London Riots: An Alternate Juxtaposition

[Doktor Howl]

Not having followed the ME riots (or the London riots) terribly closely, i'm curious...  was there widespread looting and violence directed towards civilians in the ME?  i don't recall that.  if not, how did they get the attention of the news and authorities, otherwise?

why would you suspect that?

Because I am a jaded and tired old man and I have seen things like this end up there far too many times.

Well, why would we want to steer the conversation in that direction, Charley?  if there was racism involved in the reasoning, it would come to light of its own accord.  i don't think that bringing it up without such indication is beneficial...
also, i'll give respect to anyone that endures unwanted sounding multiple times a day!  

I don't think DP had race in mind at all.  Instead, he had the myth of the entrepreneur in mind.  The idea that these guys are the salt of the Earth, and must be protected from taxation that pays for their roads, and the anger brought their way from their own complacency.

Certainly a lot of anger should go to complacent/complicit electorate.  It should also be directed to the ones who can but don't vote.  

I'm beginning to come around to your side of seeing it Dok.   I completely agree, that anger was justified and properly directed.

Still think that the murders hurt their cause.

It should be directed at pretty much everyone.

The rioter who pauses to punch himself in the balls at least once will have my respect.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm not entirely convinced that the violent rioters, the thieving and murdering sort, would know what to do with change if it were dropped on their door step.  No, I don't think they'd be in a better place through letter writing.  Civil public discourse has been shown to bring people to a cause who might not otherwise have been willing to listen.  The "have nothings" taking rage out on the "have a bit and working to have more" means there's very little chance of getting them that could most sympathize with them, on their sides.  They could be a loud and un-ignorable voice, but it's pissed away by opportunists.

I think that the biggest mistake you are making is in believing that there is a "violent rioter" type of person. There is not. There is no us and them, there is only us when we're pushed far enough.

That's what makes the question of why they felt pushed too far the most relevant one.

Ok, I understand that argument, but there are people who would go out and fuck shit up just to fuck shit up if they thought they could get away with it, and wouldn't need any more reason than they thought they could get away with it.  Those people exist, and there's maybe more of them than you're taking into consideration.  Those are the sorts I meant.

[ETA] The sort of human whose behavior elicits the "this is why we can't have nice things" meme.

That fairly accurately describes all young men. Ever.

But it more accurately describes disenfranchised young men with little or nothing to lose.

You seem to think that there is a "type" of person for whom fucking shit up for the pleasure of it is inborn. Psychologists call them "sociopaths", and they are fairly rare. So what we are looking at is young men who are in an environment that causes them to feel they have little or nothing to lose. That means that those young men are interchangeable with any other young men anywhere in the world. Including you.

I know, I used to be one of those young men.  I suppose it's the type you mention that I'm referring to. 

For the record, psychologists still don't know whether sociopaths are born or made, or both, but as of teh last time I read up on it they're leaning toward "made". So, once again, we're back at the relevant question, which is "why?".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Precisely. The news and the authorities dont care about rallies. Riots do get their attention however.

The news doesn't even report peaceful protests here anymore. At all. The only people who even know about them are the protesters and the people who for one reason or another are trying to go from point A to point B and find the roads momentarily blocked by a protest.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Not having followed the ME riots (or the London riots) terribly closely, i'm curious...  was there widespread looting and violence directed towards civilians in the ME?  i don't recall that.  if not, how did they get the attention of the news and authorities, otherwise?

why would you suspect that?

Because I am a jaded and tired old man and I have seen things like this end up there far too many times.

Well, why would we want to steer the conversation in that direction, Charley?  if there was racism involved in the reasoning, it would come to light of its own accord.  i don't think that bringing it up without such indication is beneficial...
also, i'll give respect to anyone that endures unwanted sounding multiple times a day!  

I don't think DP had race in mind at all.  Instead, he had the myth of the entrepreneur in mind.  The idea that these guys are the salt of the Earth, and must be protected from taxation that pays for their roads, and the anger brought their way from their own complacency.

Certainly a lot of anger should go to complacent/complicit electorate.  It should also be directed to the ones who can but don't vote.  

I'm beginning to come around to your side of seeing it Dok.   I completely agree, that anger was justified and properly directed.

Still think that the murders hurt their cause.

Of course the murders hurt their cause. But they weren't planning it, or even thinking... they were a mob in action. Once a mob is mobilized things just HAPPEN. And they will keep happening as long as the underlying conditions that caused the riots to erupt remain unsolved.

[Scribbly]

Still think that the murders hurt their cause.

