crime is endemic every day all day but not in London where the streets IME are usually every safe, even in dicey places like Tottenham.
And why did David Cameron smash up pubs and cafes when he were young? He had no economic reason to do so so his crime was really much worse. And now he talks about cracking down on the looters - same thing he did without any need.
Q- Why are not the young folks in Oxbridge or Eton rioting and looting - because they have all the stuff that looks so enticing to the unemployed disadvantage youth - stuff they can only dream about.
These riots only show what a real class difference there is in the U.K. (As there is in the U S of A also for sure - we've had our riots and will have more as long as a certain segment of society is kept out of the economic mainstream. And since Cameron's actions are increasing the gulf of incomes and opportunities by his slashing spending on social programs expect even more ire and riots whenever some daft cop makes a stupid mistake as clearly the case here.
If that is a serious suggestion that is the most daft and stupid suggestion yet IMO - it would cause a 100 fold increase in violence for sure - frightening that someone would think that was solve everything. Maybe it should be done in Barcdelona where street crime is endemic every day all day but not in London where the streets IME are usually every safe, even in dicey places like Tottenham.
And why did David Cameron smash up pubs and cafes when he were young? He had no economic reason to do so so his crime was really much worse. And now he talks about cracking down on the looters - same thing he did without any need.
Q- Why are not the young folks in Oxbridge or Eton rioting and looting - because they have all the stuff that looks so enticing to the unemployed disadvantage youth - stuff they can only dream about.
These riots only show what a real class difference there is in the U.K. (As there is in the U S of A also for sure - we've had our riots and will have more as long as a certain segment of society is kept out of the economic mainstream. And since Cameron's actions are increasing the gulf of incomes and opportunities by his slashing spending on social programs expect even more ire and riots whenever some daft cop makes a stupid mistake as clearly the case here.
Aug 10th, 2011, 01:06 PM
#248
just look at the current PM who was happy to take nearly £2000 per month from the taxpayer to pay for his mortgage and who in his youth committed similar crimes to the rioters - and his friend Boris (the mayor of London) has admitted to arson>>
mmmm - The PM's claiming his mortgage payments for his 2nd home [because of his being an MP] was perfectly legal at the time. and Boris did not, so far as I'm aware, burn down any furniture stores. Context is everything. if you go out during a riot and start looting shops for a flat screen telly, what sort of a protest is that? are you telling me that they were all thinking "those bent MPs [who HAVE been prosecuted and sent to prison BTW] got away with it [they didn't] so why can't I?"
no of course they weren't. They were thinking "I want a flat screen TV"
mmmm - The PM's claiming his mortgage payments for his 2nd home [because of his being an MP] was perfectly legal at the time. and Boris did not, so far as I'm aware, burn down any furniture stores. Context is everything. if you go out during a riot and start looting shops for a flat screen telly, what sort of a protest is that? are you telling me that they were all thinking "those bent MPs [who HAVE been prosecuted and sent to prison BTW] got away with it [they didn't] so why can't I?"
no of course they weren't. They were thinking "I want a flat screen TV"
Aug 10th, 2011, 01:07 PM
#249
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cowboy
I agree that if they looted 'another' neighbourhood, it would seem more logical. But my point was that the poor suffer most from social breakdown, even if the breakdown were to be 'logical'. From the point of view of supply and demand, it makes no difference what stores are looted: whereas the rich can always secure supply, the poor are least equipped to deal with the pressures that result when a given population suddenly finds itself competing for a reduced amount of stores and services. Bars and shops across the city will become more crowded, with a possible attendant rise in prices. This in itself can cause frustrations leading to riotous behaviour when the opportunity presents itself.
A friend and I were discussing the stories that came out of the May 7-8 1945 VE-Day riot in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
There are various theories that were advanced, after the fact, as to why this 2 day riot occurred. Some proposed that the civilians exploited servicemen during the war, who then took their revenge at the war's close. But this is an unsatisfactory explanation, since everyone was inconvenienced for 6 years by the war, which saw the city see huge demands placed on an infrastructure that was never designed to support such a sudden influx of people. Halifax, not an especially large city at the time, became a key port for the trans-Atlantic convoys, and for marshalling troops onto ships. 25,000 servicemen poured into a city of population 60,000. Services were oversubscribed, and local inflation soared.
