The UK conservatives’ response to the riots: Let’s make matters worse!

What kind of dribbling moron could seriously think this insanity from the British PM a good idea?

Mr Cameron backs plans to ensure council tenants found guilty of taking part in the mayhem will be evicted. Some councils, including Greenwich and Hammersmith and Fulham in London and Salford in Greater Manchester, announced that they were already pushing ahead with the measure.

Housing Minister Grant Shapps was tightening the law to make sure that even if a rioter was convicted of a crime outside their borough they could lose their council home – something that is not possible at the moment…

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith is considering amending a Welfare Reform Bill going through Parliament to ensure that rioters have their benefits cut.

So – these disaffected, angry young people: we’ll throw them out onto the street with no money. That can’t possibly lead to more crime! And we’ll make sure that when we punish these opportunistic looters – from all strata of English society – that we punish the poorest hardest. The kids of the rich? They won’t lose their homes or their ability to eat. But the kids of the poor? LET ‘EM STARVE. IN THE GUTTERS.

And this army of homeless starving people they’re planning to create? Yeah, I’m sure they’ll settle down and get a job that won’t be offered to them because of their criminal record and they won’t ever bother anyone again.

Brilliant.

Hope UK taxpayers are looking forward to paying vastly more for the thousands of new prison places they’re going to have to provide, and to the streets becoming more and more dangerous.

ELSEWHERE: Some sense on the English Riots from Penny Red.

About these ads

56 responses to “The UK conservatives’ response to the riots: Let’s make matters worse!

  1. By massive co-incidence, I’ve just been having a discussion about the
    Easter Rebellion in Ireland and its aftermath.

    “So, we’ve got an island full of people who have spent 700 years as an
    oppressed and occupied nation, kept as second-class citizens — or not
    even citizens at all — in their own homeland. We’ve just joined in this
    Great War thing, and not only put off the promised toy government
    indefinitely, but press-ganged the entire country into putting in front
    of cannons. During this war they had a rebellion, which we put down and
    executed the ringleaders, but for some reason this didn’t stop the bad
    feelings, and now the Great War is over, we have all these bad tempered,
    combat trained and by now practically psychotic demobbed troops which we
    don’t want around us, so we’ll kill two birds with one stone. We’ll
    invent the Black and Tans… what could possibly go wrong?

    What do you mean ‘Ireland is also full of demobbed and pissed-off young
    men?’”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_Tans

    It’s truly amazing what the English government will consider to be a
    Good Idea. As far as I can tell, the primary requirement includes
    “beating the shit out of the poor and oppressed on the assumption that
    they’ll just sit there and take it indefinitely.”

  2. It’s a ridiculous and punitive knee-jerk response to underlying social problems. Business as usual for the conservatives.

  3. And plenty of business opportunities if you do it right (eg – watch the rioters being driven away in Serco vans.)

  4. One of my buffoonish long-banned old trolls wants to know how I’d sentence the rioters. Well, it depends on the bloody circumstances of the individual offending in question. It entirely depends on what they’ve actually done, what their history is (prior offending or not), what their circumstances are (including mental health) – and what the prospects are for rehabilitation (since my aim would be to actually REDUCE crime).

    Broadly, I suspect many of these offenders would benefit from some arduous community work. Cleaning up the sort of mess they made, for a start.

    Obviously I would not take away their ability to live and eat, since (a) leaving people to starve in a gutter is a monstrous thing to do, (b) it’s likely to provoke more crime and (c) it’s completely unjust to punish a poor rioter more harshly than a wealthy one.

  5. Pingback: UK Riots – Open thread | Pure Poison

  6. *headdesk* Can we fire up the guillotine for these aristocratic twits now?

    How about “if you return the stolen goods to the store you took it from and help repair the damage, the community will in return help find you a job”?

  7. narcoticmusing

    Well put Jeremy, particularly your rationale (c).

    Home occupation interest is a right recognised by international law (See, for example, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) and the UK equivalent to the ACT/Vic Human rights charters. It considered completely independent, similar to freedom of political speech, to say, if you are guilty of an offence or not.

  8. narcoticmusing

    The true challenge for us mere Aussies is to figure out, how, indeed, is the not-yet-passed carbon tax to blame for this?

  9. London council moves to evict rioters

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-13/london-council-moves-to-evict-rioters/2837708

    “Wandsworth Council in London’s west has served an eviction notice on a council tenant whose son has appeared in court, charged over a riot at nearby Battersea.

    The tenant and son are believed to be the first in the country to face the prospect of losing their council-owned home as a result of the riots.”

    Where are they supposed to go?

    “British prime minister David Cameron backed the council’s action, saying people who “loot and pillage their own community” should no longer be allowed to live in social housing”

    But highly paid (relatively speaking) politicians with their snouts in the trough, or their banker overlords, well, they’re a higher class of people so we wont throw the book at them!