I agree with Cram (and others) in that I think you are missing the point.

There was no 'cause' for them to harm.

There was a mixture of emotion and opportunity. The fact that these two things combined could tell us a lot of interesting things about the state of our society. Especially given the large numbers of people involved (I think over 3000 are being brought before the courts, now, with more being arrested still).

But the chances of anyone in power acting on anything which could be learned is slim; because people are oversimplifying it. EITHER the riots were about Mark Duggan OR the riots were about the economy OR the riots were the result of mindless thugs and the moral decay of our society.

The truth is a hell of a lot more complicated. Too messy to turn into a soundbite, and the solutions likely too broadly unpopular because they involve things like empathy and understanding where most people don't want to accept the ugly fact that, like Nigel says, they could be the 'undisciplined mob'.

The murders and the rest of the hurt to peoples lives are terrible, yes. But as a lot of other people have pointed out, in the grand scheme of things, elements which combined to make up this powderkeg do more damage, continuously. It is just not reported on because it is business as usual. The amount of people who are killed in police custody, and the 'odd' proportion of those who are black. The massive amount of damage the credit crunch caused, and the agony that the lowest rungs of society are enduring to ensure that the very people responsible can maintain multi-million pound jobs. These things are gross atrocities to the relatively small injustices carried out by the mob.

But I heard today that they've already started evicting families from council provided housing on the basis that their young children were involved in the riots.

And they are going to massively empower the police as a result, rather than actually examine the system which allows the institutionalized murder of our disenfranchised youths to continue.

And the ignorant populace will cheer for it. They'll bleat about how these fuckers deserve every blow, because by God, their kids aren't out rioting, and don't you know everybody has it tough? And it is completely inexcusable. How can you possibly defend these actions?

I'm not surprised at all that people who feel they have no recourse through peaceful means, nobody who cares about what they want or need in any fashion, no prospects to better themselves, and no chance that any kids they bring into the world would do any better would resort to violence. Especially when, every fucking day, something happens to demonstrate how little they matter and how society is structured to keep them at the bottom, hurting for someone else.

I'm surprised it took as long as it did. And I'm absolutely positive that I'm only scratching the surface as to the multitude of causes behind this, many of which will likely never come out.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Still think that the murders hurt their cause.

I agree with Cram (and others) in that I think you are missing the point.

There was no 'cause' for them to harm.

There was a mixture of emotion and opportunity. The fact that these two things combined could tell us a lot of interesting things about the state of our society. Especially given the large numbers of people involved (I think over 3000 are being brought before the courts, now, with more being arrested still).

But the chances of anyone in power acting on anything which could be learned is slim; because people are oversimplifying it. EITHER the riots were about Mark Duggan OR the riots were about the economy OR the riots were the result of mindless thugs and the moral decay of our society.

The truth is a hell of a lot more complicated. Too messy to turn into a soundbite, and the solutions likely too broadly unpopular because they involve things like empathy and understanding where most people don't want to accept the ugly fact that, like Nigel says, they could be the 'undisciplined mob'.

The murders and the rest of the hurt to peoples lives are terrible, yes. But as a lot of other people have pointed out, in the grand scheme of things, elements which combined to make up this powderkeg do more damage, continuously. It is just not reported on because it is business as usual. The amount of people who are killed in police custody, and the 'odd' proportion of those who are black. The massive amount of damage the credit crunch caused, and the agony that the lowest rungs of society are enduring to ensure that the very people responsible can maintain multi-million pound jobs. These things are gross atrocities to the relatively small injustices carried out by the mob.

But I heard today that they've already started evicting families from council provided housing on the basis that their young children were involved in the riots.

And they are going to massively empower the police as a result, rather than actually examine the system which allows the institutionalized murder of our disenfranchised youths to continue.

And the ignorant populace will cheer for it. They'll bleat about how these fuckers deserve every blow, because by God, their kids aren't out rioting, and don't you know everybody has it tough? And it is completely inexcusable. How can you possibly defend these actions?

I'm not surprised at all that people who feel they have no recourse through peaceful means, nobody who cares about what they want or need in any fashion, no prospects to better themselves, and no chance that any kids they bring into the world would do any better would resort to violence. Especially when, every fucking day, something happens to demonstrate how little they matter and how society is structured to keep them at the bottom, hurting for someone else.

I'm surprised it took as long as it did. And I'm absolutely positive that I'm only scratching the surface as to the multitude of causes behind this, many of which will likely never come out.

