History HubÌý permalink
British riots, past and present
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Tuesday, 9th August 2011
The feral scum currently using 'disaffection' and 'anger' as an excuse for sheer opportunistic theft and thuggery of today are nothing new. History is littered with such disorder on our streets.
Just since WWII in Britain, we have;-
The 1958 Notting Hill race riots between White British and West Indian immigrants.
The Red Lion Square disorders happened in 1974 following a march by counter-fascists against the National Front.
In 1977 the Battle of Lewisham occurred when the Metropolitan Police attempted to facilitate a march by the National Front
The 1981 Brixton riot against the Metropolitan Police
The 1985 Brixton riot against the Metropolitan Police after they shot the mother of suspect Michael Groce.
In the Broadwater Farm riot of 1985, residents of Tottenham riot against the Metropolitan Police following a death during a police search
Poll Tax Riots occurred in 1990 against the introduction of a poll tax.
Welling riots, October 1993. A march organised by the ANL, the SWP and Militant resulted in riots against the Metropolitain police.
The 1995 Brixton riot against the Metropolitan Police occurred after a death in police custody.
The 1999 Carnival Against Capitalism riot
The 2000 anti-capitalist May Day riot
The 2001 May Day riot in central London by anti-capitalist protestors.
In 2009 G-20 London summit protests occurred in the days around the G-20 summit.
The 2010 UK student protests against increases in student fees and public sector cuts.
The 2011 anti-cuts protest in London against government public spending cuts.
But has something changed in the attitude of today regarding riots which differs from that of ages past?
I think it's an aggressive form of materialism, driven by a breakdown of morality and discipline, fuelled by famous examples of gangster rap, reality shows, bling showbiz and sporting stars etc and not helped by recent headlines of greedy bankers and corrupt Police chiefs, etc? -
Message 2
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Tuesday, 9th August 2011
What stands out (imo) is that all the riots listed above have begun in protest against something. Except for the demand by concerned citizens to Tottenham Police on Saturday(?), the damage since has seemed to be an entirely opportunistic free for all and carried out by spoilt children who seem to think the world owes them something simply because they exist.
I don't like to go in for the (currently popular) blame culture and point the finger at TV or the press or politicians or showbiz or musicians as the source of all problems. Nor justify appauling behaviour with the "disaffected" or "angry" mantra . As far as I can tell, it is the parents who instill an attitude (good or bad) in their children and it is the parents who are ultimately responsible for their behaviour. -
Message 3
Posted by stuart (U1648283) on Tuesday, 9th August 2011
But has something changed in the attitude of today regarding riots which differs from that of ages past?Ìý
No. Recessions often lead to riots- check out 1880s, 1930s, early 1980s and, on lesser scale, early 1990s. 'It's the economy stupid'. -
Message 4
Posted by Hugh Mosby-Joaquin (U14258131) on Tuesday, 9th August 2011
"I think it's an aggressive form of materialism, driven by a breakdown of morality and discipline, fuelled by famous examples of gangster rap, reality shows, bling showbiz and sporting stars etc and not helped by recent headlines of greedy bankers and corrupt Police chiefs, etc?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll agree with all that. It's also the Age of Entitlement, trickle-fuelled by one tory prime minister abolishing 'society', and promoting the individual to get out and do it, whatever; and the present tory incumbent trying to re-invent society, one which he laughingly suggested we are all in together.
All the examples above are representatives of the 'Me' generation. They show their wealth, and the poor miserable saps towards the bottom of the heap desperately want to emulate them. I don't condone looting and rioting as a means to this end, but I think it goes a little way to justify it in the eyes of the looters.
And history is peppered with such riots and attempted revolution brought about by frustration and abject poverty whilst the rich get richer. Start at Wat Tyler and the peasant's revolt in the 1340s, and work towards the present day. -
Message 5
Posted by Tas (U11050591) on Tuesday, 9th August 2011
I was listening on the Â鶹ԼÅÄ to news of the riots. I have lived a very long time in London in the good old da7ys of 1950s. To see these hooligans try to destroy one of the best cities in the World, is extremely disquieting, especially when the Olympic games are just around the corner. I think one problem is the the London police are too civilized. They need to use their batons more, if the rioters get out of hand, use water spray and even rubber bullets. These nihilists and anarchist should not be allowed to take advantage of the police's good behavior. An early show of force will quell any rioting and put a stop to those intending to riot elsewhere as "Copy Cats."
A good show of force to keep order in society is necessary.
Tas -
Message 6
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Tuesday, 9th August 2011
Stuart, I trust that the 'stupid' comment was a quote and not some childish, knee-jerk, base insult thrown at someone merely asking a question regarding the correlation between past and present events?
I also trust that you read my "are nothing new" part of my post? -
Message 7
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Tuesday, 9th August 2011
I agree with you Hugh. Of course I too don't agree with people rampaging and pillaging and Heaven forfend that anyone should get hurt in anyway but there is something very wrong with a society which never openly makes its discontent with a government known. Noises off from members of our present government of Thatcher's children have uttered that they are surprised that they have been allowed to get away with so many draconian cuts so easily thus far. The police and army are being cut back too because "there is no money" so little wonder matters are taking an unruley turn.
However, I can't help but think that over the last 30 years "society" as we have known it is actually breaking up. People truly do believe that "greed is good" and too many youngsters only want to be rich and famous for no particular reason. Vulgarity and promiscuity are praised from the "top" down! The banking debacle has shown that noone can ever be too rich or unprincipled and what is worse, appear to be "respectable", it's a hideous state of affairs.
At least during the Poll Tax riots of 1381 the heads of state were actually IN the country and London itself to face the mobs instead of grumbling that they deserved their holidays. People all want "respect" even if it is not deserved, it's a right! Why? The British are very bad at complaining, they play possum then blow!
Not that long ago I was heading back from London to Cardiff, a two hour journey. It ended up taking 10 hours after numerous changes and detours which were never explained to us. It was very cold, no food or drink was provided, there were crying children and stoical adults. At Southampton...Still don't know why we were there, a woman lost her temper with a sleepy guard. His reply? "There's always one"! A French student thought it hillarious! "Why do you put up with this?" I don't know!