    Cameron is a clueless, upper class twit!

    “Obviously, that will mean they’ve got to be housed somewhere else – they’ll have to find housing in the private sector,” Mr Cameron told BBC television.”

    Well Duuuuuuurrrrrrrrhhhh!

    Oh, I see some bloke got six months for nicking three pounds fifty worth of water, utterly draconian!

  10. They’re also driving trucks with big screens on the back around town showing pictures of the few looters who didn’t have the foresight to wear hoodies:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-08-12/rioters-faces-broadcast-on-big-screen/2837482

    Which will totally not result in some kid being set upon by vigilantes, of course. And provide another trigger for the poverty-stricken to go on an rampage.

    The Stupid! It Burns!

  11. Rob is that serious? A council are evicting someone who wasn’t rioting cos of their association with someone who was? Thats just awesome.

    Is this one of those councils thats slowly undergoing gentrification? I wonder who else will get evicted and how valuable that land is to developers.

    Cameron:

    “For too long we’ve taken a too-soft attitude towards people that loot and pillage their own community.”

    Thats right, he’s a tory and they only loot and pillage other people’s communities.

  12. “Is this one of those councils thats slowly undergoing gentrification?”

    I don’t know, we’re talking South of the river, Clapham, next door to Wimbledon, it aint Mayfair but it would still be very expensive (I reckon).

    Tories have always favoured private landlords over public housing, in this instance I reckon the evictees will still be a burden, a homeless burden. Tories are stupid, short-sighted, greedy people, if they aren’t stupid they must be evil!

    Tories who advocate letting the unemployed starve don’t realise that people are hard wired to survive (because Tories are stupid), the poor will eat the rich before they starve.

  13. The whole response is of course tied to the olympics and how dangerous London is percieved to be. Financial considerations come first given how much money has already been spent in preparation. Sweep the whole thing under the rug until the games are over as social engineering takes far too long.
    Perhaps kicking them out of their homes is a way of removing the instigators from London entirely. Look out for a vagrant relocation program.

  14. The olympics… How much is the govt going to spend on that then? I bet the largess is pissing off many of the locals.

  15. Plenty of money for bullshit wars and circuses..

  16. narcoticmusing

    I wonder if we’ll have a ‘be tough on immagants’ campaign when the Brits come here seeking political asylum from their totalitarian regime who thinks it fit to modify laws/conditions retrospectively to oppress the poor and most disadvantaged more harshly than those who do not require measly things like, you know, compassion.

  17. [I wonder if we’ll have a ‘be tough on immagants’ campaign when the Brits come here seeking political asylum from their totalitarian regime]

    Probably will be if they’re non-white Britons.. I Can just hear the shock jocks and trollumnists now.

  18. In other news, the BART train system in San Francisco temporarily shuts off the mobile phone network in their underground stations to stifle flash mob protests over heavy handedness by BART cops:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/bart-san-francisco-cut-cell-services-to-avert-protest/2011/08/12/gIQAfLCgBJ_blog.html

    Supposedly for “safety”. As if safety is increased by making it harder for people to call 911 in an emergency, or making it harder to know if there is a protest further up the line so you can delay your journey to avoid being caught up in it.

  19. baldrickjones

    Oh, isn’t this cute. The lefties are worrying about the criminals who get held to account for their crimes! All “the Tories fault” and what not. You know, I grew up being taught that we were responsible for our own actions. Hence I have no problem with kicking out rioters from their taxpayer subsidised homes.

  20. Oh, isn’t this cute. Another rightie who is incapable of understanding the long term benefits that society gets from reforming and redirecting criminals from criminal behaviour. Who thinks that driving young offenders even further into the criminal underclass will somehow lead to them being responsible for their own actions.

    Kick them out of the taxpayer-subsidised homes, and where are they supposed to go? You think the private gentrified landlords are going to give them a fair go and reasonable rates on their monthly rent? Take away what little they have left, and you expect this to make them responsible?

    This is a society problem, which needs a society solution. Not more rightie “personal responsibility” nonsense. Personal responsibility only works if you have the job and the money to pay for it, jackass. If you don’t, you need others to take some responsibility as well.

  21. Oh isn’t this cute: a righty doesn’t understand the concept of collective punishment or punishment of the innocent.

    Obviously missed the part where entire families are being evicted on the actions of one member. Still, so long as vengeance is served, who gives a crap about justice, eh?

  22. Aaaah baldrickjones, thing is, with you Tories is that it’s one rule for them, what is the rioters mother’s crime? She’s guilty by association…

    David Cameron is best buddies with Rebekah Brooks. And he’s the leader of a political party that has members who rorted their expenses claims ie they stole from the taxpayer. And apart from the humiliation what consequences did Blair face when his son played up. How about David Gilmour?

