If AFKA or Admin want to sink this (because of the closure of the London Riots thread) then that's fine but I felt this was so incredible that it deserved to be read, if the Admin guys feel otherwise then I shall bow to their greater wisdom.
Here is the full link....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8694494/UK-riots-David-Cameron-condemns-sick-society-as-grammar-school-girl-in-court-over-riots.html
But here are the most incredible parts....
From The Daily Telegraph....
Among the accused was, for instance, Laura Johnson, the
19-year-old daughter of a successful company director. She lives in a detached
converted farmhouse in Orpington, Kent, with extensive grounds and a tennis
court.
She is an English and Italian undergraduate at Exeter,
favourite of the Boden-wearing classes. Before that, she attended St Olave’s
Grammar, the fourth-best state school in the country, and its sister school,
Newstead Wood, gaining nine GCSE A grades and four A*s.
At St Olave’s, she studied A-levels in French, English
literature, geography and classical civilisation. Yesterday, at Highbury, she
was accused of something slightly less civilised – looting the Charlton Curry’s
superstore of electrical goods worth £5,000.
The case was transferred to Bexleyheath magistrates where
she was placed on bail with a strict curfew. Her parents, Robert and Lindsay,
run Avongate, a direct marketing company, but Mr Johnson was also a director of
a company that took over the Daily Sport and Sunday Sport newspapers in 2007. A
neighbour, who asked not to be named, said: “I just wouldn’t expect someone
from round here to be accused of this.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In all of my 38 years on the planet I don't think I have
read something quite as stunning as that, to me its simply unbelievable that
someone with so much in life can come to an area like Charlton and feel they have
the right to loot, steal and smash the place up. I am stunned.
Comments
Nothing really surprises me anymore. Respect and human decency is disappearing at an alarming rate.
They should have been hit with water cannons from the outset, before it all escalated out of control.
Would come as no surprise to me that she's your typical little "rich" girl who got in with a low life crowd, rebelled against her parents blah blah blah.
Just like all the rest of 'em, deserves a slap.
what Macronate said.
She's not the only one. For all the talk of an underprivilaged members of society showing their voice i'll bet there were many more who did well at school with good jobs from much more affluent areas of the capital and it's surrounds that got involved for sh*ts and giggles in their summer holidays.
As for the police, damned if they do damned if they don't. If they go flying in cracking skulls they'll get criticised, they stand off until things have fizzled out they're critcised.
That was quite a sad article, especially with the 11 year old. No prizes for quessing what went wrong there.
Was the piece a bit contradictory? At one point the journalist said there were few with no previous convictions, but later on said the people didn't conform to the stereotypical underclass.
I'm sure amongst the looters there were loads of opportunists who wouldn't normally commit crimes, but either thought they'd get away with it, or previously hadn't had the opportunity. I'm sure they all knew right from wrong, but without either a) caring about people other than themselves or failing that b) fear of the consequences they looted anyway!
The courts will have to go in hard on everyone, otherwise it won't send a message.
Object: To assess the effects of several variables on stealing by children, including anonymity versus nonanonymity in both individual and group activities, and assigning to one child the accountability for the actions of the others.
The Experiment: The subjects were some 1,300 children who arrived at 27 homes on Halloween to trick-or-treat. The entry hall in each of the homes was arranged with a low table containing a large bowl of individually wrapped candy bars at one end and a bowl filled with nickels and pennies at the other end. Overlooking the table was a backdrop with a peephole, behind which was camouflaged an observer.
A female experimenter greeted the children at the door, smiling and remarking on their costumes. She then told each child or group of children, "You [or each of you] may take one of the candies. I have to go back to my work in another room." The instructions were repeated if a child asked about the money or had any questions about what he was supposed to do. She then left the room, and the observer noted for each child how much candy he took and whether he took any money from the other bowl.
In some of the cases, the neighborhood children, all unknown to the experimenter, were asked their names and addresses (nonanonymous condition). In these instances, the experimenter repeated the information to be sure that the children knew that she remembered it. In other cases, none of the children were asked their names, and thus all remained anonymous. In still other cases, the responsibility of the members of the group of children was altered by making only one child responsible for the actions of the others (altered responsibility). This was done by selecting the smallest child in the group and asking his or her name and address. It was felt that if the smallest child were chosen, he or she could be made the scapegoat by the others, and also he or she would have the least power to influence the actions of the others. To this child was given the responsibility of seeing that each of the others took only one candy.
Conclusions: Of the more than 1,300 children unwittingly taking part in this experiment, 416 of them transgressed. In 65% of these cases, extra candy was taken; in 14% the child took only money; and in 21% of the cases, the child took both extra candy and money.
When the experimenter knew the identities of all of the children in a group, stealing of candy and/or money occurred in over 20% of the cases, but when trick-or-treaters arrived alone and were identified by name, stealing occurred in only 7.5% of the cases. When children arrived alone and remained anonymous, transgressions occurred in 21% of the cases, but when they arrived in groups and remained anonymous, stealing occurred in over 57% of the cases. Finally, in the groups where all children remained anonymous except for the smallest child, who was given responsibility for the actions of the others, stealing occurred in 80% of the cases.
The results confirmed several hypotheses: first, that under conditions of anonymity, more antisocial behavior was likely to occur, because the fear of being caught was reduced; second, that because of the feeling that there is safety in numbers, children are more likely to commit transgressions in groups than if they are alone; and, finally, that by making the child least likely to influence others supposedly responsible for their actions, stealing would increase, because the others would feel that they themselves were not responsible.
We don't know if she was a split brat or not. She's certainly not part of an oppressed underclass with no opportunities or way out of poverty and neither it seems are some of the other looters.
And in case the likes of 4 Bowman haven't noticed she ain't black.
PS I pitched for some work with Avondale years ago and didn't get it so I blame the parents (joke)
In Currys in Catford I have been served by a lovely intelligent and charming person, her name begins with C (don't know if I should say), she has just completed her Uni course in Speech and Language Therapy, and was pleased she had just finished her 15000 word dissertation.. I understand her mum is a single parent, who paid for her (and I think her sister) to go through private school by working at several jobs, at the same time mum continually fostered children. When I last saw her a couple of months ago C was excited because she had met her new adopted little brother her mum had taken on.
What a contrast to the young woman reported here, one supplementing her student life by working in customer services in Catford Currys, and one supplementing her priviledged life by stealing from Currys.
Seth - you should read "the Lucifer Effect" by Philip Zimbardo, about why good people do bad things. It's got loads of those experiments in it, and talks about Abu Ghraib, the Stanford prison experiment and the Milgram experiment (where a significant percentage of people thought they were giving a lethal electric shock to someone simply because a man in a white coat told them to).
Seems a lot of people are capable of doing wrong, but equally, when faced with the same situation, a lot of people don't.
I don't find it hard to believe. One hypothesis. The lassie has pushy 'loadsa money' parents who want to parade a 'successful' daughter. They knew the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Daughter has to excel academically and no money is spared in this quest. Love and nurture are replaced by a money can buy everything ethos. Daughter rebels and behaves in a way that sticks two fingers up at Mummy and Daddy who are totally bewildered because they had given her everything.
This might sound like a silly or rude question but it's not meant to be. Sam, why didn't you get involved? Not suggesting you should have or would have but if one of those guys had rung/texted you to say "we're looting in SE7 tonight, you coming?" what would have made you say no.