But at the moment all "Four Estates" seem to be in a complete moral melt-down, it's rare that all four should be at once, nobody has the moral high ground. The gap between rich and poor is flaunted and growing and there isn't an educational system fit for purpose to get people away from this, let alone this mind set that greed is indeed good. It's tragic. -
Message 8
Posted by Daniel-K (U2684833) on Tuesday, 9th August 2011
I was listening on the Â鶹ԼÅÄ to news of the riots. I have lived a very long time in London in the good old da7ys of 1950s. To see these hooligans try to destroy one of the best cities in the World, is extremely disquieting, especially when the Olympic games are just around the corner. I think one problem is the the London police are too civilized. They need to use their batons more, if the rioters get out of hand, use water spray and even rubber bullets. These nihilists and anarchist should not be allowed to take advantage of the police's good behavior. An early show of force will quell any rioting and put a stop to those intending to riot elsewhere as "Copy Cats."
A good show of force to keep order in society is necessary.
°Õ²¹²õÌý The police have deliberately held back in order to embarrass a government that is cutting their funding. -
Message 9
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Tuesday, 9th August 2011
The Â鶹ԼÅÄ Secretary, Theresa May, just back from her hols too late, received no welcome at all when she addressed the Police Federation talks, it was very embarassing to watch. Fewer Police! We can't afford them! That big black hole left to them by the Labour Government.
We NEED Bankers(who got us into this mess, just as they have the USA) no matter how corrupt. We don't NEED the Police!?
Given another month, there would have been even fewer police available to the Met., to cope with the riots. It is a joke! Police from all over the country are being bussed in to London tonight. The police cells in London are full! Pity help the rest of the country if violence breaks out tonight, or if you are stabbed, burgled, attacked etc., the police are occupied in London!
This "Government" is unfit for purpose. A vote of "No Confidence" is needed.
Where is George Osbourne? An idle thought..... -
Message 10
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Tuesday, 9th August 2011
British riotsÌý
All the riots listed in the opening post took place in England and they seemingly also all took place in Greater London. -
Message 11
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Tuesday, 9th August 2011
Isn't just a bit rich to hear the Bullingdon boys railing against "wanton destruction". I suppose if you can hand over a wad of notes to pay for the damage, it makes it "youthful high spirits".
-
Message 12
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Tuesday, 9th August 2011
The police are on a hiding to nothing here - we have heard that residents in one of these cities (Bristol perhaps?) have been complaining that the police don't seem to be doing anything, though they are there in numbers, but the death by baton of a 14-year-old would bring an outcry of over-reaction. A softly-softly approach is probably best, though frustrating for people with shops, businesses and homes.
I am always quite surprised at how seldom people break windows. It seems to me a very simple act of vandalism that hardly ever happens. Every morning we wake up to our houses looking much as we left them the night before and I often think it's odd that people don't use this as a means of either stupid fun or getting back at people with more than they have.
We were wondering why Britain and especially England seems to have had continuing riots over the centuries - tend to think of the British as stiff-upper-lipped and polite rather than passionate and riotous. My husband (English-born) did feel there was something about British society and governance that encouraged it, a certain wealthy arrogance and disconnect between the ordinary people and people in power.
My son is in lovely Sheffield, and although this looks like spreading in the short-term, I would be surprised if youngsters in Sheffield felt as disaffected as some of these others. Still you never know what people less-well-off may feel if you don't see them much.
Caro. -
Message 13
Posted by Daniel-K (U2684833) on Tuesday, 9th August 2011
A interesting article in the Independent about the psychology of these riots by an expert in the subject. A useful corrective to those who who would brand those involved "scum" and pretend that explains it all.
-
Message 14
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Tuesday, 9th August 2011
Dear Caro,
Hope your son in Sheffield is ok it is the home of the terrible Nick Clegg, Deputy P.M. and was once the leader of my ex-party, the Lib Dems. Lovely man in opposition, now in "government" prevents steel works working - "there isn't any money"! To make money? So unemployment. My disillusionment knows no bounds.
At last people are asking WHY people are rioting? It is simple. Since the last riots of the 1980s the rich/poor divide was growing BUT people were no longer allowed to strike unless they had top notch barristers! The Tories, and Labour Parties BOTH only cared about the middle classes. The poor didn't matter. Jobs have been cut back and they caren't claim benefits as they did. Meanwhile Banks have caused this Slump and Bankers who have committed fraud are awarded billions of pounds in "bonuses" - we can't posecute them, they might move abroad! Let them! Please! It is disgusting.
To top that the new "co-alition" government made up almost entirely of an old Etonian, Oxbridge educated elite, many millionaires in their own right tell us that "we are all in this together"! That is there is no money left for police, army, sickness benefits, unemployment benefits and hospitals etc.. They wanted to sell off our Forests! And called the National Trust "Pinkos"! This was stopped but 16 to 18 year olds are no longer funded for going to college and everyone now has to pay at £9,000 a year to go university. Be rich not brainy! There is an underclass of youngsters who will never get work.
All this legislation was rushed through - with Liberal Dem support. The Labour Party still wanting to woo the middle classes. No body cares for the poor. They are "scum". I used to be so behind the Liberals but when I saw the student riots in September sent back my membership card with a letter. I am STILL getting letters and E Mails from them "counting on my support"! It shows that no one is listening. I now hate the Lib Dems. Our last, best hope has sold up to the rich rulers.
I'm lucky. Two daughters at univ BEFORE the £9,000 per year kicked in but what of the others? Left with no hope and a government who doesn't care about anything but broken holidays. The Mayor of London has only come back today and he and the PM Cameron, Bellingdon Club both, are saying there will be revenge! At the moment I am with the rioters! You cannot treat people like this. Greed is not Good a sound education for all is!
Cheers, Minette. -
Message 15
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Wednesday, 10th August 2011
Minette, that is the price of coalition government. New Zealand has had this form of government for quite a while now and it is great for getting more women and ethnic and economic variation into Parliament, but every single minor party who has gone into coalition has suffered. They do often go into coalition with unnatural partners, so this time we have the Maori Party (with its contituency of generally not-well-off Maori) and the National (Tory) Party together. Things have worked quite well from both their points of view and the Maori Party have achieved things they wanted to. But a maverick MP and some dissatisfaction from more radical Maori have meant a new party has formed, and this is likely to split their votes later.
It’s been the same for Nick Clegg – he doesn’t have the power, the numbers or the mandate to force more than he has got. Supporters hope for major change when their parties or people get into power but it’s a slow process and the formalities of government are very strong.
Cheers, Caro.
PS Son and family (I have a nine-month-old grandson - he is gorgeous) are fine, but may be in Cornwall on holiday just now.) -
Message 16
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Wednesday, 10th August 2011
In reply to Hereword:
I think it's an aggressive form of materialism, driven by a breakdown of morality and discipline, fuelled by famous examples of gangster rap, reality shows, bling showbiz and sporting stars etc and not helped by recent headlines of greedy bankers and corrupt Police chiefs, etc?Ìý
These are some aspects that might explain the riots, but I also think that there is some desperation among some these rioters. No perspectives for their lives at all, but to become a "professional rioter" can´t be a perspective at all as well.
