Rioting and looting in London - and media presentation

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Postby Swordsman_Of_The_Tower » Sat Aug 13, 2011 6:39 am

vison wrote:
When people attack "gangster" culture it is an attack on blacks, just without saying so.


Bollocks.

Sheer, utter, rampageous bollocks.

You and I can march along the same road for quite a ways, Swordsman, but when you make such a remark, we part company.

Racism is racism, whether frontward or backward. You do not speak for all black people, you speak only for yourself. Don't take on a burden that isn't yours - that's the worst kind of condescending . . . um . . . bollocks. :)


So it's an attack on ghetto blacks and not on civilized suburban blacks?


When you think of "gangster" culture who pops into your head? Is it a black male? When you see someone who happens to dress like that does a negative reaction occur in general?


Violent anti-social behavior from what I see seems way more common to WASPS in suits, they just do it in ways were they avoid responsibility and cause way more social damage.
User avatar
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 3:40 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Top

Postby Swordsman_Of_The_Tower » Sat Aug 13, 2011 7:00 am

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/1 ... vidcameron

That state of deprivation though is, of course, the condition that many of those rioting endure as their unbending reality. No education, a weakened family unit, no money and no way of getting any. JD Sports is probably easier to desecrate if you can't afford what's in there and the few poorly paid jobs there are taken. Amidst the bleakness of this social landscape, squinting all the while in the glare of a culture that radiates ultraviolet consumerism and infrared celebrity. That daily, hourly, incessantly enforces the egregious, deceitful message that you are what you wear, what you drive, what you watch and what you watch it on, in livid, neon pixels. The only light in their lives comes from these luminous corporate messages. No wonder they have their Fluffernutter Buttercups hoods up.

I remember Cameron saying "hug a hoodie" but I haven't seen him doing it. Why would he? Hoodies don't vote, they've realised it's pointless, that whoever gets elected will just be a different shade of the "we don't give a toss about you" party.

Politicians don't represent the interests of people who don't vote. They barely care about the people who do vote. They look after the corporations who get them elected. Cameron only spoke out against News International when it became evident to us, US, the people, not to him (like Rose West, "He must've known") that the newspapers Murdoch controlled were happy to desecrate the dead in the pursuit of another exploitative, distracting story.

Why am I surprised that these young people behave destructively, "mindlessly", motivated only by self-interest? How should we describe the actions of the city bankers who brought our economy to its knees in 2010? Altruistic? Mindful? Kind? But then again, they do wear suits, so they deserve to be bailed out, perhaps that's why not one of them has been imprisoned. And they got away with a lot more than a few Fluffernutter Buttercups pairs of trainers.

These young people have no sense of community because they haven't been given one. They have no stake in society because Cameron's mentor Margaret Thatcher told us there's no such thing.

If we don't want our young people to tear apart our communities then don't let people in power tear apart the values that hold our communities together.

As you have by now surely noticed, I don't know enough about politics to ponder a solution and my hands are sticky with blood money from representing corporate interests through film, television and commercials, venerating, through my endorsements and celebrity, products and a lifestyle that contributes to the alienation of an increasingly dissatisfied underclass. But I know, as we all intuitively know, the solution is all around us and it isn't political, it is spiritual. Gandhi said: "Be the change you want to see in the world."

In this simple sentiment we can find hope, as we can in the efforts of those cleaning up the debris and ash in bonhomous, broom-wielding posses. If we want to live in a society where people feel included, we must include them, where they feel represented, we must represent them and where they feel love and compassion for their communities then we, the members of that community, must find love and compassion for them.

As we sweep away the mistakes made in the selfish, nocturnal darkness we must ensure that, amidst the broken glass and sadness, we don't sweep away the youth lost amongst the shards in the shadows cast by the new dawn.
User avatar
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower
Ranger of the North


 
Posts: 4490
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 3:40 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Top

Postby heliona » Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:10 am

Here in the UK, when I hear the word "gangster" I don't think of just blacks, but young people of all and every colour milling about on the street and being threatening. Each area has their own set, be they black in Birmingham, white in Liverpool or brown in Manchester (these are only used as examples, there are many more groups and places). What they all have in common is that they are poor and an unemployed and have no prospects.