    So in summary baldrickjones has no problem making the mother pay for her sons crimes. Typical Tory! One rule for them eh?

  23. “doesn’t understand the concept of collective punishment”

    I thought they understood it and supported it.

  24. ““doesn’t understand the concept of collective punishment”

    I thought they understood it and supported it.”

    Yup, if it’s good enough for history’s worst tyrants, it’s good enough for us… I think Catsidhe just meant they don’t (or pretend not to) understand why it’s profoundly unjust.

    Baldrick not only apparently thinks it’s fair for a mother to be kicked out of her home for the actions of her son, but he’s also here to misrepresent what we’re arguing. He dishonestly claims that we object to criminals being “held to account”. Challenge for you, Balders. Find anyone on this thread who’s said that we think there should be no punishment for rioters. No-one’s said that?

    No, we haven’t. We’re talking about sane, constructive punishments that make society safer in place of ludicrous acts of spite that in the long-term will make us much less safe, will brutalise children and – if you’re a Tory and are only motivated by cash – will cost taxpayers a stupid amount of money.

  25. Pingback: Stay strong, UK Magistrates who uphold actual justice, not mob justice | An Onymous Lefty

  26. Splatterbottom

    It might be time for the welfare-mongers and victim pimps to own up to their role in all of this.

    Funnily enough if you pay people not to work, they won’t work and you won’t reduce unemployment. And a lot more people seem to be disabled these days, because you get extra for that. And if you subsidise single-parent families there won’t be so many fathers around to fulfill their vital role in raising their children. Put that lot together and it is no wonder recreational rioting is on the rise.

    If you waste cops’ time with sensitivity training instead of teaching them how to wield a truncheon or to shoot straight they will have greater trouble dealing with the lumpenproletariat.

    It might be worthwhile looking at the values and attitudes that are beneficial to society and adopting policies which transmit them to the next generation. And it is definitely worthwhile giving multiculturalism the arse.

  27. “It might be time for the welfare-mongers and victim pimps to own up to their role in all of this.”

    Warning about it for years if nothing was done to seriously tackle disadvantage in these areas? Yeah, I can cop that. We did see it coming.

    “Funnily enough if you pay people not to work, they won’t work and you won’t reduce unemployment.”

    And if you pay people who can’t get a job because there aren’t any available for them, then you keep them from starving! Which keeps unemployment high. If you just let poor people die off, there’d be more jobs to go around, eh?

    “And a lot more people seem to be disabled these days, because you get extra for that. “

    Yes, I’m sure there are many people who’ve hacked off their legs for 50 pounds a fortnight.

    “And if you subsidise single-parent families there won’t be so many fathers around to fulfill their vital role in raising their children.”

    Much better to force women to stay in unhappy or abusive relationships because otherwise their kids will starve.

    “Put that lot together and it is no wonder recreational rioting is on the rise.”

    The poor weren’t rioting recreationally. The looters were – but many of those people were from well-to-do families with plenty of money who were just taking because they could. Because they’d been taught to look out for number one, and sod the community.

    You know, the conservative dog-eat-dog mantra.

    “If you waste cops’ time with sensitivity training instead of teaching them how to wield a truncheon or to shoot straight they will have greater trouble dealing with the lumpenproletariat.”

    That’s one of the stupidest things I’ve read. Part of the reason for the original riots is people for whom no respect has ever been shown consequently having no respect for anything else. I’m not sure what this “sensitivity training” you’re talking about is – did they have a seminar once a year giving them some training in defusing potentially dangerous situations or something – but it’s not as if the people rioting had never been hit with a truncheon. And the riots WERE STARTED BECAUSE A COP SHOT STRAIGHT AT SOMEONE AND KILLED HIM.

  28. Splatterbottom

    Jeremy: “Warning about it for years if nothing was done to seriously tackle disadvantage in these areas? “

    They adopted the wrong means to tackle disadvantage. Disadvantage is not uniform. It abides more in some subcultures than others. A better approach would be to look at groups which manage to survive and thrive, draw some lessons and get the message across to the others. Emphasising the importance of study, thrift, honesty, respect for property, hard work and family would be a good start. Teaching people about how oppressed they are, and how it is always someone else’s fault, will not help them nearly as much as teaching that they are responsible for their lives and they need to make wise decisions. Freeing up the labour market would make it much easier for them to actually get jobs.

    “The looters were – but many of those people were from well-to-do families with plenty of money who were just taking because they could. Because they’d been taught to look out for number one, and sod the community.”

    Kids need to be taught that hypersexualised gangsta culture is destructive of communities and it should be eliminated from schools. They should be taught that the best way to bring up kids is in a stable loving relationship and that if they have early and frequent sex they are less likely to form such relationships.

    “Part of the reason for the original riots is people for whom no respect has ever been shown consequently having no respect for anything else. …. And the riots WERE STARTED BECAUSE A COP SHOT STRAIGHT AT SOMEONE AND KILLED HIM.”

