London's Burning - Page 5

I think that secularism/religion are kind of tangential to the Forbes author's point, in that he thinks it's important enough to warrant a mention, but his argument hardly hangs on it. I don't agree with every single word of that essay, I just thought the author's viewpoint, which is conservative, on the class warfare aspect of all of this was pretty fascinating. I also don't get much of a "it was better in the good old days" vibe from the Forbes article, except for that there were periods of time in the twentieth century where one could get good jobs without a degree. The Economist piece is not refuting any of the points of the Forbes article, which are basically economic in nature and not moral.

I wasn't speaking about the article. I just detest the concept of "the good old days" in general.

But I also don't think that other than being more globalized, the problems we face today are unique to our era. And they will sadly be solved in the same way they have been all these other times they occurred. I don't foresee any solution that doesn't involve violence, at least to some degree. Whether we're talking about a violent overthrowing of the establishment (very unlikely) or about simply being scary enough that the ruling class' survival instinct overrides their greed, something's got to give.   

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee 

Interesting but profoundly flawed.  I don't think secularism is at fault for global capitalism teetering on the brink and people throwing bricks at shop windows. Greedy fucks in collusion with world governments and a inherently flawed economic theory that eventually will consume itself are the primary reasons.

 

Maybe I'm crazy but English society has always come off (to me at least) as far more class oriented and stratified than the U.S.  It sounds like that author is guilty of the classic "it was better in the good old days" rhetorical analysis that people often fall back on when confronted with "scary" revolutionary and reactionary (which the riots were of the latter) events that threaten the status quo.

 

 

When you had a strong aristocracy obviously the UK was more class stratified than the US, but the reality is, there is a smaller gap between the rich and the poor in the UK than in the US.

People in the UK, are just more class conscious because they don't operate under the illusion of living in an meritocracy, largely due to the historical legacy the aristocracy has left them.  Warren Buffet said the US is the great meritocracy of the world, although studies haven't really proved this.  Just as in most industrialized highly developed economies of Europe, the socio economic class you're born in the US is the one you're most likely to remain in.  But, upward mobility for minorities in the US is proved to be greater than in Europe.

Globalization, has obviously shifted jobs all around the world, but that's merely a problem with unfettered capitalism.  Unfettered Capitalism that is obsessed with cutting costs and jobs doesn't work, while social capitalism does.  Yet, this doesn't really address the problems of minorities in Europe.

Even though the problems of the US and much of Europe seem to be the same economically, societally they are quite different.  The UK is easily one of the best places for minorities to live, yet it's still on the level of the US.  Minority representation in Europe is virtually non existent.  And many of these highly developed European countries have societies where racism is accepted and common, like France and Germany, where minorities are treated extremely poorly and consigned to ghettos.  In France, you still have clubs that only accept white people.  The UK, as I mentioned, is easily one of the best places to be a minority in Europe, yet even they have their own popular crazy racist parties which evolved from the neo Nazi groups of the 60s.  In fact, it's really incredible and very scary to see all across Europe the rise of ex Neo Nazi groups that have reinvented themselves, in mainstream politics.  Thankfully, the US doesn't have such a scary problem.

No one in Europe ever wanted multiculturalism.  Immigrations aim was never multiculturalism, this is just a myth.  Immigration has always been about the free market, and capitalism.  The thing with Europe is, they are entrenched in their own indigenous culture, part of which is their white race.  Which is why you have a rising wave of very large, very popular nationalistic and racist organizations all across Europe.  The US is an immigrant nation; it's one of the few countries you can immigrate to and automatically become part of the country, you just need a passport.  If you're not white, doesn't matter how long you live in Europe, or what passport you have, you're never really European. 

And that's the greatest success story of the US, even though it's not quite the meritocracy it thinks it is, anyone can become an American, regardless of religion, race, or cultural baggage.

Stealing a scoop of ice cream? 16 months. Entering a previously looted store but stealing nothing? 16 months.

