In Curb-Its link take a look at the Black guy wearing a red tee shirt -- its the truth.His T Shirt says "id rather be feared than looted"--------this rubbish dont fear the police---- they know the lawyers paid for by us will get them some tiny slap on the wrist (or Mummy and Daddys lawyer will get em off). They dont care that people are homeless,lost jobs,lost lively hoods,they talk about their "hood" their community but trash it with no care in the world.
We had the send them on holiday left wing crap
and we have had years on schemes and money thrown at the "under class"
What we need is to find what they FEAR------ make them be fearfull---------let them FEAR.
Please reassure me that you have never been in trouble with the police and possess an unblemished criminal record.
Below is an interesting article by David Aaronovitch in today's Times. I particularly like his comment that everyone seeks '...vindication of their own original world view' when reacting to these events. He also makes an interesting observation about how many people were actually involved in these events.
David Aaronovitch .............
We have chucked resources at these rioters. But violent young men will always be with us, so let’s not panic
Politically committed people of very different beliefs can take exactly the same events and discover in them a precise vindication of their own original worldview. And so it has been this week. A certain kind of rightwinger fits the riots into the pattern of moral and social decline that she imagines has afflicted British society since the 1950s: multiculturalism, soft policing, family breakdown (ie, sexual tolerance and feminism), liberal teaching, welfare dependency and immigration are all part of this elaborately imagined world.
In the other ideological corner the causes are alienated youth, “cuts”, police harassment, unemployment, poverty, tuition fee increases (which, if the poverty explanation holds, none of the rioters would have to pay), and neoliberal economics, which allows bankers to earn bonuses usually described as “obscene”. Remarkably, a Guardian reporter on the fringe of a riot even found “a bystander” to weave reaction to the Iraq war into the reasons for the looting.
Not that either position is entirely wrong all the time. But none of us escapes our prejudices easily. Vicars blame materialism. And I, pursuing past battles against the civil liberties lobby, rail against identity-obscuring head and facewear and am inclined to demand more CCTV and a rethink of the scrapping of identity cards.
But imagine that we came to this innocent of all beliefs. Suppose we looked at events since Saturday and just asked the basic questions of who, what, where, when and why.
So first, who? And how many people actually took part in rioting, looting or violence since Saturday? I’ve been wondering about this since I accidentally stumbled on the original demonstration outside Tottenham police station that was supposed to have been the birth moment of the Week of Shame. Actually standing in Tottenham High Road, blocking the way, I’d estimate no more than 100 people. Standing in doorways and on pavements, I’d say another 100 or so. Bear in mind that I’d just come from a Spurs pre-season friendly match attended by 25,000.
The highest realistic estimate I’ve seen for rioters in one place was 200, and pictures of that event suggest that it was too high. It also seems that one must make a practical distinction (if not a moral one) between rioters and looters — people who entered shops already broken into to steal goods. There is some evidence of the same people moving from one location to another. With the number of arrests at about 500, I seriously wonder if many more than a few thousand people were involved in rioting.
This is important because it tells us two things. First, we are not dealing with a mass criminal insurrection. And second, that a remarkably small number of people, if they are mobile and use surprise, can cause mayhem out of all proportion to their numbers. I was told this by Tony Blair once, in the context of terrorism, and it’s true.
Even so, who are these few? They’re mostly (but not entirely) teenage boys from poorer areas, black from black areas, white from white areas, the same demographic as that for gang violence, street robbery and vandalism. In other words, their actions are a spillover into the “nicer” world of what is already going on in theirs. (The links between pre-existing criminality and looting are suggested by reports of vans and cars turning up as stores are emptied, and by gunfights over looted goods.) This is important too, because it simply isn’t true that they have, in the past few years, been affected by cuts, lack of attention to their education or lack of investment in their areas. It is pretty likely that they attend (or play truant from) newly rebuilt schools, with highly motivated teachers who put significant emphasis on citizenship and social responsibility. They will often return to estates that have been improved out of all recognition since the riots of the 1980s. They are very much less likely than their fathers to have suffered from police harassment and violence. Far from their being forgotten and marginalised, a lot of time and effort has been spent on them and their peers. What we haven’t managed to do is to persuade them into qualifications, or unglamorous starter jobs. It’s not for lack of trying.
Then the “what” and the “where”. The looting has suggested to many that this is a form of self-Sherwooding, a white-goods redistribution from rich to poor. Especially as some of the on-street self-justification has been of the “we’re poor, you’re rich” variety. Well, what would you say if you were a slightly guilty looter? Intercepted looters’ messages, not designed for third-party scrutiny, seem to show few such heroic inclinations.
And there’s another clue. While some have clearly gone for upmarket stores, others have been completely undiscriminating about which shops they’ve emptied. And while a few symbolic targets have been selected for vandalism and arson, most had no symbolic value at all. In other words it is not what they represent — but what the act of destruction represents.
This, and that the ostensible cause of the rioting (the shooting of Mark Duggan) had just about no resonance outside one area in North London, tells us a lot about the motivation. In short, at the weekend — the word spread by 24-hour news, social media and messaging — a section of society discovered that they could do something and that the something they could do was a lot of bad fun. They could go on the streets, create havoc, make money, be violent, get drunk, behave as if they were the tyrant kings of an area — the mini-Sopranos of Enfield or Croydon, the gangstas of Chalk Farm — and there would be no immediate retribution (immediate being the only kind of anything that means something to a 16-year old boy). They had the thing that in their own lives they lack — power. Just as a gang of black-flag anarchists has when it stones a police line into retreat or — before Heysel — football hooligans had when they “took” the other side’s end and sent the opposition into flight.
Because, yes, we have been here before, with a relatively small number of young men, high on violence and low on personal skills, finding a way to drive the rest of us mad. This analysis is both gloomy and hopeful. It suggests that, short of a world war to send them to, difficult and violent young men will always be with us. The numbers matter, of course, and we can and should whittle away at them with firmness. But we won’t eradicate them altogether, and if improvement is always slow and adapting difficult, we can — of course — make things worse quickly, by reacting with impatience, prejudice and stupidity.
Saga - both of those pieces are well-written but, as I've heard said before about other writings from liberal bloggers, only someone intelligent could write something that stupid. There's a comment halfway down the page on the first piece from someone who has been absolutely castigated by the idiotic blogtards that obviously slavishly follow the original author - a post made by someone who pretty much mirrors my experience in life. I grew up on one of the shittiest council estates in London. Neither of my parents worked (well, my stepfather worked sporadically, but not often). We had none of the comforts that even most poor kids had back then (and the entertainment diversions that kids have now would have been unimaginable back then). If there was ever a poster boy for disenfranchised working-class youth, myself and my brother were it. However, I have never felt the need to batter someone to death, rape girls, get stoned out of my box, nick tellies, deal drugs, mug old ladies or do anything else that the utter scum who exist at the bottom rung of society have been doing for years (and did en masse, at large, for the entertainment of the chattering classes in the past week)
Like I said in another post, there'll be a load of these middle-class, intelligent idiots trying to 'understand' it all, and trying to put it into the greater context of the ridiculously broken global economic system over the next few weeks. They, along with the pondlife blaming it all on 'immigrants' and 'muslamic rayguns' make me depressed.
This was nothing to do with race, nothing to do with economic depression, nothing to do with a wider malaise affecting British society as a whole. What it WAS, was a bunch of arseholes the like of which everyone who has grown up on a shit estate knows all too well, seeing that they could trash places, nick stuff and generally act like c***s with total and utter impunity.
The 2nd of the two blogs I provided links to is from a Tory, so I'm not sure she counts as a "liberal blogger".
I grew up in Thornton Heath and went to school in Croydon - spent years working all over the country and met many people doing the same - a lot yearned to "go home" - you will not be surprised to learn that was pretty much the last thing I wanted to do!
The 2nd of the two blogs I provided links to is from a Tory, so I'm not sure she counts as a "liberal blogger".
I grew up in Thornton Heath and went to school in Croydon - spent years working all over the country and met many people doing the same - a lot yearned to "go home" - you will not be surprised to learn that was pretty much the last thing I wanted to do!
Ah - my mistake, I thought it was the same piece I read on livejournal earlier this week ) Couldn't check it because it's blocked at work - never has 'when you assume you make an Ass out of U and Me' been more appropriate! )
Red in Boolox i have never mugged anyone or looted or nicked anything i have though worked and paid tax for 35 years brought my house and started my own LTd company if you want to slag me off for my right of Gengis Khan political thinking then im ok with that. However its knobs like you and you wooly left wing shit that has gave this scum the thought process that they can do what they like .
As for football hooligans being the same as this scum please get a life--------Obill would bring in horses, baton charges, stop and search is normal at football, movement banning orders normal. Terrorist laws used to move football hooligans on used. etc etc etc etc the reason that the Obill were shit scared of using any of that on the looters is and are left wing people like you and your Guardianistas who scream blue murder if one of your right on free the world protesters gets a cuff round the ear-----your fault --- your politics ---- all yours----- live with what you created. It took two days before your right on BBC stopped calling this scum "protesters".50% of those charged todate are under 18 the majority of their lives have been under a LABOUR government, but as normal you try to use the old deflection tactic to try to avoid what you have created.
I truely hate the Labour Party for what the have done to England---------no surprise there---------------but without doubt what we have seen in the last few days is the saddest thing to happen to England in my life time. To think that has gone out around the World -- how some people in England treat their communties and each other-------------awful.
This'll appear miles from sam's post on here but good on you sam I'd have done the same. Too many people are scum, may not seem it but that text revealed it to you!
Red in Boolox i have never mugged anyone or looted or nicked anything i have though worked and paid tax for 35 years brought my house and started my own LTd company if you want to slag me off for my right of Gengis Khan political thinking then im ok with that. However its knobs like you and you wooly left wing shit that has gave this scum the thought process that they can do what they like .
As for football hooligans being the same as this scum please get a life--------Obill would bring in horses, baton charges, stop and search is normal at football, movement banning orders normal. Terrorist laws used to move football hooligans on used. etc etc etc etc the reason that the Obill were shit scared of using any of that on the looters is and are left wing people like you and your Guardianistas who scream blue murder if one of your right on free the world protesters gets a cuff round the ear-----your fault --- your politics ---- all yours----- live with what you created. It took two days before your right on BBC stopped calling this scum "protesters".50% of those charged todate are under 18 the majority of their lives have been under a LABOUR government, but as normal you try to use the old deflection tactic to try to avoid what you have
Goonerhater, I need to make two points. Firstly, I was as frustrated and as angry as everybody else with the police's weak response in the first two days of the rioting. I accept your view that this probably was the result of the impact of woolly left wing liberal views over the last couple of decades. I remember really enjoying watching Spurs hooligans getting the shit absolutely kicked out of them by Dutch or Italian riot police at a european match a few years ago. I am really disappointed that these rioters and looters were not subjected to exactly the same treatment that those spurs hooligans received.
Secondly, as someone pointed out here on another thread, the parents of these under 18 looters and rioters spent their formative years under a strong Conservative government.
as someone pointed out here on another thread, the parents of these under 18 looters and rioters spent their formative years under a strong Conservative government
...........
While GH most likely was born and brought up and served many of his formative years under a Labour government.
Comments
True, but I wouldn't recommend taking it back...
Please reassure me that you have never been in trouble with the police and possess an unblemished criminal record.
David Aaronovitch .............
We have chucked resources at these rioters. But violent young men will always be with us, so let’s not panic
Politically committed people of very different beliefs can take exactly the same events and discover in them a precise vindication of their own original worldview. And so it has been this week. A certain kind of rightwinger fits the riots into the pattern of moral and social decline that she imagines has afflicted British society since the 1950s: multiculturalism, soft policing, family breakdown (ie, sexual tolerance and feminism), liberal teaching, welfare dependency and immigration are all part of this elaborately imagined world.
In the other ideological corner the causes are alienated youth, “cuts”, police harassment, unemployment, poverty, tuition fee increases (which, if the poverty explanation holds, none of the rioters would have to pay), and neoliberal economics, which allows bankers to earn bonuses usually described as “obscene”. Remarkably, a Guardian reporter on the fringe of a riot even found “a bystander” to weave reaction to the Iraq war into the reasons for the looting.
Not that either position is entirely wrong all the time. But none of us escapes our prejudices easily. Vicars blame materialism. And I, pursuing past battles against the civil liberties lobby, rail against identity-obscuring head and facewear and am inclined to demand more CCTV and a rethink of the scrapping of identity cards.
But imagine that we came to this innocent of all beliefs. Suppose we looked at events since Saturday and just asked the basic questions of who, what, where, when and why.
So first, who? And how many people actually took part in rioting, looting or violence since Saturday? I’ve been wondering about this since I accidentally stumbled on the original demonstration outside Tottenham police station that was supposed to have been the birth moment of the Week of Shame. Actually standing in Tottenham High Road, blocking the way, I’d estimate no more than 100 people. Standing in doorways and on pavements, I’d say another 100 or so. Bear in mind that I’d just come from a Spurs pre-season friendly match attended by 25,000.
The highest realistic estimate I’ve seen for rioters in one place was 200, and pictures of that event suggest that it was too high. It also seems that one must make a practical distinction (if not a moral one) between rioters and looters — people who entered shops already broken into to steal goods. There is some evidence of the same people moving from one location to another. With the number of arrests at about 500, I seriously wonder if many more than a few thousand people were involved in rioting.
This is important because it tells us two things. First, we are not dealing with a mass criminal insurrection. And second, that a remarkably small number of people, if they are mobile and use surprise, can cause mayhem out of all proportion to their numbers. I was told this by Tony Blair once, in the context of terrorism, and it’s true.
Even so, who are these few? They’re mostly (but not entirely) teenage boys from poorer areas, black from black areas, white from white areas, the same demographic as that for gang violence, street robbery and vandalism. In other words, their actions are a spillover into the “nicer” world of what is already going on in theirs. (The links between pre-existing criminality and looting are suggested by reports of vans and cars turning up as stores are emptied, and by gunfights over looted goods.) This is important too, because it simply isn’t true that they have, in the past few years, been affected by cuts, lack of attention to their education or lack of investment in their areas. It is pretty likely that they attend (or play truant from) newly rebuilt schools, with highly motivated teachers who put significant emphasis on citizenship and social responsibility. They will often return to estates that have been improved out of all recognition since the riots of the 1980s. They are very much less likely than their fathers to have suffered from police harassment and violence. Far from their being forgotten and marginalised, a lot of time and effort has been spent on them and their peers. What we haven’t managed to do is to persuade them into qualifications, or unglamorous starter jobs. It’s not for lack of trying.
Then the “what” and the “where”. The looting has suggested to many that this is a form of self-Sherwooding, a white-goods redistribution from rich to poor. Especially as some of the on-street self-justification has been of the “we’re poor, you’re rich” variety. Well, what would you say if you were a slightly guilty looter? Intercepted looters’ messages, not designed for third-party scrutiny, seem to show few such heroic inclinations.
And there’s another clue. While some have clearly gone for upmarket stores, others have been completely undiscriminating about which shops they’ve emptied. And while a few symbolic targets have been selected for vandalism and arson, most had no symbolic value at all. In other words it is not what they represent — but what the act of destruction represents.
This, and that the ostensible cause of the rioting (the shooting of Mark Duggan) had just about no resonance outside one area in North London, tells us a lot about the motivation. In short, at the weekend — the word spread by 24-hour news, social media and messaging — a section of society discovered that they could do something and that the something they could do was a lot of bad fun. They could go on the streets, create havoc, make money, be violent, get drunk, behave as if they were the tyrant kings of an area — the mini-Sopranos of Enfield or Croydon, the gangstas of Chalk Farm — and there would be no immediate retribution (immediate being the only kind of anything that means something to a 16-year old boy). They had the thing that in their own lives they lack — power. Just as a gang of black-flag anarchists has when it stones a police line into retreat or — before Heysel — football hooligans had when they “took” the other side’s end and sent the opposition into flight.
Because, yes, we have been here before, with a relatively small number of young men, high on violence and low on personal skills, finding a way to drive the rest of us mad. This analysis is both gloomy and hopeful. It suggests that, short of a world war to send them to, difficult and violent young men will always be with us. The numbers matter, of course, and we can and should whittle away at them with firmness. But we won’t eradicate them altogether, and if improvement is always slow and adapting difficult, we can — of course — make things worse quickly, by reacting with impatience, prejudice and stupidity.
http://pennyred.blogspot.com/2011/08/panic-on-streets-of-london.html?spref=fb
http://rosamicula.livejournal.com/540476.html
Like I said in another post, there'll be a load of these middle-class, intelligent idiots trying to 'understand' it all, and trying to put it into the greater context of the ridiculously broken global economic system over the next few weeks. They, along with the pondlife blaming it all on 'immigrants' and 'muslamic rayguns' make me depressed.
This was nothing to do with race, nothing to do with economic depression, nothing to do with a wider malaise affecting British society as a whole. What it WAS, was a bunch of arseholes the like of which everyone who has grown up on a shit estate knows all too well, seeing that they could trash places, nick stuff and generally act like c***s with total and utter impunity.
I grew up in Thornton Heath and went to school in Croydon - spent years working all over the country and met many people doing the same - a lot yearned to "go home" - you will not be surprised to learn that was pretty much the last thing I wanted to do!
Goonerhater, I need to make two points. Firstly, I was as frustrated and as angry as everybody else with the police's weak response in the first two days of the rioting. I accept your view that this probably was the result of the impact of woolly left wing liberal views over the last couple of decades. I remember really enjoying watching Spurs hooligans getting the shit absolutely kicked out of them by Dutch or Italian riot police at a european match a few years ago. I am really disappointed that these rioters and looters were not subjected to exactly the same treatment that those spurs hooligans received.
Secondly, as someone pointed out here on another thread, the parents of these under 18 looters and rioters spent their formative years under a strong Conservative government.
...........
While GH most likely was born and brought up and served many of his formative years under a Labour government.