    We will have to wait to see why gang-leader “Starrish Mark” Duggan was shot. Respect is earned. He deserved none whatsoever. It is typical that his associates immediately take to the streets without waiting to find out what happened. We had it in Sydney with the Merrylands and Redfern riots. Hoons get killed and their “communities” erupt in violence. If they want respect they should earn it. They won’t get any for starting a riot.

  29. “Hoons get killed and their “communities” erupt in violence.”

    A kid on a pushbike? What about the 16 yr old girl who was attacked at a peaceful protest about a member of the public who was shot by people who then lied about what happened?

    The peaceful protest in April that was ignored.

    I thought a peaceful protest was free speech? If someone at a peaceful protest is assaulted by riot cops for handing them a pamphlet then something is very wrong with that society. Isn’t it?

    Or do you only want free speech for people who agree with you?

    The looting that followed seems to me to be standard practise these days. if those looters had suits and expensive houses you’d call them foreign investors or international bankers. They are just practicing extreme deregulation, its the ultimate expression of the crap that Reagan and Thatcher started.

    Really it surprises how clueless people are. Stick people in concrete boxes keep em there and hassle em with cops and then be surprised when they riot every so often. How stupid are these right wing dickheads? Do they stand in puddles and wonder why their feet are wet?

    And we’re better off giving you the arse than giving multiculturalism the arse pal. Chinese and Afghans and Islanders arrived in Australia in the 1800s, from all sorts of non English speaking countries during the 20th century and you want to give them the arse. If its a choice between you and that SB, we’ll be giving you the Rex Banner treatment.

  30. Though I don’t agree with the position that “Respect must be earned”…I think rather than attack that statement head on it’s worthwhile to ask “Then do the people you consider lesser have a way to earn it? What would it take for you (and others) to respect the people in one of “those” neighborhoods? The ones you think you’re superior to? Are your demands to “earn” respect connected to reality at all? If there are no jobs–if there is no housing–and your demands depend on holding employment that pays enough for what you call “decent” housing…then how, exactly, are these people going to earn your respect? If there are no good schools–if the libraries have closed–just exactly how is that child supposed to “earn” an education? If you have allowed a neighborhood to exist with no access to beauty–no parks–and no access to learning–and no quiet and no peace–and everyone in it laboring under the suspicion of the police because they’re “that kind of people”, the kind you think deserve no respect…how the HELL are they supposed to earn it? They’re presumed guilty for existing.

    “And you think you’ve earned the respect you get? You think it’s all due to your hard work and your good character? How many times in childhood were YOU stopped by police when you had done nothing wrong? How many times did teachers assume you were the one who stole something because of where you came from? How many times were you eyed with suspicion by shopkeepers, yelled at, scolded, for things you had never done? Or conversely, when your respectable and respected parents took you out, how many times were you treated courteously and respectfully because they were respected, and they were respected because they were clearly “our type”–they dressed well because they could afford to; they spoke well because they’d had the education and opportunity to learn;they had money to spend; they had a house or a nice apartment and you had access to parks, libraries, museums, schools where your right to that access was assumed.”

  31. Splatterbottom

    Jules Redfern and Merrylands were not peaceful protests. Just idiots behaving like animals. But there are always bigger idiots who will make excuses for them, aren’t there?

    “The looting that followed seems to me to be standard practise these days. if those looters had suits and expensive houses you’d call them foreign investors or international bankers.”

    Stupid analogy to justify the murderous destruction of the lives and livelihoods of decent people, don’t your think?

    Catsidhe I have a different view on almost everything you’ve said. We know that there different groups in society have different strategies for moving of the bottom rung and improving their circumstances. Some are much more successful than others. We also know that the government can never solve this problem and quite often makes matters worse. It would be better to encourage people and communities to adopt strategies which are more likely to be successful. Eating the rich is not such a strategy, nor is class hatred, self-pity or anything else the bleeding hearts have on the table.

    As for all your questions, first of all the circumstances of my private life is not available for you to make points with. If you need to do that, it just shows how pathetic are your arguments.

  32. They are not my words, if you’d bothered to follow the link you’d know that they are Elizabeth Moon’s words.

    You seem have done a magnificent job of replacing what the Left is saying with your own feverish delusions. I don’t think your contributions are going to do anyone any good if you continue shouting furiously at the voices which only you can hear.

    And the questions are not demands for your own situation to be made public for our amusement, they are meant to inspire personal introspection. Of course, if you’re unwilling even to pretend to human empathy, there is little point. But your making it clear that you’re arguing from a basis of “the poor are only poor because they want to be” is certainly useful to the rest of us.

  33. “Stupid analogy to justify the murderous destruction of the lives and livelihoods of decent people, don’t your think?”

