English Riots

[Klatrymadon]

Trying to look at the causes of large-scale social disturbance ≠ condoning, making excuses for or apologising for it. These things don't happen in a vacuum, and you'll never understand any event if you ignore the political and historical context in which it occurs. This is all taking place not only against a backdrop of decades of police malpractice, but of severe cuts that hit the working class and underclass the hardest, including the mass closing of libraries and youth clubs up and down the country. These cuts are only the beginning; the economy is in tatters, social mobility is worse than in any other developed country, and the poor are only going to be pushed further into poverty over the coming years. The government have known perfectly well for some time that these policies were likely to cause civil unrest on a scale not seen since the Brixton riots.

The issue is a political one even if the participants in the rioting at this point are utterly ignorant. Charlie is absolutely right to tie the meaningless, avaricious looting into the very structure of our capitalist, consumerist culture. The poorest in society have come to 'buy into' and identify themselves with (and through) consumer aspiration more sincerely than anybody, but are the least able to fulfill their material desires, and have the fewest opportunities to join in the rat-race in the first place. Of course there are going to be people who aren't above stealing the signifiers of "success" if the opportunity arises, whether it affects their own community or not. We need to examine the root of this problem in terms of the very real alienation and anomie our form of society engenders. Notions of community, family, solidarity and intelligence have become secondary and tertiary to aspiration (or just greed) for huge swathes of people, and the expression of this within the uneducated underclass is always going to be the most extreme. Thinking of these rioters merely as "ferals" and "scum" is dismally useless. Their behavior is absolutely indefensible, and they are definitely cunts, but in dismissing this problem as one of "just bad people", as though they and their rubbish parents pop out of thin air, we piss away the means by which we might hamper or prevent further civil unrest. Or, slightly grandiosely, the means by which we may ever hope to tackle the problem of wasted lives.

Also, the people calling for the further paramilitarisation of the police are massively missing the point. It would only prepare the ground for more rioting in the future, because all of the problems that caused these ones - especially the resentment of the police - would still be festering. Policing in this country is supposed to be based on consensus and consent, and the introduction of plastic bullets and water cannon to put down the mob severely compromises that consent and the police force's democratic accountability (not that there are anywhere near enough police to operate purely by force). It's worth remembering that the initial rioting was in large part provoked by the police, so the idea that they'd have the solution to this problem is barmy.

I can see this turning into a cunt-calling match pretty soon, though. I'm out.

[BIL]

Trying to look at the causes of large-scale social disturbance ≠ condoning, making excuses for or apologising for it.

Certainly. I've seen both sides of the debate tar the other as justifying the violence / ignoring social inequities.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

@ Klatrymadon, I totally agree with you about the social problems in Britain of which the government will sidestep as they always do. But in my book those who killed those 3 muslims or robbed that student with a broken jaw are scum and should be condemned

[neorichieb1971]

Ok you've bought a bit of my sentimentality on this matter.

But what you ain't saying is what the resolution is. If rooting out the worst culprits and jailing them turns things back to normal which is essentially what caused the problem in the first place we are just spawning more of the same for later.

If the riots continue its worse for the innocent. So where is the middle ground?

[GaijinPunch]

http://photoshoplooter.tumblr.com/

[Skykid]

Trying to look at the causes of large-scale social disturbance ≠ condoning, making excuses for or apologising for it. These things don't happen in a vacuum, and you'll never understand any event if you ignore the political and historical context in which it occurs. This is all taking place not only against a backdrop of decades of police malpractice, but of severe cuts that hit the working class and underclass the hardest, including the mass closing of libraries and youth clubs up and down the country. These cuts are only the beginning; the economy is in tatters, social mobility is worse than in any other developed country, and the poor are only going to be pushed further into poverty over the coming years. The government have known perfectly well for some time that these policies were likely to cause civil unrest on a scale not seen since the Brixton riots.