Yeah, this this is the real ongoing cost of the riots. Because we've essentially given the government carte-blanche to punish rioters and I assume that over the next few months we're going to see new government legislation to curb this kind of behaviour which is going to seriously effect anyone wanting to hold demonstrations or protests.

Also,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/23/british-supports-harsher-sentences-riots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike Marshall 

Also,

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/23/british-supports-harsher-sentences-riots

 

 

 

Christ. At this rate, Camerons going to rename his party 'Norsefire' and bestow on himself the title of 'Leader'.

The thing is that I love Britain, I really do. I think we've got a fascinating history, whose social and political aspects are often overlooked because of Colonialism, a beautiful country and fascinatingly unique people. I love the country, and it breaks my heart that I'm growing to hate it so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Merriweather 

If this guy's sentence is proportionate then they should probably lock up every rioter currently in a cell for at least two years. He didn't even break into the place - he was with another group who entered the shop after the rioters had smashed the place open and moved on.

 

It's out of control. And it's only going to get worse, and it's only going to exacerbate the societal problems that led to this in the first place.

I think some of the sentences mentioned are a bit harsh as well in certain cases, but that guy went in of his own volition. We're not talking about someone who was forced to go in or even someone who got swept along like something caught in the tide. He made his choice to go somewhere he clearly shouldn't have gone; that he wasn't the catalyst for it isn't the issue. He's old enough to know the consequences.

Part of me thinks Cameron & Co are just shitting their pants and panicking with these harsh sentences. And part of me thinks they know exactly what they are doing. Sending a LOUD message that any kind of future mass disorder like these riots will result in the perpetrators being squashed but good. (and maybe for good).

Saw an article in The Economist stating that 2/3s of the people arrested had a record and/or were part of a gang. Which seems to indicate this was a first major instance of an organized crime spree on a national level. Scary in it's implications.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

Saw an article in The Economist stating that 2/3s of the people arrested had a record and/or were part of a gang. Which seems to indicate this was a first major instance of an organized crime spree on a national level. Scary in it's implications.

No. It probably means that after the riots ended, the police went predominantly after people with existing criminal records. You're a cop watching a cctv feed of two men throwing stones at a store front. The first one, you have no idea who he is. The second one immediately pops up for a couple of assault cases. You'll drop the first guy and immediately go after the second one.

That's ridiculous.
 

Don't mean to sound harsh, but that had to be said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby Bear 

That's ridiculous.
 

Don't mean to sound harsh, but that had to be said.

Which post? Mine, or Stelio's?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cylon Baby 

Which post? Mine, or Stelio's?

Stelios'.

Ridiculous? How so?

Because police officers are thankfully not lazy movie character cops who take the quick fix so they can hit the donut joint quicker. Which is exactly what your comment made it sound like:

Hypothetical Cop: "Guy #2 is a known criminal so let's immediately let the equally guilty but unfamiliar Guy #1 off the hook just so we can get the other guy again."

Nonsense. I appreciate time and resources are not always plentiful, but come on.

Manpower and manhours are limited. So is space in the judicial and penal system. Unless the UK has an infinite amount of cops, cells and courthouses. And yes, your hypothetical cop would certainly go after the known perp first. "Who should I go after first? The guy whose name, address, affiliations and hangouts I know or that other guy? I know, let's waste a few days running around instead of making an arrest in two hours! It's not like the fucking prime minister, government, the judges, my superiors and the media are screaming bloody murder for the rioters to be punished. No sir, this cop feels no pressure. I'm above all that."

Being glib about it isn't going to make your original point any more logical.

Right before you said the same thing a different way, I said "I appreciate time and resources are not always plentiful." The point I was clearly making was that your phrasing made it sound like the cops would immediately stop caring about the unfamiliar perpetrators if/when they discovered a known entity. As in, stop caring about them for good.