My own view: Here was a riot that broke out, not because of any selective deprivation (because the sailors that started it off were not especially deprived, relative to the rest of the population) but because people were exhausted from the constant competition for services over the past 6 years, the constant petty deprivations. They were frustrated and bored, wished to continue to party, and the authorities, in an ill-considered move, closed the bars to try and force them to go home. Much looting followed, especially of liquor and beer, but also of other goods. Windows were smashed by the hundreds, as if they were wine glasses. The sailors meanwhile were joined by civilians. It continued the next night, because naval command refused to believe how suddenly discipline had broken down.
Your Guardian piece is interesting, especially given that the current behaviour of the stock markets reminds us that prices are not entirely based on fundamentals, as pundits would have us believe, but also on what people believe others around them in the market are thinking or even just feeling. So too perhaps are social codes of conduct generally stable, but are suddenly prone to 'fluctuate' with little - just like prices on the market during a panic such as the one happening now. Behaviour that was held within a certain range of values suddenly varies much, much more wildly in a riot. Volatility is exciting - a carnival - until your own 'stock' is what suddenly is deemed up for 'review' by the herd.
I agree that if they looted 'another' neighbourhood, it would seem more logical. But my point was that the poor suffer most from social breakdown, even if the breakdown were to be 'logical'. From the point of view of supply and demand, it makes no difference what stores are looted: whereas the rich can always secure supply, the poor are least equipped to deal with the pressures that result when a given population suddenly finds itself competing for a reduced amount of stores and services. Bars and shops across the city will become more crowded, with a possible attendant rise in prices. This in itself can cause frustrations leading to riotous behaviour when the opportunity presents itself.
A friend and I were discussing the stories that came out of the May 7-8 1945 VE-Day riot in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
There are various theories that were advanced, after the fact, as to why this 2 day riot occurred. Some proposed that the civilians exploited servicemen during the war, who then took their revenge at the war's close. But this is an unsatisfactory explanation, since everyone was inconvenienced for 6 years by the war, which saw the city see huge demands placed on an infrastructure that was never designed to support such a sudden influx of people. Halifax, not an especially large city at the time, became a key port for the trans-Atlantic convoys, and for marshalling troops onto ships. 25,000 servicemen poured into a city of population 60,000. Services were oversubscribed, and local inflation soared.
My own view: Here was a riot that broke out, not because of any selective deprivation (because the sailors that started it off were not especially deprived, relative to the rest of the population) but because people were exhausted from the constant competition for services over the past 6 years, the constant petty deprivations. They were frustrated and bored, wished to continue to party, and the authorities, in an ill-considered move, closed the bars to try and force them to go home. Much looting followed, especially of liquor and beer, but also of other goods. Windows were smashed by the hundreds, as if they were wine glasses. The sailors meanwhile were joined by civilians. It continued the next night, because naval command refused to believe how suddenly discipline had broken down.
Your Guardian piece is interesting, especially given that the current behaviour of the stock markets reminds us that prices are not entirely based on fundamentals, as pundits would have us believe, but also on what people believe others around them in the market are thinking or even just feeling. So too perhaps are social codes of conduct generally stable, but are suddenly prone to 'fluctuate' with little - just like prices on the market during a panic such as the one happening now. Behaviour that was held within a certain range of values suddenly varies much, much more wildly in a riot. Volatility is exciting - a carnival - until your own 'stock' is what suddenly is deemed up for 'review' by the herd.
Aug 10th, 2011, 01:13 PM
#250
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 78,320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They were thinking "I want a flat screen TV>
yes indeedy and they know that is the only way they can, in the current UK, get one - it is a symbol for their piece of the pie that they think they are being deied.
Fallacy - that each and everyone of those young unemployed or under emplyed youth would not willingly take a good paying job and probably work very hard and then be able to buy their huge TV - but that avenue is closed - meanwhile folks in gated estates in the Cotswalds get grants to increase their businesses, etc. Until the hi-falutin folks in the Cotswolds start giving up some of their too big pie this will happen - and Cameron is all about re-distreibuting the wealth to the Cotswold types - expect more and more such anti-social behaviours IMO
yes indeedy and they know that is the only way they can, in the current UK, get one - it is a symbol for their piece of the pie that they think they are being deied.