This "Big Society" by PM Cameron is going to turn into a nightmare and quite simple, I´ve rather expected that from ther start in autumn last year the protests were likely to increase although I don´t see any sense in this brutal and distructive behaviour which occured during the last days. This has been a clear development from rightous protests to criminal riots.
In difference to the historical riots you´ve listed in your OP, nowadays the people are able to organise such "gatherings with criminal intent" in a short time to occure in different places across England, by using their mobile phones. This leaves the Police very less time to take precautions as it might had been some decades ago, not to say centuries ago.
It seems that morality and good behaviour has been an attitude for the "better off", whereas the "underdogs" always lived on the edge of society with less regards to the aforesaid social terms.
I´ve read on another news website some comments from posters who think that these rioters should receive harsh punishment or even to "get shot at the spot" when comitting some crimes during riots. Further they complain about "human rights" and demand them to be abolished to force hard punishment on the captured rioters, looters and so on.
The Police seems to act too soft and following rather to defend than to get a gripp on the situation which leaves the public to help themselves by setting up "Anti-Looter-Patrols" in their areas. I think that such "help-your-self" initiatives are very rare in connection to the historical events to find.
I hope that things aren´t getting worse even more as in the past days to see. -
Message 17
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Wednesday, 10th August 2011
I think one problem is the the London police are too civilized. They need to use their batons more,Ìý
Some use them plenty. For example on Ian Tomlinson:
I would suggest that many young people's experience of the police may be different to yours. The police are Daily Mail readers, many are no older than the rioters and they do not open a conversation with those they consider as feral youth with the 'Excuse me sir...' they do when appearing on TV documentaries.
Coupled with the disagreeable experience of your encounters with the police is the police indifference when you are the victim of crime. Don't forget, the sort of people we see rioting are far more likely to be victims of crime in their normal lives than the rest of us. But since they are unlikely to be invited to police-community meetings, the police are more likely to deploy resources to prevent the 'anti-social behaviour and graffiti' that concerns the Residents' Association' than on some inarticulate school-kid who gets mugged.
So if your experience of the police is that they are both rude and lazy, wouldn't your self-respect require that you occasionally give them a hard time? If we see riots in places like Syria or Iran (or in history), this is the sort of explanation we immediately reach for, so why not now? I'm not saying that Britain is as bad overall as Syria etc., but then nor were these riots. -
Message 18
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Wednesday, 10th August 2011
There is an incident often cited as a "footnote" in the historical record of the English Civil War which in some important respects parallels recent events. While it is true that it took place in the context of a greater turmoil, and while the record shows that its antagonists vocalised a support for the monarchy, both the pattern of events and a study of the motivations of the participants has always led to it being considered by historians as a rather awkward episode to explain or justify in terms of the course of the greater conflict. Its inclusion in the events of the Civil War rests primarily on undeniable chronology. However its role in that conflict and the circumstances which led to it have never been a "comfortable fit". Hence its relegation to "footnote" and its description as "mutiny", though this description seems only to have been assigned on the basis that it coincided with other events which could be so described, most notably the Downs Mutiny.
Like this week's events it started in London, and like this week's events its spark was apparently a very localised argument of immediate importance to a limited number of people, or at least sufficiently limited to have initiated a sudden escalation in aggression, especially agression extending beyond the city itself.
The background to "the mutiny":
London's Puritan administration had been shocked when, on Coronation Day March 27th, some Londoners lit community bonfires and proceeded to do what Londoners had always traditionally done on this day - namely party and get drunk. Even worse, it being 1648, this had occurred on the Sabbath. When they attempted to intervene with troops they had encountered a rather predictable resistance voiced in royalist terms so had wisely withdrawn, not wishing an opportunistic "battle cry" on the part of drunken revellers to become a real one taken up by more militant citizens. However the Lord Mayor and Justices of the Peace convened a meeting shortly afterwards at which it was decided to step up patrols on the Sabbath in the future to ensure that proscribed "recreations" would not be so publicly engaged in again.
The "mutiny":
Two weeks later a Middlesex train-band acting as a "Sabbath patrol" chanced upon a small group of men playing "cat" (a form of early cricket) and drinking. The troops fired powder rounds (no bullets) in an effort to dispel them but the cricketers chucked some stones back at them. This then led the train-band to apprehend two of the men. The rest fled the scene. Later that evening a large group of disgruntled locals converged on the premises in which the men had been detained and soon things began to get ugly. An attempt to storm the building was repulsed with force and one of the protestors was fatally injured. By now however the protestors' ranks had swelled and a subsequent assault on the building succeeded. The troops fled in retreat.
The hours following this event saw a consolidation of forces on both sides and an apparently uncoordinated eruption of incidents of "mob" violence throughout the city. The train-bands amalgamated as the protestors grew in number and pitched battles broke out at diverse locations, most notably in Whitechapel where the "mob" defeated the troops and paraded their colours in trophy as they rampaged further, and in Smithfield where another "mob" directed their attentions to the looting of plate and other valuables from merchants' premises. Another "mob", doing great damage to property on the way and stealing what they could, converged on Whitehall where they were eventually kept at bay.
The next day saw the insurgents in complete control of the city, though as yet not apparently coordinated in their tactics or aims. The only common motivation appeared to be larceny as business premises, magazines, private homes and official buildings were besieged, incinerated and looted. There was a convergence of rioters in Newgate and Ludgate and this greatly expanded body of people now began to proceed towards the Royal Exchange. A smaller but sizeable number, which it can be presumed contained some people with tactical and military experience, broke away to seize the city gates and hinder the arrival of reinforcements.
The intended assault on the Exchange district prompted the military into a sudden improvisational action and formation which proved decisive. Lord Fairfax, an almost self-appointed commander on the day, hastily assembled as large a coherent force that he could from those troops still within the city walls, pursued the main body of rioters and eventually engaged them at the Leadenhall. A charge eventually dispersed them though there then ensued several hours of fighting in and around premises throughout the district. By the time Fairfax could consider the engagement over the casualties on both sides had been considerable.
That day and the next however saw similar large-scale rioting erupt in Bury St Edmunds and in Norwich, as well as other smaller outbreaks elsewhere, the main characteristic being looting and the destruction of property to that end. It was to be several days before the bulk of these riots could be contained, a task complicated by their apparent spontaneity and the undiscernible political or military logic behind them, even despite the often heard invocations of the king's name by the rioters. What had at first been interpreted as a locally expressed grievance against an overly coercive Puritan administration, and then as a general expression through disobedience of royalist allegiance, in the end defied all attempts to explain it in such terms.