So, please, Swordsman, do not put your views (which are North American) onto the British culture. Gangs come in all shapes and colours here, not just black, and everyone knows it.
User avatar
heliona
The Sexy One ~ Hellaciously Huggable

 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 11:14 am
Location: Atop a sunny hill
Top

Postby hamlet » Mon Aug 15, 2011 6:35 am

Swordsman_Of_The_Tower wrote:
vison wrote:
When people attack "gangster" culture it is an attack on blacks, just without saying so.


Bollocks.

Sheer, utter, rampageous bollocks.

You and I can march along the same road for quite a ways, Swordsman, but when you make such a remark, we part company.

Racism is racism, whether frontward or backward. You do not speak for all black people, you speak only for yourself. Don't take on a burden that isn't yours - that's the worst kind of condescending . . . um . . . bollocks. :)


So it's an attack on ghetto blacks and not on civilized suburban blacks?


When you think of "gangster" culture who pops into your head? Is it a black male? When you see someone who happens to dress like that does a negative reaction occur in general?


Violent anti-social behavior from what I see seems way more common to WASPS in suits, they just do it in ways were they avoid responsibility and cause way more social damage.


That's a great big steaming pile of it, man. Really.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10562
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Postby portia » Mon Aug 15, 2011 7:21 am

Of course white collar criminals cause a lot of damage, but it is a different kind of damage. It doesn't cause people to be afraid to go out at night, to put bars on their windows and to buy handguns "to protect themselves."
I doesn't cause people to vote for prisons and tougher sentences while voting against schools.

We need to punish both kinds of criminals, but not forget that violent criminals can be, and usually are, more damaging to the fabric of society.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby hamlet » Mon Aug 15, 2011 7:38 am

portia wrote:Of course white collar criminals cause a lot of damage, but it is a different kind of damage. It doesn't cause people to be afraid to go out at night, to put bars on their windows and to buy handguns "to protect themselves."
I doesn't cause people to vote for prisons and tougher sentences while voting against schools.

We need to punish both kinds of criminals, but not forget that violent criminals can be, and usually are, more damaging to the fabric of society.


And now I have the image of roving bands of CEO's and politicians thronging the streets in the middle of the night, shaking passerby down for their stock portfolios.

Thank you very much, that's gonna stick in my head all day.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10562
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Postby vison » Mon Aug 15, 2011 8:00 am

portia wrote:Of course white collar criminals cause a lot of damage, but it is a different kind of damage. It doesn't cause people to be afraid to go out at night, to put bars on their windows and to buy handguns "to protect themselves."
I doesn't cause people to vote for prisons and tougher sentences while voting against schools.

We need to punish both kinds of criminals, but not forget that violent criminals can be, and usually are, more damaging to the fabric of society.


I don't know that violent criminals actually cause more damage to society, portia. In one sense they do, but in fact usually the damage is limited to one or two people, not entire cities or countries - as in the fallout from the "subprime crisis". Being stabbed or shot is not necessarily "worse" than losing everything you ever had and ending up homeless.

As for "gangsta" culture, to be honest, Swordsman, the image that pops into my mind is of a white kid wearing the very costly brands of clothing and jewelry peddled to teens to make them think they are part of something. It seems so idiotic to me, makes me remember the days of the counterculture when well-off middle class kids longed to be oppressed so they could, like, you know, man, stick it to the man!!!

Maybe it makes you think of black people, I guess it depends on where you live. I don't know many black kids. I know 2 brothers from Nigeria who are certainly black, they are as black as can possibly be imagined, blacker than any Afro-American I've ever seen. 2 tall handsome young men going to the local bible college, in fact, and during "multi-cultural days" they appeared in their home dress and people (especially girl bible students) were falling about in astonishment at how beautiful they were. My accountant's children are black. The eldest is in medical school, the younger is going to be a CA like her pa. They don't remind me of gangsters, any of them. Nor does the kid who works at the 7/11.

The word gangster makes me think of Al Pacino and James Caan and Robert Duvall. Actually. 8)

Speaking for other people is always a dangerous thing to do. I daresay there were many young people in those crowds who were hopeless and despairing and there were also, undoubtedly, many who were high on the fun of it all (if not high on some substance) who were just having a blast stealing goodies and wrecking stuff. Only, without talking to them in person, how would you know?