The issue is a political one even if the participants in the rioting at this point are utterly ignorant. Charlie is absolutely right to tie the meaningless, avaricious looting into the very structure of our capitalist, consumerist culture. The poorest in society have come to 'buy into' and identify themselves with (and through) consumer aspiration more sincerely than anybody, but are the least able to fulfill their material desires, and have the fewest opportunities to join in the rat-race in the first place. Of course there are going to be people who aren't above stealing the signifiers of "success" if the opportunity arises, whether it affects their own community or not. We need to examine the root of this problem in terms of the very real alienation and anomie our form of society engenders. Notions of community, family, solidarity and intelligence have become secondary and tertiary to aspiration (or just greed) for huge swathes of people, and the expression of this within the uneducated underclass is always going to be the most extreme. Thinking of these rioters merely as "ferals" and "scum" is dismally useless. Their behavior is absolutely indefensible, and they are definitely cunts, but in dismissing this problem as one of "just bad people", as though they and their rubbish parents pop out of thin air, we piss away the means by which we might hamper or prevent further civil unrest. Or, slightly grandiosely, the means by which we may ever hope to tackle the problem of wasted lives.

Also, the people calling for the further paramilitarisation of the police are massively missing the point. It would only prepare the ground for more rioting in the future, because all of the problems that caused these ones - especially the resentment of the police - would still be festering. Policing in this country is supposed to be based on consensus and consent, and the introduction of plastic bullets and water cannon to put down the mob severely compromises that consent and the police force's democratic accountability (not that there are anywhere near enough police to operate purely by force). It's worth remembering that the initial rioting was in large part provoked by the police, so the idea that they'd have the solution to this problem is barmy.

I can see this turning into a cunt-calling match pretty soon, though. I'm out.

Superb post.

[CIT]

Yeah, he really hit the nail on the head.

[RGC]

Trying to look at the causes of large-scale social disturbance ≠ condoning, making excuses for or apologising for it. These things don't happen in a vacuum, and you'll never understand any event if you ignore the political and historical context in which it occurs. This is all taking place not only against a backdrop of decades of police malpractice, but of severe cuts that hit the working class and underclass the hardest, including the mass closing of libraries and youth clubs up and down the country. These cuts are only the beginning; the economy is in tatters, social mobility is worse than in any other developed country, and the poor are only going to be pushed further into poverty over the coming years. The government have known perfectly well for some time that these policies were likely to cause civil unrest on a scale not seen since the Brixton riots.

The issue is a political one even if the participants in the rioting at this point are utterly ignorant. Charlie is absolutely right to tie the meaningless, avaricious looting into the very structure of our capitalist, consumerist culture. The poorest in society have come to 'buy into' and identify themselves with (and through) consumer aspiration more sincerely than anybody, but are the least able to fulfill their material desires, and have the fewest opportunities to join in the rat-race in the first place. Of course there are going to be people who aren't above stealing the signifiers of "success" if the opportunity arises, whether it affects their own community or not. We need to examine the root of this problem in terms of the very real alienation and anomie our form of society engenders. Notions of community, family, solidarity and intelligence have become secondary and tertiary to aspiration (or just greed) for huge swathes of people, and the expression of this within the uneducated underclass is always going to be the most extreme. Thinking of these rioters merely as "ferals" and "scum" is dismally useless. Their behavior is absolutely indefensible, and they are definitely cunts, but in dismissing this problem as one of "just bad people", as though they and their rubbish parents pop out of thin air, we piss away the means by which we might hamper or prevent further civil unrest. Or, slightly grandiosely, the means by which we may ever hope to tackle the problem of wasted lives.

Also, the people calling for the further paramilitarisation of the police are massively missing the point. It would only prepare the ground for more rioting in the future, because all of the problems that caused these ones - especially the resentment of the police - would still be festering. Policing in this country is supposed to be based on consensus and consent, and the introduction of plastic bullets and water cannon to put down the mob severely compromises that consent and the police force's democratic accountability (not that there are anywhere near enough police to operate purely by force). It's worth remembering that the initial rioting was in large part provoked by the police, so the idea that they'd have the solution to this problem is barmy.