Now you're saying "hypothetical cop would certainly go after the known perp first." Yet you made it sound before like something else entirely: "You'll drop the first guy and immediately go after the second one" were your exact words. Drop the first guy, in this context, implies the same thing as when someone says they're "dropping" a girl/boyfriend. Dump. Leave. Ditch. Bid farewell to. If you meant "go after him first, then get the other one" that wasn't clear at all.

"It probably means that after the riots ended, the police went predominantly after people with existing criminal records."

My exact wording. You can infer anything you want but it is pretty clear I think. And to think that being faced with such an abundance of targets cops will not prioritize some over others seems illogical. Prior behavior is a main component in how the law treats a lawbreaker. You're telling me this is a foreign concept to the police? I don't know if the law works differently in the UK but when two persons are caught committing the same crime, the one that has a history of such behavior will be treated more severely than the first timer. I seriously fail to see the ridiculousness in this.

C'mon, stelios. A scary organized crime spree on a national level is a much easier sell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

You can infer anything you want but it is pretty clear I think. And to think that being faced with such an abundance of targets cops will not prioritize some over others seems illogical. Prior behavior is a main component in how the law treats a lawbreaker. You're telling me this is a foreign concept to the police? I don't know if the law works differently in the UK but when two persons are caught committing the same crime, the one that has a history of such behavior will be treated more severely than the first timer. I seriously fail to see the ridiculousness in this.

OK, those points about the law (harsher sentencing for known perps, prioritizing of resources) are entirely your own tangent. A tangent you took in order to be glib. They bear no relation to any comments I actually made. Doesn't matter how funny you try to be about it, it's nothing to do with my point.

I never disputed the idea that prioritizing targets was logical or that repeat offenders will be disciplined more harshly than new ones. I disputed what it sounded like you were arguing - "who needs new criminals when you've got old ones?"

Your meaning is a lot clearer now than it was with your initially vague ("probably means..." this) then definitive ("you'll immediately drop..." that) comment. Anything I inferred was a result of your obtuse wording. It sounded like you were making your mind up on the go.

I'm not "telling" you anything, by the way. If you're going to make a snide comment to me about inferring, then don't try to put words in my mouth.

What is your point exactly?

I don't know how it is in the UK (but considering all bureaucracies and politicians love numbers I doubt it's that much different) but in the United State police offers are always pushed to "close" and that's how you end up with innocent people going to prison for crimes they didn't commit because it's much easier to collar somebody with a record and close a case than do actual investigation and gather evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

What is your point exactly?

I don't really like using GIFs as replies, but if I did, I'd post the Jerry Seinfeld leaving one right now.

You're really, really trusting of an organisation that's had a fuckton of problems with unlawful deaths et cetera over the past decade, Bobby.

Bobby, if I can ask - do you refer to it as Derry or Londonderry?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee 

I don't know how it is in the UK (but considering all bureaucracies and politicians love numbers I doubt it's that much different) but in the United State police offers are always pushed to "close" and that's how you end up with innocent people going to prison for crimes they didn't commit because it's much easier to collar somebody with a record and close a case than do actual investigation and gather evidence.

Mate, that was so not the issue. A misunderstanding over wording has taken flight, as it can only on the internet. Nothing more.

Andrew, it might have come off that way, but I don't really think I'm any more trusting of it than the next person. In fact, I'm pretty pessimistic about it. Being from Northern Ireland, I'm hopefully aware of the checkered history of law and order and unjust punishment / no punishment when there ought to be. 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

Bobby, if I can ask - do you refer to it as Derry or Londonderry?

Certainly. Stroke City. To be polite, the media say "Derry / Londonderry" (or take turns saying it both ways) so it's just easier. Less chance of annoying anybody.

I just caught up with the movie La Haine on Netflix. It was very haunting in light of what is happening in London right now. Very powerful film showing the lives of several youth caught up in the aftermath of a riot in France over the "accidental" shooting of a youth from the projects by the police. It seems the themes of this film are timeless.