The new and apparently savage "cuts" to social programs have hardly taken effect and yet we read that these kids have been suffering for years - so which is it? The long and condescendingly patronizing effort to placate and silence "the poor" with "social programs", or the threat of those programs being stopped?
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Storyteller » Mon Aug 15, 2011 9:58 am

Leave it to the one and only Howard Jacobson to strike the right balance between condemning the looters and condemning corporate larceny- without using either of them to excuse the other.

They may be criminals, but we're the ones who have created them

The one shop not looted in Clapham Junction last week was Waterstone's. A golden opportunity to nick a Harry Potter, or Anthony Giddens' Sociology: A Brief but Critical Introduction, spurned. So that's the end of the argument that looters were protesting against the high cost of acquiring an education.


Except it isn't. You can't identify a cause by isolating an effect. Punching someone in the face while making off with a pair of trainers you don't even bother to try on – reader, how do they know they fit? I don't know about you, but I can't buy shoes that accommodate my feet in under an hour – might not look like an expression of political disaffection, and every looter I've heard speak has spoken gibberish, but the best of us don't always know why we do what we do, just as the most intelligent can't always articulate their frustration. So I'm not buying the "criminality pure and simple" argument. Nothing is "pure and simple", least of all criminality, whose roots have troubled thinkers from the moment mankind began to think. Is Raskolnikov a criminal pure and simple? Is Macbeth? And don't tell me it's different in literature. The whole point of literature is that it makes you see it differently. In literature the imagination goes where morality won't.

Myself, having listened to everyone on the subject from taxi drivers to criminologists, from apoplectic told-you-so conservatives to self-righteous told-you-so liberals, from those who loot and those who have been looted, from black and white and from young and old, I have come to this conclusion: they are all right and they are all wrong.

What are we doing supposing the answer lies in one or other set of politicised interpretations? It's the cuts; no it can't be the cuts because the cuts (God help us) have not been felt yet. This is what you get when you brutalise the poor; no, this is what you get when you indulge them with everything they want. In our impatient adversariality we mirror the aggression of those who will drive cars at whoever stands in their way.

Check out the online comments that follow even the most reasonably argued article on the subject. We don't disagree any more, we vilify and desecrate. If we could kill by words we would. Even on Newsnight, which by and large encourages a more moderated discourse, no one was listening to anyone last week. On the second or third night of the disturbances Kelvin MacKenzie all but burst a blood vessel shouting down a rapper for having a go at understanding what was afoot. There are few intellectual heroes on either side, but on the whole, the right is in more danger of a collective heart attack than the left. Rage would seem to be robbing them of reason. Maybe it's the sight of objects being stolen. Either way, the verbal vehemence in the media is continuous with the mayhem on the streets. This, too, is part of the story: the mutual incomprehension of those who consider themselves civilised.

Yes, "criminality" is too soft a word to describe the savagery we've seen, but if it's criminality pure and simple, then how do we explain the number of criminals pure and simple our society is able to muster at the press of a key on a BlackBerry? Did they turn up on a spaceship? Are they the fault of some other solar system? Of course we know damn well where they came from – they came from places from which most of us have averted our eyes, hoping they would stay there, praying that their brutalism would be expended on one another, that they would solve the problem of their existence in their own blood. They are the price we pay – no, the price they pay – for the way we have chosen to live. Nothing to do with us? Criminality pure and simple? Then the other side of criminality – good works, benevolence, call it what you will – has nothing to do with us either. We cannot take credit for our achievements but not our failures. The odd criminal does not confute the society we live in, but when criminality is as widespread and ingrained as this, and among those too young yet to have cut their apron strings, we cannot pass it off as self originating. Call them what you like, but these things of darkness we must acknowledge ours.

These have been a disgusting few years. That form of looting known as corporate larceny continues to rage unchecked. Economic scavengers bring the world to the brink of ruin. We don't need the discrepancy between rich and poor laid out in percentages, we see the brute fact of it with our own eyes in the shops and on the roads and in the restaurants of our richest cities. One medium-sized banker's bonus would probably pay for all the trash that's been looted this past week. And we don't even have the decency to conceal the extent of this legalised pillage from those for whom, without sentimentalising them, a pair of trainers is a treat. The Sunday Times publishes its Rich List, celebrity magazines trumpet wealth, television fetishises unmerited success and, since we've mentioned trainers, you tell me, reader, who the young get the idea of their desirability from. Even in Tottenham you are not born needing trainers. A craving for trainers is not inscribed in the DNA of the poor. There's an irony in the sight of those peddling tat to people who can't afford it being the first to have their windows smashed. But theirs will be the losses soonest mended, and who's to say that what's happened won't make their merchandise more desirable still? What your friends looted on Monday, you might have to buy on Friday.