    Iraq war much, use rare earth metals often? Its not an analogy. Its a fundamental flaw with society. Its clear that looting is ok cos if you do it you get a bailout or still manage to stay in office (no matter what “side” of politics). Thats what happens.

    Do you expect better behaviour from the people you class as scum than from the people who rule and who are held up as heros by the religion of economics?

    “Jules Redfern and Merrylands were not peaceful protests. Just idiots behaving like animals. But there are always bigger idiots who will make excuses for them, aren’t there?”

    They were riots by a population that believed the police had killed a member of their community. That doesn’t happen cos people decide to do it out of the blue. Thats wht happened in London too – cops shot someone, lied about it, then bashed a child. Riots happen for lots of reasons, but when a local population is criminalised and excluded then this feedback loop starts and it’ll usually end with someone being killed and a riot happens.

    When stuff gets this bad, when community relations fail so badly, it doesn’t matter what the facts are – at this point people will believe the worst of the police cos it tallies with their own experience of incremental increases in injustice. (Ill literation aye) Then scenes like that girl – surrounded by cops and being beaten while people scream to leave her alone “Its just a girl you c**ts” in a panic – people video them and share them immediately, and within 5 minutes people across the city have seen the footage or know someone who has.

    (I’m assuming you mean Macquarie Fields not Merrylands)

    Then you get surprised when people riot?

    Come on.

  34. Splatterbottom

    Catsidhe: “They are not my words, if you’d bothered to follow the link you’d know that they are Elizabeth Moon’s words.”

    I had assumed by dishing them up you were in roaring agreement with them.

    “Of course, if you’re unwilling even to pretend to human empathy”

    Pretending human empathy is the preserve of the bleeding hearts who created this mess in the first place with their failed feel-good policies. In fact pretended empathy is their weapon of choice. It allows them to demonstrate the smug air of moral superiority and get off on their own hubris. That statement is a classic example.

    Jules you are right. I meant Macquarie Fields not Merrylands.

    “They were riots by a population that believed the police had killed a member of their community.”

    The fact that they felt entitled to riot is almost as big a problem as the fact that they were unable to do anything else than blame the police for the deaths. Leftist wankers running interference for them only makes these riots more likely.

  35. Occasionally, for whatever reason, the cosmic forces align and the proximity of SB’s views to those of other commenters here is clear for a few moments.

    I find this to be one of those moments – all commenters appear to agree that the way to prevent future riots and violence is to improve conditions and opportunities within the rioters’ communities. SB just has a different view on how that can best be accomplished.

    And thus commences today’s production of “How Do We Fix Society’s Problems?”. As per usual we will see SB playing the role of ‘excessively strict and unreasonably harsh father’, and the rest of us playing the role of ‘overly permissive and dangerously lenient mother’.

  36. narcoticmusing

    So then, if a community is rejected at every point by its law makers and law enforcers, your suggestion SB is that they should just suck it up? Freedom of speech doesn’t apply to them -they yell and scream and are ignored or worse, shot.

  37. narcoticmusing

    Mondo – I disagree with your assessment. No one is argueing that the rioters should not meet justice – it is the definition of justice. No one is suggesting that the riot was ‘a reasonable thing to do’ – only that punishing the people that had some rationale for being angry more than the well off people that were purely just exploiting the sitution is manisfestly unjust.

    SB has some points around personal responsibilty and a culture that believes the world owes them something – I often think of cases of women in Uganda becoming a success and I think to myself, what excuse does anyone in a Western country have? Compare my situation with my sibling and you get the same opportunities/upbringing and two very different people – one that believes the world owe’s them and the other that, despite the same family/social conditions, is very successful. The gap between my sibling and I is education. She is only now getting an education and the empowering impact of it is astonishing.

    Nevertheless, some of SBs comments border on offensive – suggesting that single mums are so just to get better benefits is disgraceful. First, you would always be better off with a shit income from another parent than just ‘improved benefits’. Again, I remind all that domestic violence is currently the NUMBER ONE reason for avoidable hospitalisation of women in Victoria. Number one. Above accidents. I suppose she should just suck it up so that she doesn’t burden the community with her welfare ass. Comments like that comepletely disregard in the cruelest way the very difficult decision for a woman to leave her spouse. It also assumes she left the spouse, and he didn’t just knock her up and dump her – which has that nice turn around where the conservatives are all against abortion but simultaneously want to demonise mum for being a single mum.

  38. Narc – none of what you’ve written above is inconsistent with my assessment.

    And I think you’re grossly misrepresenting what SB has said. You accuse him of suggesting that “single mums are so just to get better benefits” but I can’t see that he said anything of the sort. The closest I can find is his comment above that:

    And a lot more people seem to be disabled these days, because you get extra for that. And if you subsidise single-parent families there won’t be so many fathers around to fulfill their vital role in raising their children.

    Is that what you meant?

  39. “single mums are so just to get better benefits”

    And if you subsidise single-parent families there won’t be so many fathers around to fulfill their vital role in raising their children.

    These quotes seem functionally equivalent to me.

  40. Splatterbottom

    Mondo, it is all about how we solve the problem. The negative effects of welfare need to be considered and a better strategy formulated.

    Many leftists see the main problem in deficient social structures and believe that they can be solved by changing them. Conservatives and libertarians are more likely to look at individual choices people make and believe the problem can be solved by getting people to take responsibility for their lives.

    Being a creature of balance, I can see both points and would like to see a solution that blends welfare and reinforces the transmission of positive ideas.

    Narcotic: “Freedom of speech doesn’t apply to them”

    I don’t understand what your point is here, Narcotic. I am not against free speech, including the right to protest peacefully, and I’ve said nothing to the contrary.

    “some of SBs comments border on offensive – suggesting that single mums are so just to get better benefits is disgraceful.”

    The system does incentivise single parenthood and does incentivise fathers to shirk their responsibilities. And guess what? Some people behave accordingly. But rather than recognise this you call me disgraceful. That is great for avoiding the issue, but it would not solve the problem.

    I always found this song deeply affecting, and I saw it played out among my family and friends many times since I first heard it in my late teens:

    Girls in our town, they just haven’t a care
    You see them on Saturday floating on air
    Painting their toenails and washing their hair
    Maybe tonight it’ll happen

    Girls in our town they leave school at fifteen
    Work at the counter or behind the machine
    And spend all their money on making a scene
    They plan on going to England

    Girls in our town go to parties in pairs
    Sit ’round the barbecue, give themselves aires
    Then they go to the bathroom with their girlfriend who cares
    Girls in our town are so lonely

    Girls in our town are too good for the pill
    But if you keep asking they probably will
    Sometimes they like you or else for the thrill
    And explain it away in the morning

    Girls in our town get no help from their men
    No one can let them be sixteen again
    Things might get better but it’s hard to say when
    If they only had someone to talk to

    Girls in our town can be saucy and bold
    At seventeen, no one is better to hold
    Then they start havin’ kids, start gettin’ old
    Girls in our town…
    Girls in our town

    And they are the lucky ones.

  41. “The fact that they felt entitled to riot is almost as big a problem as the fact that they were unable to do anything else than blame the police for the deaths.”

    The police killed someone, lied about it, then stood around a child and beat her with truncheons at a peaceful protest. The state only exists cos of the consent of the people. If the police kill someone, lie about it then attack peaceful protesters then that population has the right to riot, and to start a revolution if they want.

    Thats a more fundamental freedom than freedom of speech, the freedom to revolt.

    These people exercised their freedom of speech with peaceful protest, then someone else was killed, (making hundreds in the last 13 years) and the cops were busted lying about it and trying to frame the dead guy – they accused him of shooting at them. They also failed to inform his family. Thats their duty so they failed in that as well.

    While exercising their freedom of speech again these people were attacked by agents of the state. This started a riot and so it should have. What other comeback do these people have?

    Once this started the police, whose job it is to keep public order, actually withdrew. So again they failed in their duty./ This time it was cowardice, not callousness, and every opportunist in london took that as a sign that the rule of law had failed. And it had – the enforcement arm of the rule of law failed in 3 ways.

    They tried to avoid public accountability by lying about the circumstances. they failed in their duty of care by not informing Duggin’s family, and they failed in their duty of care to the entire community by holding back when the riot began – probably to send a message about cuts to their budget.

  42. narcoticmusing

    Sorry SB, I’m still stuck on your point that providing a mother with the means to feed her children is bad AND that the father shirking his responsibilities is facilitated by this… I’m really not sure how you link these two. I am equally unsure how it is the mother’s fault and/or welfare’s fault if the father shirks his responsibilities? What would you have the mother do? Pull up her boot straps and get to work because she has control of her circumstances? Well she might have control if she could get an abortion but you are opposed to that too – so she is now denied any control by your ideals, and simultaneously you blame her need for help as the reason the man left?

  43. The system does incentivise single parenthood and does incentivise fathers to shirk their responsibilities.

    Oookay SB – now you’re on your own.

    Dads are deadbeats because “the system made ‘em do it”? How does that square with your general insistence on personal responsibility?

  44. narcoticmusing

    The system does NOT incentivise single parenthood, rather, it does not endorse/condone/encourage abuse/domestic violence by giving women no other recourse.

  45. No – but the system does subsidise single parenthood, and I think SB is using this as the basis for his argument.

    Which again begs the question – how can such a strong advocate of personal responsibility seriously argue that poor individual parenting behaviour is the government’s fault?

  46. Pingback: Oh Penbo | Pure Poison

  47. Splatterbottom

    Jules, if you get your facts right you might become less hysterical and make more sense. you over-hype everything to justify the “right to revolt”. The girl threw a rock at police and they surrounded her. There is no evidence they beat her. There is evidence that by then some three hours after the demo had started a large number of thugs had joined the crowd, responding to messages like this:

    One user calling himself ‘English Frank’ encouraged attacks on the police, writing: “Everyone up and roll to Tottenham f— the 50 [police]. I hope 1 dead tonight.”
    Another user called ‘Sonny Twag’ tweeted: “Want to roll Tottenham to loot. I do want a free TV. Who wudn’t.”

    Narcotic, my point is that if fathers know the state will support their kids it is easier for them to shirk their responsibilities. Also there are single mothers who have more children because of the increase in benefits. Welfare is not an unmitigated good. And you are making a lot of assumptions about me lately that just aren’t true, like the abortion point.

    Mondo: “Dads are deadbeats because “the system made ‘em do it”? How does that square with your general insistence on personal responsibility?”

    That wasn’t my point. Rather the decision to leave and shirk is made easier because the state picks up part of the load, and in some cases this may ease the conscience of the father.

    Narcotic: “The system does NOT incentivise single parenthood, rather, it does not endorse/condone/encourage abuse/domestic violence by giving women no other recourse.”

    It does give women more options in difficult situations, and it does incentivise single parenthood, which is quite a different thing to having a child within a permanent relationship.

  48. “Jules, if you get your facts right you might become less hysterical and make more sense. you over-hype everything to justify the “right to revolt”. The girl threw a rock at police and they surrounded her. There is no evidence they beat her.”

    Have you seen the video? (Via the daily mail a week or more ago) It certainly looks like they are beating her, tho they may not be. What do you think an angry crowd is going to see, and there is as much evidence to suggest that she tried to hand them a pamphlet then screwed another up and threw it at them as threw a rock, and that still doesn’t address more than 300 killings by police including Duggins. Thats where the over hyped ness is. In an angry crowd that feels they are targets for police brutality and have no recourse to the law.

    If I have no recourse to the law why should I give a fuck about other people having it?

    None of those messages would have happened if the cops hadn’t killed Duggin then lied about it. Then infringed on peoples rights to free speech, then backed out of their duty to confront the rioters.

    None of this would have happened without that.

    It doesn’t matter what gangs were involved, what selfish juvenile idiots joined in cos they are kids and like smashing stuff they wouldn’t have had a triggering event to get involved. Thats how you get arseholes smashing the place up, running over people defending their homes or businesses and all the rest. Burning peoples homes, businesses and vehicles and bashing and robbing people.

    The p[olice failed multiple times and as a result there was a riot.

    Spin it how you like but thats what happened and unless the corrupt and violent elements of the Met are dealt with severely then the same thing is gonna happen again.

    For a start the cops that lied about what happened at Duggins killing need to face charges for perverting the course of justice.

  49. narcoticmusing

    Narcotic, my point is that if fathers know the state will support their kids it is easier for them to shirk their responsibilities.
    That makes the assumption the father gave a shit at all – a pretty big assumption that by all accounts is simply not true or we wouldn’t have the massive truancy issues with father’s paying their fair share for their kids. I think you are drawing a pretty long bow to attach a father shirking responsibility with consideration of welfare – if this were the case we’d see fathers not shirk their responsibility in the US. We don’t.

    This is NOT incentivising single parenthood – you are still better off with two welfare cheques than one single parent one. You are still better off with a father’s income and time to put into the kids than one. This is entirely unrealisitic tosh that you as a dad, and by the sounds of things a good, attentive dad, would know is not sufficient to ‘ease’ a conscience. It is simply the blame game that the right has perpetuated against single mothers for eaons. That the State recently said religious groups can continue to discriminate against single mums against – as always, the woman who got pregnant is to blame, not the male who clearly had to participate to make it happen.

    single mothers who have more children because of the increase in benefits Are you seriously suggesting that the cost of raising children is even remotely similar to the ‘benefits’ increase? That is such BS. My sister has four children; govt benefits ain’t going to help.

    you are making a lot of assumptions about me lately that just aren’t true, like the abortion point
    Apologies – I’d said earlier this was conservative policy, not necessarily yours, but I did slip on the last set. My bad. I apologise.

  50. Splatterbottom

    Jules I saw the video and couldn’t make out much about what was going on at all. I suspect that if anything serious had happened it would have been paraded before us by the lefty media.

    “What do you think an angry crowd is going to see”

    Angry crowds, like lynch mobs, are agents of irrationality and the individuals involved should be held accountable for their actions.

    “For a start the cops that lied about what happened at Duggin’s killing need to face charges for perverting the course of justice.”

    No doubt there will be an army of activists all over this. There will be an investigation and then we might find out exactly what happened to Starrish Mark.

  51. narcoticmusing

    SB – wordpress ate my reply, much of which was to you, but of all of it I wanted to ensure my apology got to you for linking anti-abortion to your ideals, I had meant conservative ideals. My apologies.

  52. “Angry crowds, like lynch mobs, are agents of irrationality and the individuals involved should be held accountable for their actions.”

    Thats not an answer to my question tho is it. As it is tho we have seen looters being brought before the courts, so individuals who aren’t police are being held to account for their actions. Its basically lying to suggest they aren’t. Based on the IPCCs record I’m not expecting the same level of accountability from people whose job should mean they are held to higher standards than the general public.

    Anyone who wants to make up their own mind about the event that started this should have a look at this footage:

    Its not the whole incident, but given how explosive the situation was its no wonder people seeing this footage assumed the worst.

  53. Splatterbottom

    Thanks Narcotic. I should point out that I don’t like abortion at all. But I do think the law should permit it, except for late term abortions where the baby is capable of survival. That may not meet your standards. We can save this argument for another day.

  54. Being a creature of balance, I can see both points and would like to see a solution that blends welfare and reinforces the transmission of positive ideas.

    Right, so you were just trolling with your first comment in this thread where you said “Funnily enough if you pay people not to work, they won’t work and you won’t reduce unemployment”. You believe in paying people not to work, making you one of the “welfare-mongers” you complained about.

    If you waste cops’ time with sensitivity training instead of teaching them how to wield a truncheon or to shoot straight they will have greater trouble dealing with the lumpenproletariat.

    Showing your authoritarian streak again, SB. Yes, more police violence would obviously solve this problem. That’s probably how positive ideas are reinforced, huh?

  55. Splatterbottom

    Jules I feel sorry the citizens killed and wounded by murderous selfish thugs, and those who had their property destroyed by greedy nihilists and for for the cops who have to be on the frontlines against maniacal scum. Somewhere down the track from that I might feel a little bit sorry for an angry mob, mainly that they choose to behave that way. Your solutions seem to be aimed at preserving the ‘right to revolt’ which seems to me like a recipe for more trouble.

    Buns: “Right, so you were just trolling with your first comment in this thread where you said “Funnily enough if you pay people not to work, they won’t work and you won’t reduce unemployment”. You believe in paying people not to work, making you one of the “welfare-mongers” you complained about.”

    Just trying to point out that there are costs as well as benefits with welfare. I’m not sure everybody prepared to look at both sides, so I highlighted another way of looking at it. Usually when you raise such questions you get bashed by a frothing leftist loon.

  56. “Jules I feel sorry the citizens killed and wounded by murderous selfish thugs, and those who had their property destroyed by greedy nihilists and for for the cops who have to be on the frontlines against maniacal scum.”

    So do I actually, and believe it or not I have family who I’m close to in the midlands where they may have been serious rioting who I haven’t been able to contact. (Tho I’m sure if something bad had happened I would have heard by now.) They are immigrants, Indians who have built businesses and put their kids thru uni. Exactly the small businesspeople with private property people who have been suffering throughout this unrest. Multiculturals actually, but they don’t deserve the arse.

    “When you cut facilities, slash jobs, abuse power, discriminate, drive people into deeper poverty and shoot people dead whilst refusing to provide answers or justice, the people will rise up and express their anger and frustration if you refuse to hear their cries. A riot is the language of the unheard”.- Martin Luther King

    You can’t argue with that. And you can’t argue that when people are socially excluded this is what happens. (Ok in the interests of free speech you can, you’d just be wrong.) You don’t have to like it. Its not a particularly likeable thing. But you can’t deny why these events happen unless you’re in denial. Its the same story every time.

    Tho I must say the escalation of these riots and the huge diversity of looters, including the white upper middle people from unbroken homes is odd. Looters and rioters are not the same thing tho some people may both loot and riot during a riot. They are two different behaviours.

    I don’t particularly feel sorry for the cops – many are racist scum and violent thugs themselves, and in the case of London cowards too. Their failure to act and repeated examples of standing back and not facing the ordinary people you call maniacal scum, despite that being their job, resulted on the escalation of these riots and the looting as much as anything.

    Its not like the Met deserve any sympathy, they have form for killing innocent people and racial profiling and they were involved in a non-state operated, privately funded, profit driven intelligence gathering operation that extended as far as tapping their own Queen’s phone. And there are serious questions about dereliction of duty, probably in response to funding cuts, coming from these riots.

    “Your solutions seem to be aimed at preserving the ‘right to revolt’ which seems to me like a recipe for more trouble.”

    The right to revolt led to the right to free speech, and it led to a society where its possible to speak freely, to call the country’s leader a liar to their face, when its not actually a fair or accurate comment, and still have no sanction other than peoples disapproval. Its the ultimate protection against the power of the state. If (or when) the protections we have built fail that’ll be all thats left.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s