I can see this turning into a cunt-calling match pretty soon, though. I'm out.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Great poast.

[DEL]

Here you go. These guys are backing up what I was saying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P9C55K0 ... r_embedded

[Skykid]

Here you go. These guys are backing up what I was saying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4P9C55K0 ... r_embedded

I agree.

Most non-caucasian societies serve up necessary discipline that's become some kind of taboo amongst white folk.
I think kids need to be taught to differentiate between the reality of making your way in the world by honest and creative means over the more potent delinquent lifestyle encouraged by their peers.

If that means beating the crap out of them now and then, so be it.

[JJXB]

my girlfriend felt so racist when watching the news reports because of how "white people" were a small minority of the rioters shown while "black people" were the majority shown. maybe it was a majority of "black people" or maybe it was just the news coverage being a bit slanted. not sure what to believe though. though it does strike me as strange that while the news covered mostly "black people", apparently more "white people" are being blamed. and while I don't care about race politics, both sides seem a bit fucked in terms of bias.

[Jonathan Ingram]

Trying to look at the causes of large-scale social disturbance ≠ condoning, making excuses for or apologising for it. These things don't happen in a vacuum, and you'll never understand any event if you ignore the political and historical context in which it occurs. This is all taking place not only against a backdrop of decades of police malpractice, but of severe cuts that hit the working class and underclass the hardest, including the mass closing of libraries and youth clubs up and down the country. These cuts are only the beginning; the economy is in tatters, social mobility is worse than in any other developed country, and the poor are only going to be pushed further into poverty over the coming years. The government have known perfectly well for some time that these policies were likely to cause civil unrest on a scale not seen since the Brixton riots.

The issue is a political one even if the participants in the rioting at this point are utterly ignorant. Charlie is absolutely right to tie the meaningless, avaricious looting into the very structure of our capitalist, consumerist culture. The poorest in society have come to 'buy into' and identify themselves with (and through) consumer aspiration more sincerely than anybody, but are the least able to fulfill their material desires, and have the fewest opportunities to join in the rat-race in the first place. Of course there are going to be people who aren't above stealing the signifiers of "success" if the opportunity arises, whether it affects their own community or not. We need to examine the root of this problem in terms of the very real alienation and anomie our form of society engenders. Notions of community, family, solidarity and intelligence have become secondary and tertiary to aspiration (or just greed) for huge swathes of people, and the expression of this within the uneducated underclass is always going to be the most extreme. Thinking of these rioters merely as "ferals" and "scum" is dismally useless. Their behavior is absolutely indefensible, and they are definitely cunts, but in dismissing this problem as one of "just bad people", as though they and their rubbish parents pop out of thin air, we piss away the means by which we might hamper or prevent further civil unrest. Or, slightly grandiosely, the means by which we may ever hope to tackle the problem of wasted lives.

Also, the people calling for the further paramilitarisation of the police are massively missing the point. It would only prepare the ground for more rioting in the future, because all of the problems that caused these ones - especially the resentment of the police - would still be festering. Policing in this country is supposed to be based on consensus and consent, and the introduction of plastic bullets and water cannon to put down the mob severely compromises that consent and the police force's democratic accountability (not that there are anywhere near enough police to operate purely by force). It's worth remembering that the initial rioting was in large part provoked by the police, so the idea that they'd have the solution to this problem is barmy.

I can see this turning into a cunt-calling match pretty soon, though. I'm out.

+1000

Excellent class analysis of the situation. Marx himself wouldn`t have said it better.

[99pence]

It does get more and more embarrassing to be British.

There's no excuses for extreme antisocial behaviour in a country where food, housing, education and even health care are free. The troubles people suffer in countries with actual poverty as apposed to our relative poverty puts us to shame. There's nothing stopping anyone here from bettering themselves if they want to and blaming capitalism is just a weak excuse. I can't afford a ferrari or the latest cave pcb but I don't begrudge anyone who can. The fact is people here and not just the poorest think they can do as they please and have a right to everything without earning it.