Fairfax, in his later report to a parliament understandably anxious to evaluate the riots in terms of royalist aggression, dismissed its participants as being for the most part simply motivated by avarice and the opportunity to indulge in it, using whichever political slogans might suit that end without any discernible regard for either morality or conviction.
Rings bells - doesn't it. -
Message 19
Posted by stuart (U1648283) on Wednesday, 10th August 2011
Stuart, I trust that the 'stupid' comment was a quote and not some childish, knee-jerk, base insult thrown at someone merely asking a question regarding the correlation between past and present events?Ìý
I was, of course, using a quote from Bill Clinton (made in 1992 when his ratings soared due to the US economic downturn, a by-product of which was extensive rioting).
I'm afraid that by writing 'The feral scum currently using 'disaffection' and 'anger' as an excuse for sheer opportunistic theft and thuggery' you end up echoing tabloid populism rather than engaging in serious historical analysis.
One notable feature this time around has been the absolute determination of the political elite (and their media supporters together with the police) to deny any link between economic conditions and youth behaviour.
I also trust that you read my "are nothing new" part of my post?Ìý
Yes I did but the various events that you list cannot be explained at all by reading your opening sentence. -
Message 20
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Wednesday, 10th August 2011
Maybe not serious enough for you, Stuart, and I never claimed to solve the world's problems, merely voicing my opinion whilst eliciting other's views.
-
Message 21
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Wednesday, 10th August 2011
In reply to hotmousemat:
So if your experience of the police is that they are both rude and lazy, wouldn't your self-respect require that you occasionally give them a hard time?Ìý
And if catched by the police and sentenced by the court, was it worth it to give the police "a hard time"?
I think that amid to react on these criminal acts that occured in the past days, the core of the problem is neglected and probably will remain unanswered. It is the problem to give these people a perspective for their lives to get a job and a living. But who´ll employ somebody who has a crime record?
The police are Daily Mail readers, many are no older than the rioters and they do not open a conversation with those they consider as feral youth with the 'Excuse me sir...' they do when appearing on TV documentaries.Ìý
Where did you get that from? It rather sounds as a disqualification on the intellect of the police and sounds much generalised.
Tas´s expression re the use of the batons is quite "harmless" in compare to what I´ve read on other comment sites where people even demand to "send in the Army" and to "shot" rioters on the spot!
I think that Tas is right and the London police is just following their given order in how to deal with that situation, but this has in result that disappointment of the people threatned by the rioters when they see the way the police is "no-acting" to stop it. They, as I´ve said before, are fed up and switch to defend themselves and if they encounter with some looters, they might turn into lynch-justice if the situation gets out of control. -
Message 22
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Wednesday, 10th August 2011
Thomas_II:
But who´ll employ somebody who has a crime record? Ìý
The sort of (legitimate) jobs available to this sort of youth are so unattractive and ill paid that I don't suppose they care all that much. I would also suggest that if you live in a chaotic world, where things just happen to you, you tend to live for the moment. Having been involved in these riots, even if that is followed up by trial and retribution, may be one of the high points in a dull life, something that you will reminisce about with your mates in your old age. Just as the middle classes laugh over the wild adventures of their gap year, or their jolly japes at university.
"The police are Daily Mail readers, many are no older than the rioters and they do not open a conversation with those they consider as feral youth with the 'Excuse me sir...' they do when appearing on TV documentaries."
Where did you get that from? It rather sounds as a disqualification on the intellect of the police and sounds much generalised.Ìý
I didn't suggest that it was generally the case; the police are perfectly polite to me. But on the other hand the police are told they should take the initiative; dominate the situation. If they approach people they class as 'difficult' they will go in heavy handed, both in numbers and verbally and 'take control'. But the trouble is that inevitably they will get it wrong quite a lot of the time and make enemies of people who have done nothing wrong.
And it need not be a big thing. For example, most towns have orders allowing the police to disperse groups as small as two on threat of arrest. Imagine your anger if when you were out with your friends some young policeman told you to go home or else, just because he didn't like the look of you. The experience is just as offensive if you are 13, and they are doing this every day. Eventually you get an awful lot of young people who while they wouldn't loot a shop themselves are not entirely unhappy to see the police humiliated.
They, as I´ve said before, are fed up and switch to defend themselves and if they encounter with some looters, they might turn into lynch-justice if the situation gets out of control.Ìý
I think the sort of people who come from the sort of tough backgrounds the rioters come from will do that, but the middle classes are terrified of their own shadows. The Daily Mail readers bluster and threaten, but then claim they can't actually do anything as their hands are tied by the Human Rights Act etc.
I think the fascinating historical perspective is how recent it is that we have expected the police to do this sort of thing for us. For most of our history, property owners organised their own defences. The policeman was just some simple-minded fellow employed as communal night-watchman, wandering around making sure doors were locked etc. If there was any trouble, he should blow his whistle or use his rattle and the ratepayers would handle things. -
Message 23
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Wednesday, 10th August 2011
In reply to hotmousemat
The sort of (legitimate) jobs available to this sort of youth are so unattractive and ill paid that I don't suppose they care all that much. I would also suggest that if you live in a chaotic world, where things just happen to you, you tend to live for the moment.Ìý
That´s exactly the point and I understand what you mean. Well, those you´re not seeking to get out of this missery will remain in it, but those who seek to get a better life, should be given the chance to make it. But there isn´t much money left today to start such projects, isn´t it?
Having been involved in these riots, even if that is followed up by trial and retribution, may be one of the high points in a dull life, something that you will reminisce about with your mates in your old age. Just as the middle classes laugh over the wild adventures of their gap year, or their jolly japes at university.Ìý
Maybe they might think that way, but the consequences are much more different to those of the middle classes and making some misfits at the university.
But on the other hand the police are told they should take the initiative; dominate the situation. If they approach people they class as 'difficult' they will go in heavy handed, both in numbers and verbally and 'take control'. But the trouble is that inevitably they will get it wrong quite a lot of the time and make enemies of people who have done nothing wrong.Ìý
In some areas I believe that this is the only way to protect oneself and to prevail law and order, as it is their duty. That some of them are getting on the wrong persons is unfortunately to happen when these policemen are more likely to rely on their prejudical opinions and are ill trained. It depends on the area and on the characters involved.