If the above sounds like wishy-washy liberalism to those who think that what's condemned is miraculously solved, let's add this: liberalism today lies in ruins, not only because it has indulged the cultural bilge that has given the looters their baseless sense of entitlement – welcoming their idiot hoodlum patois as a rebellion against conformity and government, and never mind the hateful brutality – but because it has failed, in its sanctimoniousness, to understand the necessary role illiberalism – guidelines, example, authority, boundaries – plays in the governing of society. It should never have happened that parents, teachers, and the police themselves, go in terror of the young, or in terror of the consequence of reining in their wildness. For the young's sake it should never have happened, never mind for ours. But the consequence is they are disinherited and we live in fear. In a society that is afraid to punish because it is afraid to judge, that does not understand the outrage of being offended against, that cannot feel the egregiousness of a crime, and that no longer even gestures at justice, it's no wonder there are people wildly calling for the return of capital punishment.

It might appear a paradox – a heartless society that is soft on the criminals it creates – but in fact it's a cynical trade-off. You turn a blind eye to our crimes and we'll turn a blind eye to yours. Those looters are criminals all right – but they are our criminals, trashing left and right what we, left and right, have trashed already.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Postby vison » Mon Aug 15, 2011 1:20 pm

Thanks, Storyteller.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby portia » Wed Aug 17, 2011 7:59 pm

I have heard a report that the UK police plan to have the rioters they arrest and convict sentenced to clean up the mess.

Well, that would certainly be appropriate, but how long with those prosecutions take? Will the mess wait for the miscreants, or will they have to clean up some other mess?
Are there enough orange jumpsuits?
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby ToshoftheWuffingas » Thu Aug 18, 2011 5:07 pm

As always there is one rule for the important and one rule for others. Bear in mind someone was imprisoned for stealing two bottles of water.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... fraud.html
User avatar
ToshoftheWuffingas
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2267
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:31 am
Top

Postby portia » Thu Aug 18, 2011 6:18 pm

Well, I sort of agree, but I do have a question. If he went to jail, who would care for the mother, and how much would it cost the taxpayer? Maybe his curfew and a payback are a lot cheaper, in the fairly long run.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Postby vison » Thu Aug 18, 2011 7:28 pm

portia wrote:Well, I sort of agree, but I do have a question. If he went to jail, who would care for the mother, and how much would it cost the taxpayer? Maybe his curfew and a payback are a lot cheaper, in the fairly long run.


Exactamundo.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:57 am

Are You Authorized to Defend Yourself

When plundering mobs descended on several British neighborhoods, they were met by residents who had formed protective barriers around their businesses and homes. They were met by vigilantes.

Officials in the UK, as everywhere, pronounce the word vigilante with intonations of horror and disgust. To them, a vigilante represents "society gone askew" every bit as much as the looter who smashes open windows, because both men constitute a basic denial of the officials' authority. No wonder the police are eager to portray those who protect their own persons and property as "lynch mobs" or otherwise threats to civil society. If a trend toward self-defense were encouraged, after all, then the police might be out of a job; the authorities might be out of power. And so, vigilante is a good word that has "gone bad," largely because the authorities fear its virtues.

Both the antagonism and fear of authorities were evident in Britain last week. In the wake of riots, the police attacked not merely the rioters but also those who patrolled their own neighborhoods and averted violence. But they did so surreptitiously.

Clearly, the police were upset with the vigilantes. While their official impotence was displayed on TV screens around the world, average people banded together to perform the work the police could not.

While decrying vigilantism in general, therefore, the authorities have focused their ire upon one group in particular: the English Defence League (EDL) with whom the public is less likely to have sympathy. The EDL is a far-right-wing group known for violent street protests against Sharia Law and Islamic extremism. Clive Efford, the MP for Eltham, where rioting was severe, stated, "A group of the English Defence League turned up in the high street and have been drinking all day, and although they say they're here to assist the police, they [the police] have now diverted all these resources here."

