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 point

When 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.