[East Coast Hustle]

Not having followed the ME riots (or the London riots) terribly closely, i'm curious...  was there widespread looting and violence directed towards civilians in the ME?  i don't recall that.  if not, how did they get the attention of the news and authorities, otherwise?

why would you suspect that?

Because I am a jaded and tired old man and I have seen things like this end up there far too many times.

Well, why would we want to steer the conversation in that direction, Charley?  if there was racism involved in the reasoning, it would come to light of its own accord.  i don't think that bringing it up without such indication is beneficial...
also, i'll give respect to anyone that endures unwanted sounding multiple times a day! 

I don't think DP had race in mind at all.  Instead, he had the myth of the entrepreneur in mind.  The idea that these guys are the salt of the Earth, and must be protected from taxation that pays for their roads, and the anger brought their way from their own complacency.

Certainly a lot of anger should go to complacent/complicit electorate.  It should also be directed to the ones who can but don't vote. 

I'm beginning to come around to your side of seeing it Dok.   I completely agree, that anger was justified and properly directed.

Still think that the murders hurt their cause.

I was under the impression that those murders could most likely be attributed to BNP/ELD agents provocateurs, though if that's not the general public impression it may not mean a whole lot.

[Disco Pickle]

Not having followed the ME riots (or the London riots) terribly closely, i'm curious...  was there widespread looting and violence directed towards civilians in the ME?  i don't recall that.  if not, how did they get the attention of the news and authorities, otherwise?

why would you suspect that?

Because I am a jaded and tired old man and I have seen things like this end up there far too many times.

Well, why would we want to steer the conversation in that direction, Charley?  if there was racism involved in the reasoning, it would come to light of its own accord.  i don't think that bringing it up without such indication is beneficial...
also, i'll give respect to anyone that endures unwanted sounding multiple times a day! 

I don't think DP had race in mind at all.  Instead, he had the myth of the entrepreneur in mind.  The idea that these guys are the salt of the Earth, and must be protected from taxation that pays for their roads, and the anger brought their way from their own complacency.

Certainly a lot of anger should go to complacent/complicit electorate.  It should also be directed to the ones who can but don't vote. 

I'm beginning to come around to your side of seeing it Dok.   I completely agree, that anger was justified and properly directed.

Still think that the murders hurt their cause.

I was under the impression that those murders could most likely be attributed to BNP/ELD agents provocateurs, though if that's not the general public impression it may not mean a whole lot.

I had not heard that.    I'd be really interested to know if that's the case.   

Would certainly change my mind about it if that's what it was.   In hindsight, it wouldn't surprise me.

Funny that, those eyes..  looking back on what happened.

[Golden Applesauce]

this brings to mind an image
from our buddy Bobby Campbell:

The difference is that when you kill a person with a sword or a club, there is one specific person who you are attacking, and there might even be legitimate reasons as to why you are killing that person (enemy soldier, self-defense, etc.)  Also, the person wielding the sword or club is in control - they can choose whether to swing their weapon or not.

With economics, there is no one person in charge of the weapon.  And even if there was, there's no way to attack a specific person, so the victim is essentially arbitrary, greatly lowering the possibility of the killing being remotely justified.

[East Coast Hustle]

this brings to mind an image
from our buddy Bobby Campbell:

The difference is that when you kill a person with a sword or a club, there is one specific person who you are attacking, and there might even be legitimate reasons as to why you are killing that person (enemy soldier, self-defense, etc.)  Also, the person wielding the sword or club is in control - they can choose whether to swing their weapon or not.

With economics, there is no one person in charge of the weapon.  And even if there was, there's no way to attack a specific person, so the victim is essentially arbitrary, greatly lowering the possibility of the killing being remotely justified.

Roberto Mugabe would like to disagree with you.

Seriously, did you even stop to appreciate the irony of saying that in reference to a picture of somebody addressing an EMPEROR?

[Golden Applesauce]

No, I didn't.  I was being Americentric and thinking of economic systems that lead to generally decreased life expectancies for some classes, rather than carefully orchestrated attacks on specific groups.

[East Coast Hustle]

It's all a carefully orchestrated attack on a specific group.

That group is called "the people who aren't wealthy".

[Cain]

I think this bears repeating. Iirc there were peaceful protests leading up to the riots and prior to duggans death.

Yup.  2000 mostly black men protested outside the headquarters of the Police Complaints Commission in July.

Nothing was done.  No media attention was paid. 

We had peaceful protests against the War in Iraq (1+ million on the streets of London and almost no violence) and fairly peaceful protests against the rise in student fees (barring a few notable idiots, who were blown out of proportion by the media).