And it need not be a big thing. For example, most towns have orders allowing the police to disperse groups as small as two on threat of arrest. Imagine your anger if when you were out with your friends some young policeman told you to go home or else, just because he didn't like the look of you. The experience is just as offensive if you are 13, and they are doing this every day. Eventually you get an awful lot of young people who while they wouldn't loot a shop themselves are not entirely unhappy to see the police humiliated.Ìý
I see, but then it is to question the order of the town council for their reasons to allowing the police such measures.
I think the sort of people who come from the sort of tough backgrounds the rioters come from will do that, but the middle classes are terrified of their own shadows. The Daily Mail readers bluster and threaten, but then claim they can't actually do anything as their hands are tied by the Human Rights Act etc.Ìý
Could it be that these looters know well where to go and with whom to mess up, as to say that they have an easier go on the middle classes? The people I´ve seen on sky news video didn´t looked like as if they are from the same "tough backgrounds", they rather looked like average family people trying to protect their homes and families. There are not less of them on that video to see. But what is the definition of the middle classes today? It seems to me that this middle class is likely to vanish or getting absorbed either downwards or upwards, so that there will just a few remain there. These might probably be some shop keepers.
It was interesting to note that it was reported that these rioters selected most big chain companies for their attack and looting. Then there were some others interviewed which were victims of these riots. One was a Barber shop and the other was a grocery shop. By the latter, the woman who worked or even owned that shop was in tears upon the vandalism she had to witness.The barber told the TV crew that he and his wife had to run for their lifes when their shop has been attacked. This was among a special news real on the German TV yesterday.
This proofs to me that they aren´t picking just the rich, they grab what they can get. Some of the looters where discussing whether they go first to this or that shop for "shoplifting". It´s like they think that it is "all for free".
I think the fascinating historical perspective is how recent it is that we have expected the police to do this sort of thing for us. For most of our history, property owners organised their own defences. The policeman was just some simple-minded fellow employed as communal night-watchman, wandering around making sure doors were locked etc. If there was any trouble, he should blow his whistle or use his rattle and the ratepayers would handle things.Ìý
This must be in a time long ago and doesn´t look like that kind of modern policework we understand for the last 150 years. It is common that a night-watchman is depicted as a simple-minded fellow, but to extend this picture on a general basis to policemen is more far fatched in my opinion.
Your story remindes me to what a poster which name is Simon. He often told on the Â鶹ԼÅÄ R3 MBs when he proudly told about the village in which he´s living, that they can trust every neighbour and leave the doors unlocked. Well, this is up to everyones own believes. Just in case that he told the truth and hasn´t made it up from his desperation to get back to the "good old days", it looks like an exception in our days. -
Message 24
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Wednesday, 10th August 2011
Thomas_II
It was interesting to note that it was reported that these rioters selected most big chain companies for their attack and looting. Then there were some others interviewed which were victims of these riots. One was a Barber shop and the other was a grocery shop. By the latter, the woman who worked or even owned that shop was in tears upon the vandalism she had to witnessÌý
I noticed that and found it quite interesting (if that doesn't sound too cold and unsympathetic). I once did a study on graffiti and found that the perpetrators had quite a subtle code about which sites were appropriate in moral terms. For example, utilities were fair game, as they were no individual's property. Blank end-of-terrace walls were OK, as were the shutters of a closed shop. But somebody's garage or front garden wall or the actual fabric of a local shop were not (unless there was a personal grudge). It happened sometimes, but those that did it were considered a bit 'mental'. I suspect that these news stories of little local shops being destroyed will be more chastening to the bulk of rioters than all the politicians pompous rhetoric about 'sheer criminality'.
This must be in a time long ago and doesn´t look like that kind of modern policework we understand for the last 150 years. It is common that a night-watchman is depicted as a simple-minded fellow, but to extend this picture on a general basis to policemen is more far fatched in my opinion.Ìý
Not that long. Do you remember Sir Robert Mark? He was Police Commissioner in the 1970s. I read his autobiography and he tells that his choice to join the police was considered an awful waste of an education; 'one better than prison' as his father put it. He reminds us the function of those 'Dr Who' police boxes was not to report crime, but to prevent constables skiving. You had to walk the beat and phone in from each box on schedule or you were in trouble. The ratepayers may have had good reason to mistrust the police work ethic. When he became Chief Constable of Leicester, Mark found that it was the practice for the staff to close the HQ so they could go home for their lunch.
And when he became Commissioner he noted another enduring police tradition: "I had served in provincial forces for 30 years, and though I had known wrongdoing, I had never experienced institutionalised wrongdoing, blindness, arrogance and prejudice on anything like the scale accepted as routine in the Met," -
Message 25
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Wednesday, 10th August 2011
The Tories, and Labour Parties BOTH only cared about the middle classes. The poor didn't matter. Jobs have been cut back and they caren't claim benefits as they did.Ìý
If that is the case then you'd best start advocating for compulsory voting Minette. Politicians will only ever address issues that are of interest to it's voting block and if that is from (mainly) the middle and upper classes then in a stroke you have your class divide and a disaffected lower class. Whereas compulsory voting not only ensures the entire population's contrtibution to the running of their country but, in addition, also ensures that it's political representatives answer to the needs of every section of society. -
Message 26
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Wednesday, 10th August 2011
What was it said of parts of Birmingham when postal voting came in? "Vote early and often"
re the Met, I have often wondered if there's something seriously wrong there. -
Message 27
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 10th August 2011
Very informative post Nordmann (Message 18) re the 'Downs mutiny'. A veritable 'plus ca change' story.
On another note - the Gordon Riots of 1780 seem to be unlike anything before or since with the careers of individuals (namely John Wilkes and Lord Gordon himself) being made (or rather broken) by what was a seemingly transitory event. Also - the riots seemed confined to London and didn't spread elsewhere. The London of the 1780s would seem an unlikely venue for a bout of sectarian rioting while Scotland, Ulster and Lancashire etc remained decidely aloof and indifferent. -
Message 28
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 11th August 2011
"I think it's an aggressive form of materialism, driven by a breakdown of morality and discipline, fuelled by famous examples of gangster rap, reality shows, bling showbiz and sporting stars etc and not helped by recent headlines of greedy bankers and corrupt Police chiefs, etc?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll agree with all that. It's also the Age of Entitlement, trickle-fuelled by one tory prime minister abolishing 'society', and promoting the individual to get out and do it, whatever; and the present tory incumbent trying to re-invent society, one which he laughingly suggested we are all in together.
All the examples above are representatives of the 'Me' generation. They show their wealth, and the poor miserable saps towards the bottom of the heap desperately want to emulate them. I don't condone looting and rioting as a means to this end, but I think it goes a little way to justify it in the eyes of the looters.
And history is peppered with such riots and attempted revolution brought about by frustration and abject poverty whilst the rich get richer. Start at Wat Tyler and the peasant's revolt in the 1340s, and work towards the present day.
Ìý
What do you mean "it is the Age of Enlightenment"? That occured/began in the 18th century didnt it? What has that to do with the riots.
I don't believe the rioters are in abject poverty. When doing the looting they did not trash the bakers in the hope of getting a much-needed crust of bread, nor attack a clothing shop in a desperate attempt to seize some makeshift coat that might keep them warm in the winter; no, they seemed very well attired, full of energy, and "well-heeled" (I saw nothing wrong with their shoes). To call their poverty "abject" is gross misuse of the English language. There are fairly poor people in society, but those would mostly be pensioners whose income is insufficient to pay for their food and heating, also maybe students who are in debt and get precious little income. Also there a small-businessmen who have ended up bankrupt, hundreds of thousands in debt, so they are technically the poorest of the lot. But all these people don't run riot and burn shops.
Somebody phoned in Radio 5 Live this morning and said that "some of these people have never been on an aeroplane on holiday" - as if that should be a cause for sympathy. Almost every one of the people who served in WW2 never went on an aeroplane on holiday either, but that didnt stop them from serving their country without complaint. -
Message 29
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Thursday, 11th August 2011
I was puzzled by the apparent reference to the Age of Enlightenment too. Until I read the sentence again.
-
Message 30
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 11th August 2011
Aha! Thanks Nordmann. Silly me!
-
Message 31
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Thursday, 11th August 2011
....Also there a small-businessmen who have ended up bankrupt, hundreds of thousands in debt, so they are technically the poorest of the lot. But all these people don't run riot and burn shopsÌý
I suspect the rioters would say that this is because they are feeble types who let other people walk all over them.
Almost every one of the people who served in WW2 never went on an aeroplane on holiday either, but that didnt stop them from serving their country without complaint.Ìý
But things have changed. Now a lot of people do not see this as 'their' country, it is just a collection of people, from politicians down, using their positions to get what they can for themselves. Are they wrong? What arguments could convince them otherwise? -
Message 32
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 11th August 2011
There is nothing wrong in getting what you can for yourself, provided you do not steal it from others. Each and every MP has been given approval by thousands of voters, and by all accounts they keep themselves busy in their work, so they are entitled to the salary that they draw. (And before the expenses scandal is mentioned, I think only about 2 MPs out of 635 have been convicted of fraud).
The provision of free healthcare and free education show that, in important aspects, this country gives help to people even if they cannot afford to pay anything. If they feel it is not their country, let them try to live in another one.
I would ask these people, what have you got to complain about? -
Message 33
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Thursday, 11th August 2011
(And before the expenses scandal is mentioned, I think only about 2 MPs out of 635 have been convicted of fraud).Ìý
So why did all the others have to give back all that money?
Nor do the double standards applied to the demands for prosecution and punishment of those who steal through expense accounts as opposed to those who steal through shop windows go un-remarked.
We have seen how politicians go back on election promises, how they fawn to media owners, how the media breaks the law with the collusion of the police, while we all face years of austerity because of what the bankers paid salaries beyond our wildest dreams have done.
You cannot have the drip-drip of such stories going on for years and not expect people to draw the conclusion that rather than malpractice and selfishness being the exception, it is the rule.
The provision of free healthcare and free education show that, in important aspects, this country gives help to people even if they cannot afford to pay anything.Ìý
But they are not provided by the owners of the chain stores that got looted. They avoid paying UK taxes if they can. Nor is the healthcare and education seen as the same for all; rather it is a second class service used by the poor. And once again, think of all the media horror stories about what will happen to you when you get old. Besides, the whole public sector has been comprehensively depicted as useless pen-pushers, leaching off the rest of us.
It isn't a matter of whether this negative picture is objectively fair. But we are faced with the fact that plainly, those who riot and loot do not identify with the sort of values you hold. If my reasoning why this might be is faulty, then we need to come up with a better one.
As I said before, if we were discussing the Paris Commune or the Gordon Riots, we would try to understand the mindset of the participants and relate the event to historical trends; our own opinions are not relevant. Surely as people interested in history we should try to do the same to what is happening under our noses today. -
Message 34
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Thursday, 11th August 2011
In reply to hotmousemat:
And when he became Commissioner he noted another enduring police tradition: "I had served in provincial forces for 30 years, and though I had known wrongdoing, I had never experienced institutionalised wrongdoing, blindness, arrogance and prejudice on anything like the scale accepted as routine in the Met,"Ìý
Sounds interesting to read, this autobiography. I wonder what he tried to do to change things, if he´d the intention to.
We have seen how politicians go back on election promises, how they fawn to media owners, how the media breaks the law with the collusion of the police, while we all face years of austerity because of what the bankers paid salaries beyond our wildest dreams have done.
You cannot have the drip-drip of such stories going on for years and not expect people to draw the conclusion that rather than malpractice and selfishness being the exception, it is the rule.Ìý
This is well said, but it seems to me, that the likes of this hasn´t been on such a big scale as it came on the surface recently, in former times.
... we are faced with the fact that plainly, those who riot and loot do not identify with the sort of values you hold. ...Ìý
Yes, even a daughter of a milinoare who runs several businesses took part in the looting! I´ve read today on sky news that the people who took part in the riots and lootings come from different social backgrounds, according to the article that referred to those brought up to court. They regrett it, but still the question remaines what brought them to join these rioters and looters. This daughter of an milinonare is in my opinion the peak of all, for she may had no reason to worry about anything on a material basis.
From a historical point of view, outrages and riots most had their political agenda with an attempt to prevail their demands against the ruling classes / the government. This political agenda got lost and I see the recent days in a context with all the trouble that started last year in autumn when students got on the street to air their protest against the governments policy. -
Message 35
Posted by fascinating (U1944795) on Thursday, 11th August 2011
So why did all the others have to give back all that money?Ìý
What do you mean, all? How many MPs had to give back how much money?
Whereas there may have been a genuine protest at the shooting of one man by the police, the motive of the riots seems to have been mainly greed, and they have continued simply because the thieves have found that they can get away with the goods without any police response. Any idea that this is a protest against the MPs expenses scandal or the economic situation is woolly-minded rubbish. I don't care if certain people do not share my values, they must be forced to respect other people's property; if they won't subscribe to that value, they should be taken out of society and put into prison. -
Message 36
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Thursday, 11th August 2011
I think it's a mistake to presume a single explanation, either for all of those involved on any of the nights or even that the same motives pertained from night to night.
While those reasons suggested on this board so far, greed, envy, anger, resentment, probably account for many of the participants, there are some other, very contemporary, forces here.
The 'riots' were undoubtedly a national event with all that that entails, rolling news coverage, intense media interest and since the death of Diana we seem to have acquired the need to be part of these things whether for good or ill. Remember, the police had move on spectators who had turned up to watch and were filming proceedings. Part of the 15 minutes of fame phenomena? I think we may have just seen recreational rioting, a sibling of recreational grieving. Not to forget, of course, the eternal dynamics of the mob.
I don't know but I do recall that when there was a huge fatal explosion near to me, the roads were blocked by people going to see the scene. Last week the refurbished national Museum in Edinburgh reopened and 22000 people went on the opening day. Could they just not wait to see the exhibits or was it so they could say "I was there"? So were the TV crews.
On another point, I wonder how much of the loot is being purchased in pubs, door to door and on on-line auction sites by fine upstanding citizens who manage to avoid thinking about where it might have come from.
It is indeed, a funny old world. -
Message 37
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Thursday, 11th August 2011
Great post, ferval. And indeed all this discussion has been very balanced and fair and sensible and really good to read (especially considering its first sentence). The most reasonable of any I've seen anywhere.
I think the mentality of the mob is something quite odd. Even very small 'mobs' produce different actions and feelings from the individual person. I was talking this week to a farmer in his 60s who had volunteered at the local school, keeping in check an unruly student. He said that he found the boy perfectly polite and interesting to be with, and I had myself had dealing with this child at our local library and he was always okay. But within a group he just went wild.
Our book club read a book set in Afghanistan recently where an intelligent, well-educated, reasonable man gets caught up in a mob situation and finds himself, to his later shame, throwing stones at a woman prisoner being dragged along by the authorities. This was a novel, but it just seems that people react oddly when they are less visible, and when they are in a situation with thousands of others.
And after the initial anger of the Tottenham crowds it does seem as if entertainment for youngsters was one of the main drivers of these riots. Young people seem to relish danger in their lives. Or perhaps they are unable to contemplate the sort of dangers that might eventuate.
Caro. -
Message 38
Posted by hotmousemat (U2388917) on Friday, 12th August 2011
fascinating:
"So why did all the others have to give back all that money?"
What do you mean, all? How many MPs had to give back how much money?Ìý
Most MPs had to pay back something, including the leaders of all three political parties. In all, something between £500,000 and a million.
Whereas there may have been a genuine protest at the shooting of one man by the police, the motive of the riots seems to have been mainly greed, and they have continued simply because the thieves have found that they can get away with the goods without any police response. Any idea that this is a protest against the MPs expenses scandal or the economic situation is woolly-minded rubbish.Ìý
I didn't suggest it was a 'protest'. If only. A protest would imply a basic belief in society, an expectation that things can be improved.
I think this was more a case of 'everyone (including MPs, the police, the media etc.) is 'at it' so if I get the chance I will do the same'. No anger. Nor even any conscious reasoning. It is simply what life is.
I don't care if certain people do not share my values, they must be forced to respect other people's property; if they won't subscribe to that value, they should be taken out of society and put into prisonÌý
The trouble with that approach is that you have given them no reason to respect your property if they think they can get away with not doing so, and in the end there are just not enough policemen.
Historically, it was usually found cheaper and more effective to try to bring the underclass on board. As any Victorian would have told you, this isn't just a matter of building schools or improving housing; you also have to send a moral message, set a moral example. Where in society today would we find such a moral example? -
Message 39
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Friday, 12th August 2011
I am certainly not one of the "They're all Poor Misunderstood Little Lambs" brigade, but I do not think it is helpful to refer to children and teenagers as "feral scum". These youngsters were born, raised and educated in England ( and yes, I use the words "raised" and "educated" loosely) - if they are Neds (No Education Delinquents) they are *our* Neds. These kids may not be physically hungry or naked, but God knows they are starving in other ways.This Alison Pearson article from the Daily Telegraph is good - and it is not a right-wing rant:
But back to history. On 28th April 1517 some "aliens" (foreign tradesmen) were attacked by a group of apprentices and the rumours quickly spread that a riot was being planned for May Day. Foreigners were for it and there was much talk of freeing prisoners "held in the compters of Poultry and Wood Street". There was the Tudor equivalent of a Cobra meeting at 7pm on April 30th and orders were issued that an immediate curfew was to be enforced: no citizen "should stirre out of his house, but to keep his doores shut, and his servants within" until the nest morning. But it was already too late. One city offficial tread to break up an apprentices' game of swords and bucklers and managed to set off a minor riot. The trouble escalated rapidly and by 11pm a huge mob "of artisans, apprentices and *children* (my emphasis) ran through Newgate Market and down St. Nicholas Shambles, just to the north of St. Paul's Churchyard" (Ackroyd).
Sir Thomas More (who was Under-Sherriff of the City and a member of the council) apparently had some success in calming the mob momentarily, but then the missile hurling started again. One serjeant-at-arms lost it completely when he was hit by a stone and his cry of "Down with them!" triggered a full riot. The houses of foreigners (mainly French) were attacked and ransacked, and the awful violence and destruction continued all night.
The heavy mob then arrived: the Earls of Shrewsbury and Surrey rode through the streets with troops and restored order, while the Lieutenant of the Tower didn't mess about either: in an extraordinary step he bombarded the City with the huge Tower guns. Three hundred rioters were arrested and by the following Monday eleven were sentenced.
Edmund Howard, one of the sons of the Duke of Norfolk - with a creativity that all "Hang 'em and Flog 'Em" supporters would envy and applaud - had a *mobile* gallows speedily constructed which was moved with great efficiency around the City. Four prisoners were hung, drawn and quartered at various sites in London - two at the Standard in Cheapside, close to Thomas More's own house). The other seven were hung at various other convenient spots. But the executions were apparently carried out with such vicious ferocity that uneasy murmurings started: even the chroniclers noted that that those who died were just "poor younglings".
Henry VIII was wise enough not to go too far. Three hundred condemned rioters were later led to Westminster Hall - they actually had halters around their necks. The queen - in a "theatrical show" that was all planned by Wolsey - threw herself dramatically at her husband's feet and pleaded that the youngsters' lives should be spared. Wolsey - tears in his eyes - announced that the King had granted a reprieve. Much rejoicing and everyone agreed that Henry was the best king ever.
"They jumped for extreme joy," according to one witness and altogether, "it was a very fine spectacle."
How to turn a political disaster into a PR triumph Tudor-style. -
Message 40
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Friday, 12th August 2011
In reply to Temperance:
I am certainly not one of the "They're all Poor Misunderstood Little Lambs" brigade, but I do not think it is helpful to refer to children and teenagers as "feral scum". These youngsters were born, raised and educated in England ( and yes, I use the words "raised" and "educated" loosely) - if they are Neds (No Education Delinquents) they are *our* Neds. These kids may not be physically hungry or naked, but God knows they are starving in other ways.Ìý
I haven´t read the article in the telegraph yet and I´m more inclined to see things different. One thing in all this is, that it seems that with the prosperity in most countries in Western Europe, there has also grown an attitude by some parents to leave raising and educating of their children entirely to the School and other institutions. To distinguish between right and wrong starts in the early years of a child. It follows the way its parents are behaving and what they learn their child. It´s more a big deal of neglect and ignorance by the parents that leaves a lack in how to behave and in education. These failures are to be tackled by the school and I dare to ask whether this is right?
IMO it is not and neglecting as well as ignoring their own children isn´t just a matter of the poor, it is to find even in higher classes, such as the daughter of that millionare which took part in looting.
I think that in history, there has been always families which were disrupted, even if not by divorse, but according the way some marriages were arranged. But unless some child ended up in an orphanage, it was raised within the family, by the rich naturally by a nanny. In either way, the parents were obliged to take care of their children and not to leave all that to the society.
Normally, for the wrong doing of a child the parents are reliable up to an certain age (is it around 14 or 15 in the UK?). I think that the UK Government is right to put some pressure on the parents of these children which took part in the riots and remind them on their responsibility.
It might very well be the case that these children are "starving" from a lack of family live and from being ignored or neglected by their parents, because money can´t buy everything.
I´m sorry but I can´t find anything that excuses what happened in the past days in England and worst of all is that some three men were killed in an (probably deliberately) car hit and run, just for the cause that they were determined to protect a shop from looting. Another elderly man was attacked when he tried to extinguish a fire, set up by rioters. I assume that you know as well from some reports what happened and I don´t have to go further in listings. It´s sheer madness and cruelty which brought neither the government to an u-turn in their policies.
I can´t recall just a single example in which the British Government had ever yielded to violence to change a policy. On the contrary, their determination grew even stronger in resistance and tackling the riots by an equivalent response, to prevail law and order and I´m not thinking about any Kings of England by this. -
Message 41
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Friday, 12th August 2011
Hi Thomas-II,
I haven't read the article in the Telegraph yet and I'm more inclined to see things different. Ìý
Please read the article, Thomas! Alison Pearson and I agree with you.
There are so many lessons to be learnt from the horror of the past few days - by us all and not just by these out-of-control English kids. Ed Miliband was surely right when he said (in Parliament yesterday) that "to seek to explain is not to seek to excuse." My point is simply this: punish the offender - of course - but do not *insult* him or her as you do so. Make them afraid of you - absolutely necessary - but don't make them hate you (well, any more than they already do). I'm afraid I don't like the "Mad Dog, surrender!" approach - make 'em surrender most definitely - but it's perhaps wiser in the long run to leave out the Mad Dog bit.
I remember two songs from the Clash - a band greatly admired in my younger days. Was it 1976 - "London's Burning"? - but also "I Fought the Law (and the Law Won)".
I must admit that these days I *much* prefer the second title. -
Message 42
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Friday, 12th August 2011
One thing in all this is, that it seems that with the prosperity in most countries in Western Europe, there has also grown an attitude by some parents to leave raising and educating of their children entirely to the School and other institutions. To distinguish between right and wrong starts in the early years of a child. It follows the way its parents are behaving and what they learn their child. It´s more a big deal of neglect and ignorance by the parents that leaves a lack in how to behave and in education.Ìý
Indeed Thomas, the me, me, me attitude of the last 15yrs or so has done untold damage to the latest generations. Who, in turn, will be raising the next lot!
But whilst treating schools as one huge day care centre many are, at the same time, not allowing those schools to discipline the little darlings. Receipe for disaster. -
Message 43
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Friday, 12th August 2011
It has been interesting to follow various foreign news channels and noting their interpretation on the current unrest in Britain. It has also been interesting to see the twist given to the coverages to suit the country's own political agenda.
In Australia some news networks are blaming the riots on immigration and multiculturism.
In the USA, some have blamed it on the welfare state and how national medical care and unemployment benefits make people lazy.
In Greece, it has been portrayed as the poor, hungry and down trodden battling the power of the leading elite. -
Message 44
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Saturday, 13th August 2011
David Starkey. You can always rely on him:
My ears actually pricked up when he mentioned "aristocratic gangsters in the past". Oh good, I thought - perhaps he's going to talk about the War of the Roses.
Alas no. -
Message 45
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Saturday, 13th August 2011
You can always rely on good old Pravda! The Russian people now know that the riots, stirred up by 'agents provocateurs' from MI6, were brutally crushed by order of David Cameron
I didn't see that bit! But what wonderful imaginations these folks have! -
Message 46
Posted by Temperance (U14455940) on Saturday, 13th August 2011
The Iranians are really worried about us too. Indeed they have just issued a stark (even worse than a Starkey) warning to the British government. Hossein Ebrahimi, deputy head of Iran's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, tells us, "The Islamic Consultative Assembly (Iranian parliament) announces its readiness to send a human rights delegation to Britain to study human rights violations in the country."
Iranian human rights rapporteurs chatting to gangsta rappers in Tottenham.
I don't think I can cope with much more of this nonsense. I need a cup of tea and a chocolate HobNob. -
Message 47
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Saturday, 13th August 2011
Well Temp, I heard on Five Live today that you are getting an American policeman to "advise" Dave on gang control and community relations so why not an Iranian too? lol
Although, I suspect the Iranians are really having a little dig and with evident relish, due to the many times western media have been.... er less than flattering about Iran. -
Message 48
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Saturday, 13th August 2011
"In Australia some news networks are blaming the riots on immigration and multiculturism."
Good ole liberal and accurate Oz! Not. Lol -
Message 49
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Saturday, 13th August 2011
Quote>Iranian human rights rapporteurs chatting to gangsta rappers in Tottenham.</quote>
I'd pay good money to see that.
I've always wanted to hurl a brick through a window just to see and hear it smash, never done it though and I've always wondered if I'd knowingly steal from a shop if I was desperate. There, I've admitted it so I'll go and burn my hoodie. -
Message 50
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Saturday, 13th August 2011
I think everyone would steal if they were desperate enough ferval. How many, otherwise, respectable pensioners are reduced to pilfering a tin of baked beans on occasion? But that is rather different from the expensive trainers and electronic gadgetry that has been seen walking out of so many doors over the last week.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.