what went wrong in the UK and how do they fix it

[russtafa]

The government and police fucked up with their socialist methods ,i know hippie and Trish will disagree with me and say the poor darlings need more welfare payments or the police are far to tough

[Stavros]

Russtafa what on earth are you talking about? There are cultural as well as political reasons for the transformation of the Police Force into a Police Service; there have been complaints for years about police tactics in deprived inner city neighbourhoods and whether or not heavy policing makes things better or worse; but there have also been serious efforts on all sides to transform high-crime areas through dialogue and cooperation. In some cases these have worked, but it is clear that the scale of problems among young people in particular is beyond what our welfare services and the police can cope with.

Part of this problem is unemployment, but if you have dysfunctional families where children grow up where alcohol abuse, drug abuse, verbal abuse and often sexual abuse is so common it is what the youngster also thinks is normal, they will probably be actually or functionally illiterate, they will have no self-esteem, will respond with violence or intimidation to the slightest remark, cannot focus on a single thing for more than five minutes, and thus have no credible job prospects.

In the old days restless young men with no particular skills could join the armed forces, or the merchant navy and sail around the world getting drunk, fighting their shipmates over card games, getting laid in every port between Southampton and Sydney. There were apprenticeships that enabled young working class men to become carpenters, electricians and so on; and there were jobs.

Capitalism has never stood still, it cannot -innovations and developments across the board have meant that places like the UK have a large population with too many idle, and unable to access the possession-rich social culture they see around them. If they can't buy it, they steal it. In the next 25 years the majority of the world's population will live in cities, people will grow up without a rich sense of the natural world, and cities will become more crowded: yes, they contain opportunities for work, for pleasure; but can the cities of the future be self-sustaining?

What, Russtafa do you do with a hard core of say 1,000 young people in the inner city -14 year old girls who are single mothers, with absent fathers, a drug habit, no social skills? Do you turn your back on them and hope they will become invisible and not part of the world you live in; do you try to reach out and help them understand who they are -a lot of these people have such low self-esteem they don't believe they will ever amount to anything- in the hope that some scheme will at least prevent them from harming themselves and others; or do you round them up and send them to whatever the latest version of the gas chamber is?

Welfare, in this context, has been too little, too late -the scale of the problem may only affect a few thousand in each city, but you are looking at people so damaged from the start, it takes several years to turn them into adults with self-respect: and then they have to find some kind of work. The choice again, is stark: if you do not believe in society, you cannot complain about looting -they are only doing what they want to do as individuals. This is the legacy of Thatcher's profound change -the growth of selfishness that 'empowered' individuals works across the board, from teenage drug dealers to Madoff, and the policemen selling the home addresses and telephone numbers of film stars and footballers to tabloid newspapers. You dont become a 'socialist' by osmosis if you live in society, and want to be part of a society that is caring, that nurtures talent and treats people with equal respect. But when you live in a 'place' where nobody cares about anyone else, I think it is inevitable that respect becomes a word rather than a process, and only ever applies to one person not everyone else. So when a semi-literate hoody demands respect from the person he is about to rob, it is a bitter irony -in truth, nobody respects other people anymore. The victim doesn't respect the mugger, the mugger doesn't respect the victim, cities become battlefields.

Not all of the looters here in the last five days have been deranged hoodies, some are just taking advantage of a lapse in security; others are professional thieves. They don't need welfare -but the ones who do, the ones who are more likely to stab someone to death for no reason, who harm themelves more than other people, what do you do with them? Welfare is there to protect us from them in their dangerous state, but also to help them come to terms with who they are and change; the cost is high and the service is poor -prison costs even more and achieves less. There will be fewer and fewer jobs in the short to medium term, I don't even know if there will be enough of an economic revival here to relieve the problem of unemployment in the longer term, which makes it all the more important to intervene and help people at least understand what it means to value their own lives as well as lives in general.

But if you dont care then say so, but if you don't care, at least accept that is what 'they' also think.

[Dino Velvet]

Isn't the UK reaching out to us for SWAT and Riot Training now? Not a bad idea and we are happy to help if we can.

[trish]

Sorry to disappoint you russtafa, but the poor are rarely darling. But that doesn't mean they aren't a social and economic problem that requires an expenditure of attention and money. Whether you napalm them (as you've suggested in other contexts), implement social programs or do nothing, it will cost you in money or effort or both. Depending on what you do, it may cost you your self-respect. I suspect that's no danger for you even though your motto is "live with honor." The question is, "What 'solution' will bring everyone closer to a tolerable way of life?"

[russtafa]

i thought they were flooded with social programs.i would give them a social program it's called a hollow point

[Dino Velvet]

Sorry to disappoint you russtafa, but the poor are rarely darling. But that doesn't mean they aren't a social and economic problem that requires an expenditure of attention and money. Whether you napalm them (as you've suggested in other contexts), implement social programs or do nothing, it will cost you in money or effort or both. Depending on what you do, it may cost you your self-respect. I suspect that's no danger for you even though your motto is "live with honor." The question is, "What 'solution' will bring everyone closer to a tolerable way of life?"

Trish, do you believe everyone is salvageable in society? I'm sure they have their own personal story that provides some explanation of why they are where they are. But, do you forgive them and send them back to live off the decent or separate them from society and incarcerate them? There is no magic pill to solve this. The fairest possible solution will still leave many angry. It's not that I'm such a sadist with criminals. I have empathy toward the good and feel they should be able to sleep in peace.

I am also aware of the prison overcrowding but you can't house the bad among the good.

[trish]

Trish, do you believe everyone is salvageable in society?No. But I don't believe there are entire neighborhoods in which everyone is unsalvageable.

But, do you forgive them and send them back to live off the decent or separate them from society and incarcerate them?I'm not sure who you're talking about here. Everybody lives off descent people. No one these days lives in the woods all by themselves eating squirrels and berries that they collected themselves. Even those pioneers that did, lived in the commons. The question is, what do we do with those who damage others either for laughs, to survive or for personal profit? Sometimes we forgive them, sometimes we don't. But those who commit crimes because the avenues to survival are few and far between, imo, deserve a better chance.

There is no magic pill to solve this.Again, we're both speaking in generalities, but I agree. In general, I don't believe in magic.

The fairest possible solution will still leave many angry.It's always sad when the FAIREST possible solutions anger people. But the removal of unfair advantages will almost always anger the exploiters.

I have empathy toward the good and feel they should be able to sleep in peace.I do too, in-so-far as "the good" (what-ever that means and whoever they are) form a subset of all people who should be able to sleep in peace.

I am also aware of the prison overcrowding but you can't house the bad among the good. If by "bad" you mean those who aren't "salvageable" (what-ever that means) I think I agree. If by "bad" who include the salvageable who have committed crimes in the past, yes they can live among the good. That's the whole point of the justice system. Once the guilty have done their time, or paid their fine, or did their public service etc. they are free to move about and live among the rest of us. Nothing wrong with that. I think if we have any disagreement at all it's on the relative numbers of criminals who are unsalvageable. Charles Manson is unsalvageable. Jack Abramoff can probably be trusted to live among ordinary people, though you should probably not trust him with your finances.

[trish]

i thought they were flooded with social programs.i would give them a social program it's called a hollow pointWhen Alexander failed to undo the Gordian Knot he hacked it two. Zeus was actually pleased with that solution to an otherwise complex puzzle. But then by most accounts Zeus was an asshole.

[JamesHunt]

Its all relative.

We should have an exchange program with the poorest countries in the world. We send our assholes over there, and pay their governments a percentage of the benefits they would of got here, in exchange for their citizens who are making the effort, but can't get a visa.

Give them this ultimatum, and they'd immediately start behaving themselves.

[Dino Velvet]

Trish, I will use you as a perfect example. You are a good person. I admire anyone who is a person of peace. I might disagree with you at times but I would always listen.