Accounts from those who patrolled the streets deny that the EDL were prevalent. Whichever account is true, however, the authorities and the press clearly wish to paint these unsympathetic drunkards as the vigilantes. For example, the Morning Star stated, "In Enfield a mob of white men, again believed to have included members of the EDL, swarmed through the streets chanting 'England.'"

Authorities have flipped the "default" switch on self-defense: namely, leave it to the police. As the International Business Times stated, "Contrary to everyday people, the police have been trained to handle difficult situations, and the powers that have been given to them by the government should not be conferred to the rest of the population."

This is an amazing statement: the right to defend against violence is a "power" that is given to the police "by government" and "should not be conferred to the rest of the population." The two main reasons for denying the right to self-defense seem to be
1. without government training, people will get hurt; and
2. people who rise in self-defense will turn into a lynch mob.

Regarding the first reason, when the police cannot or do not offer protection, people and property will be damaged. The best chance of preventing that damage is precisely for people to defend themselves. Moreover, denying the right of self-defense to a person because he might get hurt is like denying freedom of speech because he might misspeak or denying freedom of religion because he could join the wrong church. The denial is not an act of concern or protection; it is the imposition of social control.

Return to the definition of vigilantism: "Taking the law into one's own hands … " The very definition draws a clear line between vigilantes and a lynch mob; the former takes the law into their own hands while the latter has nothing to do with the law except for breaking it. Indeed, as the London riots show, vigilantes are usually a defense against mobs, whether the ongoing thugs are looters or lynchers. Things can go badly wrong whenever there is a need for self-defense, but mistakes and missteps are aberrations that do not negate the essential nature of vigilantism. It is the opposite of a lynch mob.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby ToshoftheWuffingas » Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:24 pm

Note that no one defended themselves with guns.
Note also that there is not a single water cannon on the mainland of Great Britain.
User avatar
ToshoftheWuffingas
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 2267
Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:31 am
Top

Postby Storyteller » Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:57 pm

ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:Note that no one defended themselves with guns.
Note also that there is not a single water cannon on the mainland of Great Britain.

And perhaps therein lies part of the problem. Consensual policing has its limitations, and Britain found itself in a situation when its police force was not equipped to handle a widespread and deadly disturbance.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Postby vison » Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:02 pm

Storyteller wrote:
ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:Note that no one defended themselves with guns.
Note also that there is not a single water cannon on the mainland of Great Britain.

And perhaps therein lies part of the problem. Consensual policing has its limitations, and Britain found itself in a situation when its police force was not equipped to handle a widespread and deadly disturbance.


The limitations of consensual policing are overtaken by the lack of limitations on police power to lay charges. IMHO.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby Storyteller » Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:16 pm

vison wrote:
Storyteller wrote:
ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:Note that no one defended themselves with guns.
Note also that there is not a single water cannon on the mainland of Great Britain.

And perhaps therein lies part of the problem. Consensual policing has its limitations, and Britain found itself in a situation when its police force was not equipped to handle a widespread and deadly disturbance.


The limitations of consensual policing are overtaken by the lack of limitations on police power to lay charges. IMHO.

As in charges after the fact? After people have died and buildings have been torched?

Letting violence run its course and mopping up the mess after the fact is not my definition of good policing.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Postby wilko185 » Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:39 pm

The police will always be criticised, for either under- or over-forceful tactics, I don't envy them. Of course, if the police hadn't pinned a black man to the ground and shot him, then perhaps the riots and looting would not have been triggered in the first place.
User avatar
wilko185
Mariner

 
Posts: 8307
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2001 2:10 pm
Top

Postby vison » Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:47 pm

wilko185 wrote:The police will always be criticised, for either under- or over-forceful tactics, I don't envy them. Of course, if the police hadn't pinned a black man to the ground and shot him, then perhaps the riots and looting would not have been triggered in the first place.


Well, he wasn't an innocent bystander, after all.

Storyteller, wilko185 is right, in part. The police will always be criticized. The Vancouver police are being raked over the coals over the Hockey Riot: no charges as yet have been laid. Canadian police can't lay charges, only recommend them. After the fact, everyone knew what should have been done or not done, but few people had anything to say beforehand. The same in Britain.