Fallacy - that each and everyone of those young unemployed or under emplyed youth would not willingly take a good paying job and probably work very hard and then be able to buy their huge TV - but that avenue is closed - meanwhile folks in gated estates in the Cotswalds get grants to increase their businesses, etc. Until the hi-falutin folks in the Cotswolds start giving up some of their too big pie this will happen - and Cameron is all about re-distreibuting the wealth to the Cotswold types - expect more and more such anti-social behaviours IMO
Aug 10th, 2011, 03:55 PM
#252
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well PalenQ how much of your pie are you willing to give up?
You have some serious problems of your own in the U.S. regarding disparity between income groups.
As for unemployed poor youth being the main ones looting have you seen some of the people they've arrested? Many of them have jobs, some of them looted from their own places of employment, talk about fouling your own nest.
I'm sure there is some element of truth to the argument that many of these people feel disenfranchised and hopeless, however there seems to be an awful lot of them who are just taking advantage of the opportunity to run wild and get stuff for free. And who ever said that having a big screen t.v. or a mobile phone was a basic human right? There seems to be a sense of entitlement now that wasn't there in previous generations.
Lots of people I know grew up dirt poor and never would have dreamed of looting and robbing to get "stuff", that was what thieves did.
None of the looters I have seen in the photos look like they are in rags or going without meals.
Also how do you know that these people would ALL willingly take a job and work very hard? And your caveat was "a good paying job"...again an expectation there seems to be among young people everywhere these days to have their first job be a "good paying job", whatever happened to starting at the bottom and working your way up?
There's that sense of entitlement again.
You have some serious problems of your own in the U.S. regarding disparity between income groups.
As for unemployed poor youth being the main ones looting have you seen some of the people they've arrested? Many of them have jobs, some of them looted from their own places of employment, talk about fouling your own nest.
I'm sure there is some element of truth to the argument that many of these people feel disenfranchised and hopeless, however there seems to be an awful lot of them who are just taking advantage of the opportunity to run wild and get stuff for free. And who ever said that having a big screen t.v. or a mobile phone was a basic human right? There seems to be a sense of entitlement now that wasn't there in previous generations.
Lots of people I know grew up dirt poor and never would have dreamed of looting and robbing to get "stuff", that was what thieves did.
None of the looters I have seen in the photos look like they are in rags or going without meals.
Also how do you know that these people would ALL willingly take a job and work very hard? And your caveat was "a good paying job"...again an expectation there seems to be among young people everywhere these days to have their first job be a "good paying job", whatever happened to starting at the bottom and working your way up?
There's that sense of entitlement again.
Aug 10th, 2011, 05:08 PM
#253
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems mostly quiet tonight-at least for friends in London. Interesting to hear US perspective. I've heard some radio chat shows here in the US where callers have said the riots wouldn't be as bad in here because shopowners can arm themselves and protect property.
However, the looters over here would probably also have guns making for an even more toxic mix.
Just hope the worst is over.
However, the looters over here would probably also have guns making for an even more toxic mix.
Just hope the worst is over.
Aug 11th, 2011, 08:03 AM
#254
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You reap what you Sow"..
So true, undoubtedly these parents did not do a good job teaching their kids that stealing and destroying other people lifehood is Bad and if you want something you must earning it by working not by stealings.
http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2011...ri-20313038/1/
So true, undoubtedly these parents did not do a good job teaching their kids that stealing and destroying other people lifehood is Bad and if you want something you must earning it by working not by stealings.
http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2011...ri-20313038/1/
Aug 11th, 2011, 08:37 AM
#255
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 49,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<I've heard some radio chat shows here in the US where callers have said the riots wouldn't be as bad in here because shopowners can arm themselves and protect property.>>
I don't know to what extent that is true Emily. During the infamous Watts (Los Angeles) riots in the 60's, I don't recall that armed shopowners made much of a difference.
It's interesting that after the catastrophe in Japan this year there wasn't any looting - I do think it is a cultural expectation that is taught
I don't know to what extent that is true Emily. During the infamous Watts (Los Angeles) riots in the 60's, I don't recall that armed shopowners made much of a difference.
It's interesting that after the catastrophe in Japan this year there wasn't any looting - I do think it is a cultural expectation that is taught
Aug 11th, 2011, 12:46 PM
#260
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was rather stunned today to read that Cameron has raised the possibility of appointed an American -- William J. Bratton -- to head Scotland Yard.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/wo...ritain.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/wo...ritain.html?hp