In fact, pretty much every protest of the last decade has been legal, by the books and utterly ignored by Parliament when it comes to voting.

Let us recall, the profiles of some of those in court include not just unemployed young black men, but social workers, grad students and trainee doctors.

Britain has a surplus of young men with too much time on their hands, not enough employment, rising costs for everything (price of food up 2%, price of gas up 5%, price of train tickets up 8% average, price of rent up 4%, VAT up 2.5% etc etc) on top of stagnant wages for those who are lucky enough to be employed.  It's also seen a decade of looting at the hands of MPs (via the expenses scandal - where MPs made fradulent claims which the taxpayer footed the bill for - including paying off the interest on MPs mortgages, paying for their moats to be cleaned, paying for them to employ their relatives to do nothing all day) and a past three years where bankers could wreck the economy entirely and the only question that was asked was "how much can we give them and how quickly".  A good degree of this was done by the "establishment left" and now the "esatablishment right" are following up with, what looks like in hindsight, the "bad cop" act to the previous "good cop" one.  All three major parties are now implicated, to one degree or another (the least tainted by all this, ironically, may be Ed Miliband).

And, well, people wonder if people in the UK may be pissed off.

And I'm one of the more reasonable ones over here.  Probably because I know, worst comes to worst, I can exercise the option to escape.  For lots of people, those with young families, those who cannot speak foreign languages, or just don't have the funds, that simply isn't an option.

tl;dr the UK government pays lip service to democracy once every five years, then ignores it in an orgy of sanctioned looting on behalf of their political allies, and blames everyone else for there being no money in the coffers.  They then beat up anyone who gets too frustrated at taking effective pay cuts every three months or being forced off welfare for bullshit reasons and goes a bit mental, because responsibility means doing everything society says, even when society is kicking you in the teeth constantly.

[Scribbly]

Yup.  2000 mostly black men protested outside the headquarters of the Police Complaints Commission in July.

Nothing was done.  No media attention was paid. 

We had peaceful protests against the War in Iraq (1+ million on the streets of London and almost no violence) and fairly peaceful protests against the rise in student fees (barring a few notable idiots, who were blown out of proportion by the media).

In fact, pretty much every protest of the last decade has been legal, by the books and utterly ignored by Parliament when it comes to voting.

Let us recall, the profiles of some of those in court include not just unemployed young black men, but social workers, grad students and trainee doctors.

Britain has a surplus of young men with too much time on their hands, not enough employment, rising costs for everything (price of food up 2%, price of gas up 5%, price of train tickets up 8% average, price of rent up 4%, VAT up 2.5% etc etc) on top of stagnant wages for those who are lucky enough to be employed.  It's also seen a decade of looting at the hands of MPs (via the expenses scandal - where MPs made fradulent claims which the taxpayer footed the bill for - including paying off the interest on MPs mortgages, paying for their moats to be cleaned, paying for them to employ their relatives to do nothing all day) and a past three years where bankers could wreck the economy entirely and the only question that was asked was "how much can we give them and how quickly".  A good degree of this was done by the "establishment left" and now the "esatablishment right" are following up with, what looks like in hindsight, the "bad cop" act to the previous "good cop" one.  All three major parties are now implicated, to one degree or another (the least tainted by all this, ironically, may be Ed Miliband).

And, well, people wonder if people in the UK may be pissed off.

And I'm one of the more reasonable ones over here.  Probably because I know, worst comes to worst, I can exercise the option to escape.  For lots of people, those with young families, those who cannot speak foreign languages, or just don't have the funds, that simply isn't an option.

tl;dr the UK government pays lip service to democracy once every five years, then ignores it in an orgy of sanctioned looting on behalf of their political allies, and blames everyone else for there being no money in the coffers.  They then beat up anyone who gets too frustrated at taking effective pay cuts every three months or being forced off welfare for bullshit reasons and goes a bit mental, because responsibility means doing everything society says, even when society is kicking you in the teeth constantly.

[Cramulus]

heard the best soundbyte on BBC radio this morning ---

interviewer was asking an MP if he thought the sentences being handed out were too harsh. They mentioned a guy that got a six month sentence for stealing five pounds worth of bottled water.

"No, we have to send a strong message that this sort of thing won't be tolerated in our country," proudly pronounced the MP.

"But just a few weeks ago, we were talking with you about an MP who essentially looted five thousand pounds and only got a two month sentence. What kind of message do you think that sends?"

"Well the thing is," said the MP, not missing a beat, "that he did that within a series of laws -- a series of laws that the MPs created, sure, but technically no rules were broken."