If you watch the man who tragically lost his son during the riots his admirable dignity was breath taking.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

We always seem to be in extremes. 20+ years ago it was a relatively common thing for working class fathers to go to the pub drink 15 pints, go home and beat the crap out of the wife & kids. With New Labours nanny state policies and working parents many kids today are undisciplined.

Personally I'ld like to see teachers given back some powers so they can use physical discipline if necessary.

[Obiwanshinobi]

Their behavior is absolutely indefensible, and they are definitely cunts, but in dismissing this problem as one of "just bad people", as though they and their rubbish parents pop out of thin air, we piss away the means by which we might hamper or prevent further civil unrest. Or, slightly grandiosely, the means by which we may ever hope to tackle the problem of wasted lives.

I wonder what means of making the most deprived ones feel a bit less like shit governments have, though. Seems more like a job for some kind of Jesus. Maybe when rich people start doing menial jobs eight hours a day, that'll work better than leftist preaching ex cathedra.

[neorichieb1971]

This is quite entertaining reading -

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peter ... V.facebook

I think everytime a politician screws up or helps himself to something nice like a few million in his pocket, or flipping a 2nd house on expenses a new riot should be initiated.

[Randorama]

worrysome comments on violence

Using mindless violence on kids has never a good effect, there's a lot of research on this (asian what? Moma club?, Seriously...). It just generates more anti-social behaviour, as it fuels the need for kids to get revenge on the abuses they received, and lets them think they are facing an antagonist, rather than a figure with more authority and experience. It is every bit as bad as the "curling" parenting method. Plus, has anyone of you gentlemen got at least one slap from their own parents? I guess not, you must have been all pure saints without sin.

When somebody makes a mistake you explain him what he did wrong and why, and then make him do it the right way. 50 push-ups as a memento of the mistake can help. If a kid has a lot of repressed aggressivity he/she can go and play rugby. Soccer is for wimps and chavs.

[TrevHead (TVR)]

When I was little (pre-teen) my dad put my over his knee a couple of times, I remember once I was playing up in the supermarket and he told me that if I carried on he'ld pull my pants down and give my arse an tanning there and then, suffice to say I did as I was told.

I dont condone mindless violence but I do believe that physical punishment should only be used as a last resort and that it depends on the child, but imo some kids really do need their arse tanning.
However I dont have any kids of my own, so I cant speak from practical experience.

[dcharlie]

but imo some kids really do need their arse tanning.

haha, nice to see this phrase from some one else - it's the exact threat i got and the exact threat my son gets when he's acting up.

We always seem to be in extremes. 20+ years ago it was a relatively common thing for working class fathers to go to the pub drink 15 pints, go home and beat the crap out of the wife & kids. With New Labours nanny state policies and working parents many kids today are undisciplined.

i believe this is a huge part of it - this all started coming in just as i was leaving sixth form in 1993. Kids literally ran the school (northern lower class town) because they knew the teachers couldn't do a thing. The whole "PC" thing was insane - a few years prior to this all the blackboards in the school were changed to whiteboards and all black pens/markers were no longer allowed. It was addressing a problem that was never there and just further served to put some negative angle on the colour "black" - it was as stupid as it was ridiculous.

[CMoon]

Huge difference between abuse and physical punishment. Some friends of my look back at their father's beating them as an important step in their lives.

Abuse aside, kids being disciplined one way or another is a huge part of society working correctly. I'd go so far as saying part of the breakdown in American culture is probably the same sort of thing you see going on with the English riots, namely parents having no idea how to be parents. As a teacher, I speak with so many parents who say they don't know how to control their kids. I'm talking 12 year olds here. If the same shit is going on in the UK, there's really little wonder this shit is happening.

[GaijinPunch]

I dont condone mindless violence but I do believe that physical punishment should only be used as a last resort and that it depends on the child, but imo some kids really do need their arse tanning.