The events in Britain were shocking and I, for one, am not going to say I know why it all happened. I don't buy the angst and despair angle, but then, I don't buy the "they're all criminal degenerates" either. Life is complicated and never so complicated as when it goes sideways.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby wilko185 » Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:51 pm

vison wrote:
wilko185 wrote:The police will always be criticised, for either under- or over-forceful tactics, I don't envy them. Of course, if the police hadn't pinned a black man to the ground and shot him, then perhaps the riots and looting would not have been triggered in the first place.


Well, he wasn't an innocent bystander, after all.

I didn't say he was. Just pointing out that guns are generally the problem, not the solution, even in the hands of the police.
User avatar
wilko185
Mariner

 
Posts: 8307
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2001 2:10 pm
Top

Postby heliona » Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:06 pm

Storyteller wrote:
ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:Note that no one defended themselves with guns.
Note also that there is not a single water cannon on the mainland of Great Britain.

And perhaps therein lies part of the problem. Consensual policing has its limitations, and Britain found itself in a situation when its police force was not equipped to handle a widespread and deadly disturbance.


Personally, I happen to like the fact that I live in a country where people can't easily get their hands on guns, and that even when the idea of using water cannons was suggested, there is a great deal of unease.

I think part of the problem was the fact that the police as a unit were not given proper orders about what to do and where, since after the phone-hacking scandal, both the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner had stepped down.
User avatar
heliona
The Sexy One ~ Hellaciously Huggable

 
Posts: 10533
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2000 11:14 am
Location: Atop a sunny hill
Top

Postby wilko185 » Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:06 pm

On a different tack, a government e-petition that Convicted London rioters should loose [sic] all benefits now has over 200,000 signatures, which is double the number required for it to be considered for debate in the House of Commons. This sort of populism is not how I want my democracy to be run. Knee-jerk reactions to press scare stories are bad enough from MPs, we don't need them from internet polls. However, it's clearly a relevant public debate. Government ministers have come out in favour. There are similar calls to evict rioters from social housing, regardless of whether the offences were committed in their local area. (There are, of course, no calls to remove the housing or income of those criminals who are homeowners or have jobs; or who sponge off their parents for that matter). This blog sums up the legal and moral problems with this approach quite well:
Rioters, punishment and justice
LAG believes that the attempt to evict families of rioters is underpinned by the notion that public sector tenants are in some way second class (or even third class) citizens because they rent their homes from the state and are, arguably, subsidised by the public purse. Yes, parents and other family members have a role in trying to ensure they all abide by the law, but it is wrong for them to be held legally liable for the actions of a family member, particularly if s/he is over the age of criminal responsibility. Evicting a family leads to greater problems, costs to the state and makes it less likely that the family will stay together.

Similarly, the idea of reducing the benefits of the families of rioters is bound up with prejudices surrounding people who live on benefits. Lawlessness is not something that is exclusive to benefit claimants and their families. The point has already been made in the public debate surrounding the riots that MPs and bankers have contributed to a culture of greed and selfishness. Moral principles appear easy to apply to a rioter caught pinching bottled water from Aldi, but are less certain when applied to over-claiming on expenses forms or selling financial instruments which are known to be at their core a collection of dodgy mortgages.
User avatar
wilko185
Mariner

 
Posts: 8307
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2001 2:10 pm
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:11 pm

ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:Note that no one defended themselves with guns.


Yes, we know that guns are pretty thoroughly forbidden there. The nasty fetish the Brits have with guns is pretty well known.

Now please prove that those who weren't allowed to defend themselves with guns still wouldn't have done so had they been allowed.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby vison » Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:29 pm

Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:Note that no one defended themselves with guns.


Yes, we know that guns are pretty thoroughly forbidden there. The nasty fetish the Brits have with guns is pretty well known.

Now please prove that those who weren't allowed to defend themselves with guns still wouldn't have done so had they been allowed.


Straw men catch on fire so easily! :eye:

C_G, you are never ever ever, not ever, never, going to export your GunNutz culture from the US. It's just, you know, so non-U? Really. Truly.

I suppose it bothers you that most of the civilized world regards gun-loving Americans as unwashed and dangerous barbarians, but try to get over it. We love y'all just the same.
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

Postby RoseMorninStar » Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:55 pm

Swordsman_Of_The_Tower wrote:So it's an attack on ghetto blacks and not on civilized suburban blacks?