There was no "code" in anything I said. A society who enables the violent to run over the peaceful might as well be holding the bat themselves.

I would want to protect people like you. I care more about your welfare that someone with a violent criminal record a mile long. If anyone touched you or violated the sovereignty of your home I would punish them severely.

Some people aren't salvageable. The "good" are people like you. The "bad" are the ones you look over your shoulder at while you try to get in your house. Pluck them out of the neighborhood so you can save it.

I realize this is a very difficult process but at least my priorities are in order.

[trish]

Being unable to find legitimate means to transition and put myself through undergraduate school, I resorted to criminal activity. Activities which I would claim harmed neither myself nor my clients. But many people (even in these boards) don't see it that way. Good and bad are not very helpful concepts when thinking through these problems. (I was able to make my way through grad school without engaging in "extracurricular" activity and today I do just fine on just my day job).

I don't condone assholes who vandalize and loot for a hoot. Nor do I condone assholes who are addicted to wealth and need more and more of it no matter who they hurt, what wars they fuel or even if they destroy the fucking planet. I do have sympathy for people who are driven to crime by the circumstances of their life and their need to survive in it.

BTW, Like every TG, I've taken care of myself in many a scary situations, but thanks for the offer.

[Ben]

The government and police fucked up with their socialist methods ,i know hippie and Trish will disagree with me and say the poor darlings need more welfare payments or the police are far to tough

Here's a radical solution: cut ALL government spending. Have a TOTAL free market. Meaning: privatize everything &/or no, absolutely no State intervention... and let's see how things go -- ha ha ha!
Just joking. But a lot of people would want a private police force. Ya know, why should the rich pay for patrolling those poor neighborhoods. Ya know, why should I care.
And, too, private health care. Ya know, who cares about anyone else's health. Same with the Fire Department. And: Private schools. Well, why should I pay to educate someone else's kid.
I think this is what will happen in the not-too-distant future: government will simply privatize everything. That's what the right wants. I mean, everything private. Police. Schools... etc etc....

[robertlouis]

Interesting debate on Question Time on the BBC last night, which focused on the role of the police and their relationships with both government and the public.

Consensus seemed to be that the police were feeling their way when the rioting started, and have since been criticised for their initially relatively passive stance. In light of previous events, such as the G20 protests in 2009, where an entirely uninvolved man died after the action of one policeman, they have been hesitant in taking any form of aggressive action against demonstrators or protesters.

Now, granted that this week's events were riots, pure and simple, and not political demonstrations, it might have seemed that a hard response from the outset was what was required, but it didn't happen, giving the rioters and those watching on television the realisation that they could have a go too. That led to the awful scenes elsewhere in the capital on Sunday and Monday.

By the time that the rioting had spread to Manchester and other cities on Tuesday, the police were better prepared and in much larger numbers - yes, not enough to prevent widespread looting, but more in control nevertheless.

On Wednesday, the police were back on the front foot and the rioting was smaller in scale, duration and effect.

What's interesting now is the visible disbelief of those charged and the relatively severe sentences that they are being handed; in a social group which insists on entitlements but does not understand the corollary of responsibility, it's a big moment.

Long-term effect? Too early to say, but the police have to go to the utmost lengths to arrest every single rioter if at all possible and ensure that the appropriate punishment is handed out. Little evidence so far that the courts are being lenient.

[Dino Velvet]

Being unable to find legitimate means to transition and put myself through undergraduate school, I resorted to criminal activity. Activities which I would claim harmed neither myself nor my clients. But many people (even in these boards) don't see it that way. Good and bad are not very helpful concepts when thinking through these problems. (I was able to make my way through grad school without engaging in "extracurricular" activity and today I do just fine on just my day job).

I don't condone assholes who vandalize and loot for a hoot. Nor do I condone assholes who are addicted to wealth and need more and more of it no matter who they hurt, what wars they fuel or even if they destroy the fucking planet. I do have sympathy for people who are driven to crime by the circumstances of their life and their need to survive in it.

BTW, Like every TG, I've taken care of myself in many a scary situations, but thanks for the offer.

You are not violent. Violence is bad. Violence would be punished. Escorting and stripping is not an act of violence. As long as you choose peace you would be safe. Why do you make it so hard to ensure your own safety? If putting folks in cages make you sleep better and safer at night, so be it. You are my concern. Your tough life decisions never led you to murder or mayhem.

[robertlouis]

I suppose it's ok to make the point that the bankers and others involved in the global and national financial system also fail to conform to accepted standards of social behaviour and morality. They may not actually go out in hoodies and cause riots, but their fucking over of every man, woman and child on the planet in their relentless pursuit of personal wealth without any moral sense, limit or hindrance has done infinitely greater damage than four days and nights of rioting and looting.

And the bastards are totally untouchable.

Just sayin'

[Dino Velvet]

I suppose it's ok to make the point that the bankers and others involved in the global and national financial system also fail to conform to accepted standards of social behaviour and morality. They may not actually go out in hoodies and cause riots, but their fucking over of every man, woman and child on the planet in their relentless pursuit of personal wealth without any moral sense, limit or hindrance has done infinitely greater damage than four days and nights of rioting and looting.

And the bastards are totally untouchable.

Just sayin'

I can't comment on this. My degree is in Administration Of Justice and I know I don't understand your unique legal system or how your neighborhoods operate. I like your country and don't want folks to have to cower in their flats at night. You guys are worth fighting for because most of you are decent and civilized.

[robertlouis]

Being unable to find legitimate means to transition and put myself through undergraduate school, I resorted to criminal activity. Activities which I would claim harmed neither myself nor my clients. But many people (even in these boards) don't see it that way. Good and bad are not very helpful concepts when thinking through these problems. (I was able to make my way through grad school without engaging in "extracurricular" activity and today I do just fine on just my day job).

I don't condone assholes who vandalize and loot for a hoot. Nor do I condone assholes who are addicted to wealth and need more and more of it no matter who they hurt, what wars they fuel or even if they destroy the fucking planet. I do have sympathy for people who are driven to crime by the circumstances of their life and their need to survive in it.

BTW, Like every TG, I've taken care of myself in many a scary situations, but thanks for the offer.

I've admired your intellect and your principles since I first joined HA, Trish. This post makes me admire you all the more as a person too.

[Dino Velvet]

I've admired your intellect and your principles since I first joined HA, Trish. This post makes me admire you all the more as a person too.

I've found her to be good sometimes because of our differences. I like people that think differently. Trish is a good gal for sure. I've harassed her plenty so she knows.:fuckin:

[Stavros]

I'm sure they have their own personal story that provides some explanation of why they are where they are. But, do you forgive them and send them back to live off the decent or separate them from society and incarcerate them?

For me Dino makes this is absolutely key point, because with the worst individuals, the ones who rammed a car against three young men and killed them; the person or persons who killed a man remonstrating with them for setting a dustbin alight; and the youths who first stole a bicycle from a Malaysian student, then broke his jaw, and then the others who robbed him while 'helping' him to his feet -with people like this for whom life and property has no value, do you use some kind of state-sponsored, ie welfare programme to help them adjust, or do you lock them up and throw the key away?

The hardest thing about it, if you dig deep into the most severe cases but which probably applies to many others, is that what is most absent in their lives, since they were babies, is love. Rehabilitation, it seems, must begin with the heart, many of these people need to love themselves before they can relate to anyone else and understand how beautiful it can be to be alive. It is not a lot to ask, but probably too much to ask, that people realise that it is love that is absent from these lives that were wrecked before they were 7 years old; and then find a way of bringing them to it. Either it is worth something to society to make an effort to reach them; or, as I say, you throw them away. Some will never change, and I guess they die young or spend most of their adult life in prison; but if you can save a few, show them a different way of living, isn't that worth something morally, as well as being a better way of spending tax-payer's money?

[robertlouis]

I'm sure they have their own personal story that provides some explanation of why they are where they are. But, do you forgive them and send them back to live off the decent or separate them from society and incarcerate them?

For me Dino makes this is absolutely key point, because with the worst individuals, the ones who rammed a car against three young men and killed them; the person or persons who killed a man remonstrating with them for setting a dustbin alight; and the youths who first stole a bicycle from a Malaysian student, then broke his jaw, and then the others who robbed him while 'helping' him to his feet -with people like this for whom life and property has no value, do you use some kind of state-sponsored, ie welfare programme to help them adjust, or do you lock them up and throw the key away?

The hardest thing about it, if you dig deep into the most severe cases but which probably applies to many others, is that what is most absent in their lives, since they were babies, is love. Rehabilitation, it seems, must begin with the heart, many of these people need to love themselves before they can relate to anyone else and understand how beautiful it can be to be alive. It is not a lot to ask, but probably too much to ask, that people realise that it is love that is absent from these lives that were wrecked before they were 7 years old; and then find a way of bringing them to it. Either it is worth something to society to make an effort to reach them; or, as I say, you throw them away. Some will never change, and I guess they die young or spend most of their adult life in prison; but if you can save a few, show them a different way of living, isn't that worth something morally, as well as being a better way of spending tax-payer's money?

Excellent analysis, Stavros, but there's little time being spent reflecting or examining the situation right now. The public thirst is for revenge, and the politicians are unanimously, up to a point, in the mood to give it to them.

And after so many years and lost generations, just where do you start?

[Dino Velvet]

I'm sure they have their own personal story that provides some explanation of why they are where they are. But, do you forgive them and send them back to live off the decent or separate them from society and incarcerate them?

For me Dino makes this is absolutely key point, because with the worst individuals, the ones who rammed a car against three young men and killed them; the person or persons who killed a man remonstrating with them for setting a dustbin alight; and the youths who first stole a bicycle from a Malaysian student, then broke his jaw, and then the others who robbed him while 'helping' him to his feet -with people like this for whom life and property has no value, do you use some kind of state-sponsored, ie welfare programme to help them adjust, or do you lock them up and throw the key away?

The hardest thing about it, if you dig deep into the most severe cases but which probably applies to many others, is that what is most absent in their lives, since they were babies, is love. Rehabilitation, it seems, must begin with the heart, many of these people need to love themselves before they can relate to anyone else and understand how beautiful it can be to be alive. It is not a lot to ask, but probably too much to ask, that people realise that it is love that is absent from these lives that were wrecked before they were 7 years old; and then find a way of bringing them to it. Either it is worth something to society to make an effort to reach them; or, as I say, you throw them away. Some will never change, and I guess they die young or spend most of their adult life in prison; but if you can save a few, show them a different way of living, isn't that worth something morally, as well as being a better way of spending tax-payer's money?

I'll save those whom I can once I've protected you. I'm familiar with your way of thinking. It's very commendable. In this country we have babies making babies. I'm one Conservative that is definitely pro-Choice. You get generation after generation of crap and no one or anything is sacred anymore. I'd love to rehabilitate people but those that are complete losses must be punished and separated from polite society. You have rights too. I'll fight for you even if you fight me while I'm doing it. Neither one of us is bad here.

[russtafa]

next time the plod's should not be such a bunch p.c wimps and this sort of thing wont happen .i know it's not the plod's fault it's their political do gooding masters

[Dino Velvet]

next time the plod's should not be such a bunch p.c wimps and this sort of thing wont happen .i know it's not the plod's fault it's their political do gooding masters

Russ, these guys are our friends too. I might be disappointed with the system but I'd spill blood for the people. They would do it for me. The Israelis might be our allies but Great Britain is our best friend.

[trish]

I've admired your intellect and your principles since I first joined HA, Trish. This post makes me admire you all the more as a person too.
Nice of you to say so. I must confess that since you, Stavros and Prospero have joined up I've been dissatisfied with my inability at times to maintain my cool and with my tendency to respond to trolls. But thanks for the morale boost and the good example.

And thanks Dino for insisting I'm a good woman, whatever good means. I'm only trying to live up to your expectations. :)

[robertlouis]

Nice of you to say so. I must confess that since you, Stavros and Prospero have joined up I've been dissatisfied with my inability at times to maintain my cool and with my tendency to respond to trolls. But thanks for the morale boost and the good example.

And thanks Dino for insisting I'm a good woman, whatever good means. I'm only trying to live up to your expectations. :)

We'd better put a rapid stop to this being nice to each other schtick, Trish. I mean, this is the Politics and Religion section after all! :)

I try to ignore the trolls, but I will call anyone out for being crass, discourteous or just plain nasty.

And sincere congratulations for everything that you've come through - I have good friends here in the UK that I've known before, through and since transition, and my respect and admiration for you and your sisters knows no bounds.

[Dino Velvet]

And thanks Dino for insisting I'm a good woman, whatever good means. I'm only trying to live up to your expectations. :)

Geez Louise, lady. Take a compliment why don't 'ya. That's the way it was intended. I might sexually harass you but I've never been mean to you.

Now it's time to bend you over your soapbox.:fuckin:

[russtafa]

:praying:the political masters of Britain either left or right need to be bent over for a very hard shafting with a fucking machine with chilli on the end

[robertlouis]

:praying:the political masters of Britain either left or right need to be bent over for a very hard shafting with a fucking machine with chilli on the end

:confused: What exactly brings you to that conclusion Russ?

[russtafa]

because they have rooted the UK with their self serving politics just like the ones in Aussie

[robertlouis]

because they have rooted the UK with their self serving politics just like the ones in Aussie

If you mean they've benefited from the expenses scandal and therefore lost any right to preach to the rest of us about criminality, you're spot on mate! :)

I guess that's more or less exactly the point that the blogger was making in Ben's David Cameron thread.

[russtafa]

they have done a lot more than that the self serving bastards .these bastards look after each other either ethnic,union,big business

[Stavros]

The last few years have seen the people 'at the top' exposed in ways that were previously limited to 'errant individuals' -the expenses scandal has been followed by the phone hacking scandal against a background of economic decline which was partly caused by the Treasury looking the other way while the foundations were eaten away by credit. It makes people wonder if politicians and the police are so focused on their own little world the rest of us are just there to vote them into office, and obey their rules. But that doesn't invalidate the law, so even if much of the looting was both organised and a spontaneous expression of anomie with 'the state', it was wrong, when it involves destruction for the sake of it, and now murder, there is a point at which if it isn't stopped, it will never stop.

Its not about 'where do we start' -because its always been here: lawlessness -Cain killed Abel, unable to express his frustration and, being a farmer of crops, lacking an animal to sacrifice to vent his rage. So he killed his brother, who had what he lacked; but in doing so, lost more. The sad truth is that for the most part, young men between the ages of 16-35 are most likely to be convicted of a crime. I know that when I was 16 I wanted to leave home -I had already left school and was working; I know that when I did leave home, at 18, it was an opportunity to experiment -to smoke dope, get blind drunk on a Saturday night, eat greasy kebabs on the way home from the pub -and so on. I did break the law also, not out of necessity, but to see if it could be done; and because of my upbringing I still feel guilty about it even though it was the petty side of petty. Its like driving through a red light in a remote area at 2am when you can see the roads are clear -it is illegal, and yet...

Young men used to have channels into which they could pour their dynamism and energy -the merchant navy, the military, jobs above all: there were always a hard core of erratic people for whom crime was a vocation, even a family businesss and, famously, they developed their own 'rules'.

Jobs: work: self-respect: to 're-build' society as a whole we need to put it to work; if there are people who cannot read and write, go back to zero and start again with the alphabet. The cost of it is enormous, the reward is probably smaller than the outlay in monetary terms, but worth it if people end up in work, able to buy their own food and pay the rent. The cost of not doing it is greate: the cost of prison, and the social cost of no-go areas, unchecked violence, and the sense of rage, injustice, and fear stalking the streets.

If people then perceive the top of society to be rotten, its an even more difficult task. I don't know if our current crop are up to it. And I don't see where the jobs are coming from, not in the UK anyway.

[russtafa]

i cant see why society does not put conditions to the dole .like working with the disabled or elderly.this would give these kids more of an awareness of the rest of society and that there are people worse off than themselves

[Stavros]

We have something called 'community service'; and some think it is a better option than prison for lesser crimes, ie not crimes of violence. One argument has been that the looters and rioters should be forced to do community service in the places where they committed the crime. I think most of the 'service' work is fixing fences and walls and repairing roads, stuff like that. Not sure how it would work if they were sent into care homes, but helping an old man on and off a commode would be a sobering experience for them, if they can manage it.

[russtafa]

these kids must be bought more into the greater community so they are apart of it.with a lot more respect for their elders and parents then perhaps they will then respect themselves

[hippifried]

Okay, I think I see what's happening now. Until today, I had no idea what started all this. Apparently, the catalyst was a police shooting? Nobody bothered to mention it because ... What? It's not relevant? The barrage of socio-psycho-babble has it's place in explaining the buildup of pressure, but the perception of violent police misconduct is the trigger for riots most of the time.

[robertlouis]

these kids must be bought more into the greater community so they are apart of it.with a lot more respect for their elders and parents then perhaps they will then respect themselves

Spot on, Russ. There was an article in yesterday's Guardian that made the point that so far the people doing the explaining about the riots were the same people writing the articles, and that at some stage it would make an awful lot of sense to ask those directly involved to explain what it was that made them part of the mob. Once the red mist of public anger has dissipated a little perhaps we'll find out.

[russtafa]

Okay, I think I see what's happening now. Until today, I had no idea what started all this. Apparently, the catalyst was a police shooting? Nobody bothered to mention it because ... What? It's not relevant? The barrage of socio-psycho-babble has it's place in explaining the buildup of pressure, but the perception of violent police misconduct is the trigger for riots most of the time.
hippi have another joint man like wow mannn

[robertlouis]

Okay, I think I see what's happening now. Until today, I had no idea what started all this. Apparently, the catalyst was a police shooting? Nobody bothered to mention it because ... What? It's not relevant? The barrage of socio-psycho-babble has it's place in explaining the buildup of pressure, but the perception of violent police misconduct is the trigger for riots most of the time.

That's correct, hippi. A black man was shot by police in Tottenham last Thursday. The police closed ranks, as they were immediately subject to an IPCC investigation, which of course fuelled community suspicions about a cover-up. The family and friends of the shot man organised a peaceful march on the Saturday through Tottenham. That was what got out of control and sparked the initial rioting in Tottenham, which then spread on subsequent nights to other suburbs such as Enfield, Croydon and Ealing. By that time, any notion of protest had long gone, and they were simply copy-cat excuses for firebombing, looting and wrecking communities across the capital and in due course across the country.

It's also worth pointing out that all the London rioting happened well away from the west end and the city, the traditional centres of London, whereas in Birmingham, Manchester, Salford etc, it was the main centres that got hit.

It's worth hypothesising that if the original rioters in Tottenham had stuck to their initial attacks on the police and not moved on to wrecking and looting shops, perhaps the other riots would not have taken place at all.

[hippifried]

There's a lot of neighborhoods around the world where the police are viewed as 'just another gang'. If memory serves, wasn't it some kind of police altercation that set off the riots in France a few years back? With all the yammering at the time about "multiculturism" & Islam being at fault for burning down the Muslim ghettos, my only question was: "Why are there Muslim ghettos?" I never got an answer. We see this from time to time in the States. The whole world saw the Rodney King related insanity, but in that case we also got to see the initial trigger incident. To the people who live there, the only thing new was that the incident got caught on tape. There were 2 more major outbreaks after that. The dates & details escape me, but Miami burned for a few days over an incident. There may have been some aftershocks too, over the course of several weeks, but I'm a bit hazy & not in a research mode or mood. Then Cincinatti erupted, over & over for a few months. That got really bad. I believe the Cincinatti PD got gutted over that.

The trigger is almost irrelevant. it's just one of a multitude of instances over time. The proverbial "straw that broke the camel's back". There's a lot of outlooks that need to change all through the social spectrum before this is going to get any better.

[russtafa]

i "think"the guy that was shot was very well known to the plods and i think he was armed and the operation went pear shaped and all the wankers went rioting as they do.correct me if i'm wrong?

[Stavros]

Okay, I think I see what's happening now. Until today, I had no idea what started all this. Apparently, the catalyst was a police shooting? Nobody bothered to mention it because ... What? It's not relevant? The barrage of socio-psycho-babble has it's place in explaining the buildup of pressure, but the perception of violent police misconduct is the trigger for riots most of the time.

As RobertLouis has pointed out, a man called Mark Duggan had been arrested in Tottenham, and then shot dead. At the time we told lies in the same way that we were lied to by the police when Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian was shot dead on the London underground shortly after the bombings in 2007.

Mark Duggan left home with a gun in a sock, in other words he had it on him, and if he was arrested soon after leaving home, it suggests there had been a tip-off, or he was under surveillance. But the gun was concealed, and there is now no evidence that in the police car he managed to get it out, release the safety catch and fire. However -or so we are told- in a verbal altercation with one of the coppers he did click his fingers together in a mock trigger action, whereupon he was shot dead. His wife claims her ex-husband is a 'good man', a 'good father' and so on.

So far I think only one paper has pointed out Duggan's ('White') mother is the sister of the late head of a notorious Manchester crime family called Desmond Noonan -Duggan's uncle was shot dead in a gangland feud over drugs in the 1990s. Mark Duggan used to travel to Manchester to baby-sit for his uncle. When the looting was filmed in Manchester, Desmond's younger brother was filmed chatting to looters holding stolen goods and appearing to wave them in a certain direction. The shooting raises the most obvious question: why shoot a man dead when he is already in custody? Why was Duggan in possession of a gun? The man himself, Duggan, may not have been a saint, and the links to the Noonans and the looting in Manchester is probably concidental (Dessie Noonan claimed they ran Manchester, that they were bigger there than the police), but as we are all innocent until proven guilty Duggan also had rights.

It is actually more depressing than most people think -Tottenham was in a bad state in the 1980s when Broadwater Farm exploded following the death of a middle-aged black woman after her home was raided by the police on mistaken information. Tremendous efforts were made to repair police-community relations, and over the years most people thought that the worst of it was over. If Duggan was a petty crook or drug dealer or just a nice dad without a job, it suggests that the fundamental problem remains: what to do with young men who don't have a job or don't fit into 'boring', 'normal' jobs? Welfare can only go so far to bandage a wound; the fundamentals have not changed.

[russtafa]

back in the late eighties the cops used to wait for the crims to rob banks,7 elevens and shoot them this dropped the crime rate by 70 per cent but it was found that the cops were shooting the crims without them drawing their guns.this squad was disbanded= business as usual and crime went back to normal levels

[Stavros]

But then of course the Melbourne police have never, as it were, found themselves on the other side of the line taking dollars from the Morans or whoever else is runnign the show down there...

[russtafa]

i don't know but the squad that killed so many bank robbers was disbanded

[russtafa]

it's all a game police and thieves and courts to make money at the expense of ordinary people

[trish]

i don't know but the squad that killed so many bank robbers was disbandedYou told us why. They killed suspects before there was a threat of violence. Disbanded=fewer murders committed in your name.

[russtafa]

bank robberies back to higher levels and the ordinary people suffer

[hippifried]

If there's so many bank robberies in one city that quantitative changes are immediately noticable by the general public, then there's a much bigger problem than bank robberies.

Maybe it's time to take a closer look at caste segregation in the eurocentric world.

[russtafa]

If there's so many bank robberies in one city that quantitative changes are immediately noticable by the general public, then there's a much bigger problem than bank robberies.

Maybe it's time to take a closer look at caste segregation in the eurocentric world.
wow stone the crows sport, that':shock:s so deep and meaning full ,it's got me fucked what you said

[arnie666]

England riots: The whites have become black says David Starkey - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2_6ggJf3ns&feature=player_embedded)

Sir David Starkey has an interesting perspective,which of course is being shouted down by the delusional on the left. Putting words in his mouth, deliberately misinterpreting what he said , evening calling him racist. It is funny and sad at the same time, that the left in the UK call those who think certain subjects are stifled in the media delusional and conspiracy theorists ,when we see the reaction to starkeys actually quite tame comments.

If anything , Starkey was insulting those whites who emulate a subculture in the black community, and I have heard many black people mock them.Just for background starkey is a history held in high regard who has written these books

This Land of England (1985) (with David Souden)
The Reign of Henry VIII: Personalities and Politics (1986)
Revolution Reassessed: Revisions in the History of Tudor Government and Administration (1986) (Editor with Christopher Coleman)
The English Court from the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War (1987)
Rivals in Power: the Lives and Letters of the Great Tudor Dynasties (1990)
Henry VIII: A European Court in England (1991)
The Inventory of Henry VIII: The Transcript, Volume 1 (1998) (with Philip Ward and Alistair Hawkyard)
Elizabeth: Apprenticeship (2000) (published in North America as Elizabeth: The struggle for the throne)
The Stuart Courts - Foreword (2000) (Edited by Eveline Cruickshanks)
The Inventory of Henry VIII: Essays and Illustrations, Volume 2, (2002) (with Philip Ward and Alistair Hawkyard)
The Inventory of Henry VIII: Essays and Illustrations, Volume 3, (2002) (with Philip Ward and Alistair Hawkyard)
The Six Wives: The Queens of Henry VIII (2003)
Elizabeth I: The Exhibition Catalogue (2003)
The Books of King Henry VIII and His Wives - Introduction and Preface (2004) (James P. Carley)
The Monarchy of England: The Beginnings (2004)
Monarchy: From the Middle Ages to Modernity (2006)
Making History: Antiquaries in Britain, 1707-2007 - Introduction (2007) (Edited by Sarah McCarthy, Bernard Nurse, and David Gaimster)
Henry: Virtuous Prince (2008)
Introduction to Henry VIII; Man & Monarch (Susan Doran, ed. published by the British Library, 2009)
Crown and Country (Harper Press, 2010)
Introduction to Fatal Colours: Towton 1461 - England's Most Brutal Battle by George Goodwin (2011)

and produced these tv series for the BBC

enry VIII (1998, revised 2001)
Elizabeth (2000)
The Six Wives of Henry VIII (2001)
Edward and Mary: The Unknown Tudors (2002)
David Starkey: Reinventing the Royals (2002)
Monarchy by David Starkey (2004–2007)
The Tudors (2007–2010) technical advisor
Henry VIII: The Mind of a Tyrant (2009)
Kate and William: Romance and the Royals (2011)

His career might well not be over ,as some are saying because he happens to be openly Gay , he might get some slack from the liberal establishment.

[russtafa]

he might breez thru but the politically correct brigade are very tough

[Stavros]

Arnie, Starkey has a handle on plain, narrative history, mostly of the establishment, and to some extent he is good at it. But publishing a lot of books doesn't give him any elevated position, his interpretation of English history is narrative driven, and aimed at a non-intellectual audience for whom themes and structures would be too hard to comprehend. Yes, he can tell a story, but outside of history, he is an old-fashioned English conservative who, when provoked (as he was on the tv) reveals his ignorance of contemporary slang -most of which is American not Jamaican patois. I used to work with some Jamaicans and don't recognise their patois in contemporary slang, but when it comes to things like 'fed' for the police, for example, caps on backwards, silly 'gangsta' finger-salutes, hoods and baggy trousers -its all American. You might want to ask why someone with such a rich knowledge of English history seems ignorant (deliberatetly so) of the history of the English riot. When the Bishop's Palace in Bristol was burned to the ground in 1831 where were the 'blacks'? Or indeed, any minority. Again, Starkey offers no historical or contemporary view on the gap between rich and poor, the complex, if threatening sub-cultures of the poor, the criminal underworld, immigrant communities.

He just came across as another frustrated Tory who articulates his rage by denigrating people he doesn't understand. However, I think his career on tv may be over, but thats probably because he has run out of things to say. Unfortunately for him, I had the experience of lecturers in history far superior to him, but they never made it to the tv. Also, some historians who are brilliant in print, make terrible presenters on tv, and vice versa: EP Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class is a classic in its field, but he was a useless lecturer and public speaker, no notes, rambling all over the place. Niall Ferguson, by contrast, is a smooth operator on tv, but his tv history -viz Civilisation- is risible in its historical inaccuracies and shameless bias. And so on. I think its time to get over the looting, and focus on the severe discrepancy in wealth between the top and bottom and, increasingly, the 'squeezed middle' of people in work but earning less than £50,000 a year. That's where the real narrative is.

[russtafa]

Arnie, Starkey has a handle on plain, narrative history, mostly of the establishment, and to some extent he is good at it. But publishing a lot of books doesn't give him any elevated position, his interpretation of English history is narrative driven, and aimed at a non-intellectual audience for whom themes and structures would be too hard to comprehend. Yes, he can tell a story, but outside of history, he is an old-fashioned English conservative who, when provoked (as he was on the tv) reveals his ignorance of contemporary slang -most of which is American not Jamaican patois. I used to work with some Jamaicans and don't recognise their patois in contemporary slang, but when it comes to things like 'fed' for the police, for example, caps on backwards, silly 'gangsta' finger-salutes, hoods and baggy trousers -its all American. You might want to ask why someone with such a rich knowledge of English history seems ignorant (deliberatetly so) of the history of the English riot. When the Bishop's Palace in Bristol was burned to the ground in 1831 where were the 'blacks'? Or indeed, any minority. Again, Starkey offers no historical or contemporary view on the gap between rich and poor, the complex, if threatening sub-cultures of the poor, the criminal underworld, immigrant communities.

He just came across as another frustrated Tory who articulates his rage by denigrating people he doesn't understand. However, I think his career on tv may be over, but thats probably because he has run out of things to say. Unfortunately for him, I had the experience of lecturers in history far superior to him, but they never made it to the tv. Also, some historians who are brilliant in print, make terrible presenters on tv, and vice versa: EP Thompson's The Making of the English Working Class is a classic in its field, but he was a useless lecturer and public speaker, no notes, rambling all over the place. Niall Ferguson, by contrast, is a smooth operator on tv, but his tv history -viz Civilisation- is risible in its historical inaccuracies and shameless bias. And so on. I think its time to get over the looting, and focus on the severe discrepancy in wealth between the top and bottom and, increasingly, the 'squeezed middle' of people in work but earning less than £50,000 a year. That's where the real narrative is.

see what i mean.It's about crime and that's it nothing else .if i was young in the UK and knew i could get away theft it would be very tempting to grab a new flat screen and that's what it was all about

[Stavros]

Yes, the looting itself was a straightforward smash and grab campaign; but there were also two major stores that were burned to the ground with people living in apartments above them so in a few cases, plus the individuals who were attacked and died, it was more serious than just looting. The problem is that once you link crime and politics you get into difficult areas: the policy on crime, and then the links between crime and politicians. As it was put in The Wire: follow the drugs and you end up in the projects; follow the money and you end up in City Hall....

[russtafa]

:screwywhat about the dole office? apparently a book store was in the middle of a block of shops and it was left untouched and how come in a lot of countries this teen crime does not happen should we send psychologist's to the middle east or India,Ethiopia,or Asia and tell them it should lol.You kids third world countries should riot

[Yvonne183]

How to fix it????? Well the UK riots were quite large, not very easy to cover up. But for those small wilding/flash mob type riots just do as they do in Baltimore, don't report about it. Just make sure your local papers cover up any wrong doing and no one will know it ever happened. That's what the Baltimore Sun does, it doesn't print on unruly mobs, unless they absolutely have too.

[Stavros]

But for those small wilding/flash mob type riots just do as they do in Baltimore

We have something occasional here called 'steaming',where a small group of about five youths will burst through an underground carriage grabbing everything they can: bags, necklaces, mobile phones: they do it just as a train is pulling into a station so they can burst through and then out onto the platform and away. I have never been near it but then I don't live in London anyway.

Yvonne, I was put off Baltimore because of The Wire, or should I go visit next time I am in the USA?

[Yvonne183]

But for those small wilding/flash mob type riots just do as they do in Baltimore

We have something occasional here called 'steaming',where a small group of about five youths will burst through an underground carriage grabbing everything they can: bags, necklaces, mobile phones: they do it just as a train is pulling into a station so they can burst through and then out onto the platform and away. I have never been near it but then I don't live in London anyway.

Yvonne, I was put off Baltimore because of The Wire, or should I go visit next time I am in the USA?

Since I like you so much I'd say yes, you should most definitely visit Baltimore. lol

Don't get me wrong, there are good things about Baltimore but it's the bad that everyone remembers and it's the bad that brings harm or death.

West and East Baltimore are just like the Wire. It really really sucks there. And decent people who try and help with the police are murdered or their homes firebombed. There was a big campaign from the bad guys telling how they will kill snitches, they even made a video.

There was someone who was recently going to testify in court and this person was murdered before the trail, and the Key Stone Cops of Baltimore said they didn't think there was a link with the person murdered and the trial, ha. The police here are probably, well not probably but much more hapless as the London cops.

But if you visit Baltimore, the odds are you probably won't go into the really bad areas, maybe you can go to Pigtown, it's not too bad, it's safe enough to see despair and not get hurt, I use to live near there. Then again there isn't much to do or see in the bad areas, it's just decay and crime. Hell, there ain't much to do in other parts either,, baseball/football,, otherwise it's quite boring here. It's not like NYC, not much foot traffic on the streets at night, people get around in cars mostly.

[russtafa]

Since I like you so much I'd say yes, you should most definitely visit Baltimore. lol

Don't get me wrong, there are good things about Baltimore but it's the bad that everyone remembers and it's the bad that brings harm or death.

West and East Baltimore are just like the Wire. It really really sucks there. And decent people who try and help with the police are murdered or their homes firebombed. There was a big campaign from the bad guys telling how they will kill snitches, they even made a video.

There was someone who was recently going to testify in court and this person was murdered before the trail, and the Key Stone Cops of Baltimore said they didn't think there was a link with the person murdered and the trial, ha. The police here are probably, well not probably but much more hapless as the London cops.

But if you visit Baltimore, the odds are you probably won't go into the really bad areas, maybe you can go to Pigtown, it's not too bad, it's safe enough to see despair and not get hurt, I use to live near there. Then again there isn't much to do or see in the bad areas, it's just decay and crime. Hell, there ain't much to do in other parts either,, baseball/football,, otherwise it's quite boring here. It's not like NYC, not much foot traffic on the streets at night, people get around in cars mostly.
maybe if you told NATO that Gadafi was residing there they would bomb it lol

[sexyasianescorts]

Scrap giving people money benefits and opt for food stamps instead or a card that is fingerprint id for food so they cannot sell or swap it

They will soon get off backsides if they have no money to buy sky TV and dogs!!!

Chloe x

[Stavros]

They will soon get off backsides if they have no money to buy sky TV and dogs!!!

Yes, Chloe but what do you do about the people who make more money from the shadow economy such as dealing in drugs, stolen goods, illegal gambling, casual labour (not to mention prostitution...) not everyone who doesn't have a job wants to break the law, and many who can't get a job either cannot read or write or add up, or live in areas of high unemployment. Also, because many of the younger people live at home, with no relatives elsewhere, they have no incentive to move to another part of the country and find work it they can; if it was so easy to get a job, why are 1 in 4 people under the age of 25 unemployed?

The money made from class A and class B drugs is staggering, I just can't work out how the govt hasn't come up with a way of legalising drugs, regulating the distribution and raking in the tax benefits -quite apart from the decrease in petty crime that would follow. Lose the phoney morals about drugs and ok, something else would probably take its place, but not as extensive and rotten as the drugs trade. Nobody thinks outside the box anymore, thats why everyone, stuck inside of it, fights and squabbles. What a waste of resources!

[russtafa]

why not just follow Singapore they don't have a drug problem.that's thinking outside the box

[Stavros]

I understand your point Russtafa, but one of the reasons why it has become such a problem here is because of the users, as well as the suppliers. If enough people stopped shoving white powder up their nose the drug cartels and their wars in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras would be over -and if you look at the sources -Colombia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and supply routes like Turkey -not to mention Russia -these also have problems with users, Singapore, by contrast is a small place which has always made it easier to manage. It has also been known that completely innocent people will have drugs planted on them before the police arrive, so executing users and dealers could be, shall we say, drastic...if you car or your tv doesn't work, do you hit them with a sledgehammer?

[Dino Velvet]

Legalizing and taxing marijuana would bring some nice revenue. The weed store in Brentwood I go to is always busy with happy customers. I spend around $800 month on product with zero tax. Weed stores are everywhere out here. I even saw a billboard on Westwood/Santa Monica Bl yesterday for HashbarTV.

[Stavros]

The legalisation of drugs seems to send pepole into moral panic, in spite of the fact that at the same time they concede alcohol, tea and coffee are drugs, and that millions take medicine every day. It is probably if not certainly more contentious that same-sex unions -its the one issue most politicians run away from. And, like alcohol, I don't know that legalisation and taxing it would necessarily mean it would go out of fashion; some drugs will always be more popular than others.

[Dino Velvet]

The legalisation of drugs seems to send pepole into moral panic, in spite of the fact that at the same time they concede alcohol, tea and coffee are drugs, and that millions take medicine every day. It is probably if not certainly more contentious that same-sex unions -its the one issue most politicians run away from. And, like alcohol, I don't know that legalisation and taxing it would necessarily mean it would go out of fashion; some drugs will always be more popular than others.

I don't know about legalizing things like coke, meth, heroin, hallucinogens, and other hard drugs. Marijuana is an easy decision. Hell, a lot of old people who had huge moral reservations have learned the benefits of the drug. I worked years in night clubs. I never locked up with any potheads but I dragged plenty of drunks and tweekers out.

It's pretty much legal in California. I paid a $49 charge and talked to a doctor via Skype for 10 minutes and got a 1 year prescription for unlimited quantity. We don't have raving packs of insane pothead mass murderers out here. Many drunks this weekend will slap their wives around or worse.

[Stavros]

Dino you touch on a critical issue. I don't think people have much of a problem with marijuana, although there is a strain called skunk which alarms old timers who used to get high via Morocco and, dare I mention it, Afghanistan. Its the mind-altering and intensely addictive drugs that divide opinion. Cocaine and Heroin were of course legal for years and a case has been made for both with regard to their medicinal properties -paying Afghans to grow poppies for medicine while reducing the overall production so that some Afghans can grow food is one option, although the tomato doesn't get such a good reward as the poppy. Nevertheless, the absinthe once drunk in Paris was a brain-rotter but they dealt with that just as most people avoid bootleg booze even though that is also on sale here. Regulation would raise the quality, lower the price, but you could still make it harder to get heroin by getting users to jump through hoops first, and the tax revenue would be welcome. Critics argue that alcohol is a problem, the dilemma is that they tried to ban that once before and it made things worse. Its not an easy subject, but I think its possible to legalise these things without assuming everyone over the age of 18 is going to rush out and try it all. The worst of it for me is that politicians don't even want to debate it. Terrified of being stigmatized as 'liberal' or worse. But its damaging so many lives, every day; if it was a religion it would be news.

[russtafa]

If you legalise drugs i have no problem with it.But what about all the ice users that clog up the mental health system or junkies that demand support from the health system

[Stavros]

At some point, the theory goes, the use of the more extreme drugs will decline, and the social costs with it; whereas the social costs of tobaccosis and alcoholism are considerable - there has been a debate for years about the success rate of the transitioning strategies which aim to get hard users off by giving them the stuff but in increasingly smaller proportions while they get therapy. You have to weight the social costs of crime against the costs of treatment.

[russtafa]

theory =mate theory cost's big money and lives ruined.i'm all for letting people go as long as they sign a waver to public health or protection from the results of their actions

[hippifried]

When you ban a substance that has any demand at all, you wash your hands of it & give up any hope of being able to control it.

Junkies & tweakers are already using despite any laws. I've seen no evidence that there's a chunk of the population who are just waiting for legalization so they can become junkies or tweakers. If the drugs are legalized, the risk factor goes away & the price drops. The profit margin on the black market is 100% every time it changes hands, & it changes hands a lot between manufacture & use. The price hike is exponential. The same people would be junkies & tweakers. The difference is that they would be able to maintain their habit with a menial job. They can function you know. Then we can focus on the assholes who are going to rob your house whether there's drugs involved or not.

[russtafa]

my missus has to deal with these dick heads when they are high or fucking up

[Stavros]

Russtafa, it sounds cynical to say no pain no gain, but at least if there was a strategy behind it people might give it a chance. I was burgled by a junkie couple a few years ago, incredibly they came back the next day for more. We couldn't get the dna from prints to send them to court, but they were in and out of the justice system anyway. My thoughts at the time were -here I am, opposed to NATO's campaign in Afghanistan, and someone who relies on the junk that makes it way from there via Pakistan and Turkey to the UK, robs me of my laptop and so on.

What is this madness? At the root, the junkie has to wake up one day and say I have had enough (Bubbles, in The Wire was my favourite character, the one person whose personal development changed profoundly as it was tracked across the entire series).

I used to work in a central London hospital where we had to deal with junkies on a regular basis. I remember one woman who came in for I think the fourth time in under a year, and died right there on the table -she was in her 30s, had silky blonde hair, and the most astonishing blue eyes -the rest of her body looked like creased paper. I never had much sentiment for people destroying their own lives, and even then we had schemes to help people get off the junk and make the transition to normal life. In spite of government cuts the schemes are still there, but since the 1970s the population of addicts has grown enormously. These people have real emotional problems, problems of personal identity and self-esteem, and its wrong that we should be victims of their need to score -but at the same time, we use our taxes to fund remedial options, but ultimately they have to make the move, whether its in prison, or voluntarily. Remove the programme and you make it worse for all.

[Ben]

Published on Monday, August 22, 2011 by the Guardian/UK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/22/uk-riots-economy-consumerism-values) Report: UK Riots Were Product of Consumerism

Analyst's report points to 'deeply flawed social ethos' and calls for a shift of emphasis 'from material to non-material values'

by Alex Hawkes

The recent riots in London and other big cities were the product of an "out-of-control consumerist ethos" which will have profound impacts for the UK economy, a leading City broker has said.
The report by Tullett Prebon warns: "The consumerist ethos, in which a materialist vision is both peddled and, for the vast majority, simultaneously ruled out by exclusion, has extremely damaging consequences, both social and economic."
The report, the firm's global head of research Tim Morgan, the report is part of a series one of in a series put out by in which the brokerage in which it analyses bigger issues for the UK. Last month, the broker Tullett Prebon issued a report on the UK's economic situation as part of Morgan's Project Armageddon.
The report details recommendations to resolve what it sees as a political and economic malaise: new role models, policies to encourage savings, the channeling of private investment into creating rather than inflating assets, and greater public investment.
"We conclude that the rioting reflects a deeply flawed economic and social ethos… recklessly borrowed consumption, the breakdown both of top-end accountability and of trust in institutions, and severe failings by governments over more than two decades."
The note pinpoints the philosophy behind the riots as consumerism, which is also "the underlying message of the advertising and marketing industries, and huge budgets are devoted to pushing a message which, updated from Déscartes, is: 'I buy, therefore I am' ".
A typical internet user sees a hundred adverts an hour, the report says, and the underlying message many receive is: "Here's the ideal. You can't have it." Accompanying this is an inflation of government and private debt, a key theme of Dr Morgan's other work.
"The economy has been subjected to repeated 'boom and bust' cycles, above all in property. The overall pattern has been that an over-consuming west has borrowed and spent the surpluses of the increasingly productive and under-consuming East.
"The dominant ethos of 'I buy, therefore I am' needs to be challenged by a shift of emphasis from material to non-material values. David Cameron's 'big society' project may contribute to the inculcation of more socially-oriented values, but much more will need to be done to challenge the out-of-control consumerist ethos.
"The government, too, needs to consume less, and invest more. Government spending has increased by more than 50% in real terms over the last decade, but public investment has languished. Saving needs to be encouraged, and private investment needs to be channeled into asset creation, not asset inflation."
Dr Morgan adds: "A young person who tries to become the next Alan Sugar or James Dyson is as likely to fall short as if he or she sets out to become the next global football star.
"But… failure to become the next Alan Sugar can still leave a person well equipped for a career in management, finance or accountancy. Failure to emulate James Dyson will leave the aspirant with useful engineering or technological skills."

© 2011 Guardian/UK

[russtafa]

government handing out money and no jobs and no respect for anything .it can only get worse

[Ben]

government handing out money and no jobs and no respect for anything .it can only get worse

I agree. Jobs, jobs, jobs.
The conservative economist Paul Craig Roberts said we have to stop offshoring jobs. Which is done to increase profits and boost CEO bonuses.
Adam Smith, over 200 yrs. ago, was concerned about the free movement of capital and the free import of goods. Saying it would harm England. But felt companies would have, what he called, a home bias. But we know that ain't true -- :)
Free capital movement (thanks in large part to Bill Clinton) has offshored millions of jobs to China. This has to stop. If we want a full recovery.
Corporations are not concerned with creating jobs. That's myth number 1. They're solely concerned, and this is mandated by law, to maximize profits and minimize costs. One of the biggest costs: High wages in America. So, well, ship those jobs to China.
So, it's good for corporate profits. But bad for American workers and the American economy.
Free movement of capital (and, too, guest workers) are harming the U.S. economy.
Guest workers are simply brought in (Microsoft is a big proponent of guest workers) to lower wages. Again, this hurts and harms the American workforce.

[Stavros]

Ben, Capitalism does not respect national boundaries -before China became the 'workshop of the world' jobs that used to be done in USA or the UK (shipbuilding, for example) went to South Korea, which has established itself as the world class producer or offshore oil rigs, note: a specialist type of heavy engineering. Who in 1960 would have believed that South Korea could make more than a matchbox?

When Adam Smith was writing The Wealth of Nations, he was at the cutting edge of industrial capitalism -he was fascinated by the way machinery transformed human labour; but money -money is like water, it flows, or it stagnates. The jobs lost to Asia are gone, finito, Kaput. You will not get them back. You have to create something new, which is why I keep saying: America, capital rich, brain rich, resource rich...the solution is right there, beneath your feet, in your head.

[russtafa]

capitalism without morals ruins countries .there must be strong government to rein them in or they will destroy society for their own ends

[Stavros]

capitalism without morals ruins countries

At the height of Margaret Thatcher's popularity in the second half of the 1980s there was a fierce debate about this following a critical report by Church of England Bishops -one Thatcherite called Brian Griffiths even wrote a riposte called Monetarism and Morality: A Reply to the Bishops. The key difference between the 'hardliners' and the so-called One Nation Tories or believers in Compassionate or even Caring Capitalism, is often shaped by this issue of morality, where the judgement is made one way or the other on the creation of wealth but its limited distribution...

[russtafa]

well that's why the people put a government in power to protect them from the powerful,that's what i thought?

[Stavros]

But then you get into the debate about who is in the government, who their backers and their friends are, and whether or not Labour tilts towards the Unions, the Conservatives toward business. In Thatcher's case, the argument was about the impact that monetarism was having on the fabric of society, where the determination to reduce inflation and create economic growth began with economic and fiscal measures that increased unemployment, causing much harship at the time. The overall aim, the Thatcherites claimed, was the restore the right of people to make a profit from business, and for people earning a salary to keep as much of it for themselves as was possible, the state taking as least as was necessary. Thus, one camp argued the moral judgement was that government was making life harder and more unpleasant for others; the other camp that it is not government's business to run business, that the moral argument should be on the concept of freedom as private property -where a free society is morally superior to one where government makes decisions people should be free to make themselves.

Government should protect the people from crooks and frauds, but where the boundary is line drawn between people in power and the people who most benefit from political decisions is an age-old problem. Capitalism isn't so simple to it can be praised or condemend with a few examples, that's life.

[Ben]

Ben, Capitalism does not respect national boundaries -before China became the 'workshop of the world' jobs that used to be done in USA or the UK (shipbuilding, for example) went to South Korea, which has established itself as the world class producer or offshore oil rigs, note: a specialist type of heavy engineering. Who in 1960 would have believed that South Korea could make more than a matchbox?

When Adam Smith was writing The Wealth of Nations, he was at the cutting edge of industrial capitalism -he was fascinated by the way machinery transformed human labour; but money -money is like water, it flows, or it stagnates. The jobs lost to Asia are gone, finito, Kaput. You will not get them back. You have to create something new, which is why I keep saying: America, capital rich, brain rich, resource rich...the solution is right there, beneath your feet, in your head.

I agree. Corporations are solely concerned with increasing their bottom line. And, of course, they want and need (it's the fiduciary responsibility of the CEO to maximize return on shareholder investment) to look for the cheapest possible labor pool, as it were.
Companies do not have any loyalty to their country. Take, say, Microsoft. Bill Gates was laying off American workers, offshoring jobs and bringing in guest workers. It's rational. And sensible. And, well, again, the CEO is duty bound.
A corporation is not an easy institution to run. They've gotta minimize costs. And boost corporate income. So they're doing what is in their best interest. And, too, corporations, as Adam Smith pointed out, are going to use state/government power to serve their own interests however grievous the impact on others, including the people of England. Again, it's rational. As they are maximizing their own wealth.
Take, say, oil companies. Ya know, they're serving their own interests (and they can't, again, by law, consider the social cost, the cost to others) and if runaway climate change happens, well, that is someone else's problem.
Ray Anderson, former CEO of Interface, explicates it pretty well:

Ray Anderson - Interface Carpets - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUG4JXE6K4A)

[russtafa]

I agree. Corporations are solely concerned with increasing their bottom line. And, of course, they want and need (it's the fiduciary responsibility of the CEO to maximize return on shareholder investment) to look for the cheapest possible labor pool, as it were.
Companies do not have any loyalty to their country. Take, say, Microsoft. Bill Gates was laying off American workers, offshoring jobs and bringing in guest workers. It's rational. And sensible. And, well, again, the CEO is duty bound.
A corporation is not an easy institution to run. They've gotta minimize costs. And boost corporate income. So they're doing what is in their best interest. And, too, corporations, as Adam Smith pointed out, are going to use state/government power to serve their own interests however grievous the impact on others, including the people of England. Again, it's rational. As they are maximizing their own wealth.
Take, say, oil companies. Ya know, they're serving their own interests (and they can't, again, by law, consider the social cost, the cost to others) and if runaway climate change happens, well, that is someone else's problem.
Ray Anderson, former CEO of Interface, explicates it pretty well:

Ray Anderson - Interface Carpets - YouTube (http://www..com/watch?v=OUG4JXE6K4A)

that's why governments must view corps as potentially dangerous to the country and rein them in or suffer the results

[Ben]

Ray Anderson's Personal and Company Vision - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAQbfAB9PQQ)

[Ben]

that's why governments must view corps as potentially dangerous to the country and rein them in or suffer the results

Exactly.... Adam Smith said that over 200 years ago. And we aren't talking about small businesses or medium-sized businesses.
We're talking about transnational corporations, well, that don't have any loyalty to their country. As I just mentioned: Microsoft was laying off workers, bringing in guest workers (which I'm opposed to) and offshoring/outsourcing jobs to, well, India....
I mean, governments can put constraints on capital movement. Ya know, you're an American company, well, invest in America.
But as I just explained companies want to and need to minimize costs. (It was giant retailers like Wal-Mart and the banking sector that pushed for moving capital -- and hence employing cheap labor -- to places like China.)

[robertlouis]

Exactly.... Adam Smith said that over 200 years ago. And we aren't talking about small businesses or medium-sized businesses.
We're talking about transnational corporations, well, that don't have any loyalty to their country. As I just mentioned: Microsoft was laying off workers, bringing in guest workers (which I'm opposed to) and offshoring/outsourcing jobs to, well, India....
I mean, governments can put constraints on capital movement. Ya know, you're an American company, well, invest in America.
But as I just explained companies want to and need to minimize costs. (It was giant retailers like Wal-Mart and the banking sector that pushed for moving capital -- and hence employing cheap labor -- to places like China.)

Yes but....

One of the major effects of globalisation is that transnational corporations are able, with the assistance of able tax lawyers, to minimise their tax liabilities in such a way as to render them to all intents and purposes essentially stateless. All it takes is for a single country to break ranks and undercut the prevailing rates of corporation tax etc, as Ireland did a few years ago, and businesses will simply relocate their domicile for tax purposes. The US probably suffers more than most, while the lost tax take goes into higher bonuses for executives.

Global businesses are untouchable, like banks.

[russtafa]

there was a 2 major corporations in the 17th and 18th centurys that took over countries and had their own standing armies ,the British East India company,Dutch East India company i think?

[robertlouis]

there was a 2 major corporations in the 17th and 18th centurys that took over countries and had their own standing armies ,the British East India company,Dutch East India company i think?

That's true, Russ.

Arguably the most recent examples were American companies responsible for giving us the phrase "banana republic" in Latin America, where patronage, covert activity and a military threat helped to keep dictators in power to further the interests of those companies.

[Stavros]

The largest multinational corporations at their core specialise in one industry, and for that reason are different from both the British and Dutch 'India' companies which had multiple trading interests. In addition, although they have diversified into other areas, and even though they have the best tax lawyers in the world to help them not just avoid taxes, but also claim rebates (the oil companies are masters at getting their taxes returned) -MNC's provide huge sums in tax revenues to states, are major contributors to pension funds, as well as securing markets and employment across many boundaries: so the phrase now is: Too Big to Fail. But is that the case? Had BP's share price collapsed completely in 2010, it would have been broken up, existing firms cherry picking their favourite assets, new firms getting the rest. If Microsoft went bankrupt, its operating programme would still be a world class product; if Nokia and Vodafone went bankrupt, the other firms would have the share of the others customers. Too Big to Fail -in the short term, maybe; otherwise these corporations should be called Immortal...!

[russtafa]

maybe if countries got together and placed bans on some multinationals the others would fall into line?