I think it depends more on the parent. The lines between punishment and abuse are very gray, and I think when punishing out of anger (and as a parent, I can say it's easy to do) the line is often crossed. As such, I don't spank. I do deduct from the college fund though.

[Randorama]

Ok, so a couple of social psychology 1.01 things:

1. When someone breaks the rules of a group, he does so as a member of a group. 90% of the cases, as human beings, we use violence against someone who is not part of our group, and its system of rules.

Consequently, by using violence on someone, we are telling him that he is not part of the group, but possibly an external threat.

2. From this, the said individual can even conclude that he does not need to respect the rules. In this case, said individual can see his actions as legitimate. "Hey, these guys attack me, they fear my position!".

Hence, on the long run violence can have precisely the opposite effect of what it was designed for.

3. Strength and authority and are exemplified by giving a clear account of what the individual did wrong, the consequences of this mistake for himself and the others, and defining a penalty for the mistake that must be executed at once, and which must be certain. Say, stealing a cookie must always trigger the same penalty (see below).

Never show emotion: leaders don't get angry, when someone makes a mistake they get the individual in error by the scruff of the neck, if necessary, and put him back in place without a fuss. Always put a huge pressure on an individual's pride and intelligence: "you know what is the consequence of your mistake, you're not stupid, why you didn't avoid doing it? If you're not stupid, then there won't be a second time".

Example: you can't steal cookies, because food is shared by all the family, and cookies are an extra treat that we eat when we celebrate something together, since they are also calories-laden. If you steal them, then you are shutting your beloved ones from celebrations, and getting fatter. If you steal, then you skip dinner (you got your calories!), and you do 100 push-ups (use those calories!). You knew this, so, are you a retard to make such a blunder?

..So, what the British government should have done, in this immediate context, was to grab the rioters, arrest them quickly and efficiently, avoid making a fuss whatsoever, and say that they're bad boys who need to go back to the flock, and the government will help them in doing so (lest they go in the mincer). Then, from here until the next 50 YEARS, any government in power should solve the problem of having large chunks of population being marginalized by the horrible, horrible system currently in place.

The government's current strategy is that to make matters worse, so they did everything wrong on purpose. British Democracy my ass.

[neorichieb1971]

I don't see the connection between rioting and justifying beating practices on them.

The rioters spoke with their voice, now its the governments turn to acknowledge they heard it.

[BryanM]

I like how the official story was the guy fired first at the cops, and then is magically retconned back to no, the cops murdered the guy.

So apparantly tan women have it the hardest. A reason I could think for this is that network television heavily restricts the number of sexy black women that can be on TV at a time. That I am aware of:

* Kelly from King of Queens.
* That ditz from the Fresh Prince.
* Uh, some of the actresses from Meet the Browns.
* Tyra Banks, who is only half black. The rest of her is alien space whale from Europa.

This kind of thing subtlely shapes what we lust after as we grow up - television owns parts of a lot of souls. It's the hammer used by The Man to keep us down.

Just like the homeless though, if you ignore them they don't exist. Until they burn down some shit. Which they hardly ever do.

And yes, it is a race thing. To be declined from a fry cook opportunity just because you're tan over and over again, it begins to grate.

[xbl0x180]

I like how the official story was the guy fired first at the cops, and then is magically retconned back to no, the cops murdered the guy.

So apparantly tan women have it the hardest. A reason I could think for this is that network television heavily restricts the number of sexy black women that can be on TV at a time. That I am aware of:

* Kelly from King of Queens.
* That ditz from the Fresh Prince.
* Uh, some of the actresses from Meet the Browns.
* Tyra Banks, who is only half black. The rest of her is alien space whale from Europa.

This kind of thing subtlely shapes what we lust after as we grow up - television owns parts of a lot of souls. It's the hammer used by The Man to keep us down.

Just like the homeless though, if you ignore them they don't exist. Until they burn down some shit. Which they hardly ever do.

And yes, it is a race thing. To be declined from a fry cook opportunity just because you're tan over and over again, it begins to grate.

Here in Orange County, California, there was a homeless guy who was beaten to death by the pigs. Only the local papers covered it and not a peep from the television newscasts. I wonder what would happen if the fullerton police station or the houses of those pigs were burned down. So far, there's been a few protests and the murderers are on paid leave

[jpj]

these flash mobs that sprung up to smash shop windows in and go looting only happened because people saw quickly that if there were enough of them the police would be too stretched to prevent it from happening

you're kidding yourselves if you think this is some class business, and "the materialistic world we live in", and whatever. is that why i saw lidl's getting smashed up? or wimpys? or oxfam? or local newsagents?

the amount of police on the streets was upped, so once people knew they couldn't get away with it, it stopped. now that we've had hundreds of arrests it wont be happening again any time soon.

people go looting because they're trying to take advantage of what they perceive as a lawless environment for personal gain/entertainment. places in Ealing were smashed up, and that's not exactly an area i would consider "under privaliged" or have a history of suffering from police brutality.

i know certain people are always looking to blame the government for something, and at the same time feel that they have "the answer" to solve all our problems. now we have all these people with their own agendas using these events as an excuse to air their views

the government could try to address all these perceived root causes over however many years, and if we had a hurricane like katrina, or an earthquake like japan, anywhere within the UK, you would see exactly the same behaviour

[neorichieb1971]

Well at least the connection between government officials and looters is still there. Screwing the country for personal gain. Politicians do it by manipulating the system, looters do it by breaking the system.

To me its the same thing.

[jpj]

i'm glad there was no socio-political debate about the expenses scandal. "maybe they were cheating the system because they feel alienated from society because [blah blah blah]."

so yeah, politicians were doing it because they thought they could get away with it, exactly the same train of thought. a lot of people were caught, some MPs currently in the clink, stuff wont happen again

the only thing i think we need to be talking about after all this is actually:

--police given more freedom to use force where necessary and not feel their hands are tied. i don't know if some of the initial responses were lacklustre because of numbers of officers, that they were treating the situations as "public disorders" instead of riots (you certainly wouldn't see the same type of policing at a football riot), or that police are now worried about being seen to be heavy-handed after the student protests, G8, etc

--tougher sentencing & more community service for 16-17 year olds who are charged

--benefits taken away from people who are legally responsible for minors participating in these kind of events

--name & shame campaigns

but saying "it's the same thing to me", well.. that's a bit dismissive over the fact that people have lost their livelihoods after these events, and some have died. i don't remember david cameron plowing 3 people down with his car in cold blood so he could nick £100

[Michaelm]

--police given more freedom to use force where necessary and not feel their hands are tied. i don't know if some of the initial responses were lacklustre because of numbers of officers, that they were treating the situations as "public disorders" instead of riots (you certainly wouldn't see the same type of policing at a football riot), or that police are now worried about being seen to be heavy-handed after the student protests, G8, etc

--tougher sentencing & more community service for 16-17 year olds who are charged

--benefits taken away from people who are legally responsible for minors participating in these kind of events

--name & shame campaigns

Dangerous thoughts if you ask me.
Why don't we put some yellow sign on their clothes with the word looter in it. That'll teach them
But seriously, the police have more than enough freedom. And they cross the line easily when it fits them.
You just don't read about that in the mainstream news.

[jpj]

kicking people's heads in should be a natural perk of the job (when they deserve it obviously)

but i don't think you're right on that one - after the first 48 hours things were going crazy and spreading quicker than they could be dealt with, and people were looking at the government to give the green light for rubber bullets & water cannons. then a 3rd night of violence followed and still nothing from the police except larger numbers, more as a deterrent than anything else. only to then find out at the end of the week that police could have been using rubber bullets from day 1 without any special parliamentary permission, but chose not to. so it's arguable that they under-stepped the mark, or that their strategy for addressing these mobs could have been better

("mainstream news" fuck me, is this a 9/11 thread)