When you think of "gangster" culture who pops into your head? Is it a black male?
No.. I don't automatically think of a black male. I agree with heliona. Obviously that is what YOU think Lewie, since you keep insisting it is so.. and maybe in your area it is the case, but I don't think that 'gangster' behavior or culture is limited to blacks. Not at all.
User avatar
RoseMorninStar
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 12800
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 10:34 pm
Location: North Shire
Top

Postby JewelSong » Fri Aug 19, 2011 4:52 pm

RoseMorninStar wrote:
Swordsman_Of_The_Tower wrote:When you think of "gangster" culture who pops into your head? Is it a black male?

No.. I don't automatically think of a black male. .


When I hear the word "gangster" I think of Nathan Detroit. You know, from "Guys and Dolls."

And no, I'm not kidding. To me, "gangsters" are mob-type guys in pin-stripe suits who run around with machine guns and play craps.
User avatar
JewelSong
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 4634
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 6:31 am
Top

Postby Cenedril_Gildinaur » Fri Aug 19, 2011 10:38 pm

vison wrote:
Cenedril_Gildinaur wrote:
ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:Note that no one defended themselves with guns.


Yes, we know that guns are pretty thoroughly forbidden there. The nasty fetish the Brits have with guns is pretty well known.

Now please prove that those who weren't allowed to defend themselves with guns still wouldn't have done so had they been allowed.


Straw men catch on fire so easily! :eye:

C_G, you are never ever ever, not ever, never, going to export your GunNutz culture from the US. It's just, you know, so non-U? Really. Truly.

I suppose it bothers you that most of the civilized world regards gun-loving Americans as unwashed and dangerous barbarians, but try to get over it. We love y'all just the same.


I'm hoping that the Nutzo attitude of Europe doesn't infect us any further here in the civilized US.

By the way, do you remember once in another gun thread I commented how Canadians always argue against themselves on this issue? How they argue in favor of the insane European side when they have more guns per capita than us in the US?

You just did it again.

Oh, and you said I was crazy for pointing it out last time because you never do that.
User avatar
Cenedril_Gildinaur
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 11197
Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2003 7:35 pm
Location: The Real World
Top

Postby Storyteller » Sat Aug 20, 2011 9:22 am

heliona wrote:
Storyteller wrote:
ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:Note that no one defended themselves with guns.
Note also that there is not a single water cannon on the mainland of Great Britain.

And perhaps therein lies part of the problem. Consensual policing has its limitations, and Britain found itself in a situation when its police force was not equipped to handle a widespread and deadly disturbance.


Personally, I happen to like the fact that I live in a country where people can't easily get their hands on guns, and that even when the idea of using water cannons was suggested, there is a great deal of unease.

I think part of the problem was the fact that the police as a unit were not given proper orders about what to do and where, since after the phone-hacking scandal, both the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner had stepped down.

But even had they been given proper orders, were they properly equipped to carry them out?

My point here, heliona, is that having no water cannons in mainland Britain isn't a point of pride, it's a lack of preparedness.
"...Their aim in war with Germany is nothing more, nothing less than extermination of Hitlerism... There is absolutely no justification for this kind of war. The ideology of Hitlerism, just like any other ideological system, can be accepted or rejected, this is a matter of political views. But everyone grasps, that an ideology can not be exterminated by force, must not be finished off with a war.” - Vyacheslav Molotov, ""On the Foreign Policy of the Soviet Union", 31 October 1939
User avatar
Storyteller
Mariner

 
Posts: 7064
Joined: Sat Aug 31, 2002 7:46 am
Top

Postby vison » Sat Aug 20, 2011 9:42 am

C_G, it's never about the NUMBER of guns. It's about the GunNutz culture.

Guns are not manly appendages or extensions of small ones, nor are they going to make you "safe". They are just, you know, guns. Not all that important in the scheme of things. Important if you need them to shoot varmints or food, but not important in the "my house is an armed camp and by gum you better not try to rape and pillage in it!!!"

But you just carry on. God Bless America!!!!
8)
Or something like that. :)
GM is alive.

Osama bin Laden is dead.
User avatar
vison
Ringbearer


 
Posts: 12696
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 6:15 pm
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests