So, developments in the social sciences over the last few years provide a fairly solid theoretical frame work for understanding the causes of the London riots.
Individuals and groups of individuals stealing high value goods for personal use, or resale. These individuals largely coming from the poorest segments of society. It fits the model of engaging in criminality to release pressure of stress caused by social evaluative threat. It was an activity undertaken largely by those most likely to be effected by social evaluative threat related stress, at a time of record income inequality between the richest and poorest in society.
But, according to David Cameron biological/economic drivers are not to blame. Rather he sees it as an issue of a break down in morals.
"The greed and thuggery we saw during the riots did not come out of nowhere, there are deep problems in our society that have been growing for a long time: a decline in responsibility, a rise in selfishness, a growing sense that individual rights come before anything else."
Other conservative politicians have laughed of the idea that the behaviour of the rioters might be caused by the rioters economic circumstance. (As a side note Cameron has suggested a shopping list of changes to the law that any dictator would be happy to have...curfew powers, bans on masks and hoods, powers to block social media )
Cameron and his cronies offer no cogent explanation for the cause of this break down, or for why the break down led to riots
Yet...
Those few attempts to seriously talk to those involved with rioting list economic pressures and social disenfranchisement as the reasons for their behaviour. Or as one rioter put it, when challenged that rioting was unacceptable, "You wouldn't be talking to me now if we didn't riot, would you?"
Such concerns are also rife in the media being generated by young people in london.
So Mr Cameron, why should I believe you when the evidence controdicts your, and your hypothesis provides no causative link between cause and effect and agree to give up my Guy Fawkes mask, and twitter account?
Or should I go with the well formed theory, which describes cause and effect, and is supported by evidence, and defend my self from your authoritarian wish list, especially when fighting to improve levels of income equality, should also improve many of the issues of broken homes and the like, that you consider to be to blame.
Yeah a little. :D
The humanoid, and his cronies have been talking some rubbish since the riots, and it's all gotten to me a little,so a rant was needed :D
So to actually give the thread a topic proper.
What do you think the cause of looting and rioting was amongst young brits?
What evidence do you have to support your hypothesis, and what psychological, criminalogical or epedimiological theory underpins your hypothesis.
How would you test it?
What do you think the cause of looting and rioting was amongst young brits?
What evidence do you have to support your hypothesis, and what psychological, criminalogical or epedimiological theory underpins your hypothesis.
How would you test it?
All societies have rich and poor. Many have larger differences between rich and poor than Britain does. In fact, if you believe the detractors of the United States, we are the absolute worst country on earth for having "income disparites," and yet we do not see our youth rioting. Therefore, there must be something else at work.
From my understanding, law enforcement in Britain is . . . pathetic, at best. There were several days of rioting without an adequate police response. That sort of ineptitude encourages miscreant behavior. Historically, a "whiff of grapeshot" over the heads of rioters has been enough to make them clear out; a second is never needed.
Furthermore, how much does British law protect victims who defend themselves against ruffians? My understanding is that victims have been arrested by authorities for fighting back, and sued by the ruffians for damages. Once again, that is pathetic. Refusing to recognize the right of people to defend themselves places power squarely in the hands of the bad guys.
The best explanation I've heard is this: What we are seeing in London and other English cities is an outpouring of evil. To try to explain evil as the result of something else is almost always a mistake. The urge to do evil is a primary motivation, not the indirect consequence of something else. Take, as just one example, this video of a young man in London who has been beaten and is bleeding profusely. A group of thugs approach him and pretend that they are going to help. Instead, they loot his backpack. Just for fun: the guy who steals his possessions throws them in the street a few moments later. They just wanted to do evil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6Gex_ya4-Oo
No, there is no social struggle against income inequality and social disenfranchisement. There's just major-league jerkitude, and if the authorities had any sense, they'd have used real bullets against the rioters to protect lives and property.
we are the absolute worst country on earth for having "income disparites," and yet we do not see our youth rioting.
Apart from all the times you do: Seattle, the LA riots, the Mardi Gras riots and so on.
From my understanding, law enforcement in Britain is . . . pathetic, at best. There were several days of rioting without an adequate police response. That sort of ineptitude encourages miscreant behavior.
There were two nights where the police were unable to effectively intervene at the moment because they lacked the numbers due to police budget cuts (set in motion by David Cameron's government). Once additional numbers were brought to bear, the situation was resolved very quickly. In addition, many of the rioters who thought they 'got away with it' because they escaped arrest on the spot have subsequently been arrested, their stolen goods impounded and, in extreme cases, their families evicted. The message has now been firmly sent out that if you take part in these riots, you may escape punishment on the spot but you will be found and arrested within a few days.
Historically, a "whiff of grapeshot" over the heads of rioters has been enough to make them clear out; a second is never needed.
Whenever a government resorts to firing on its own citizens, it has lost the argument. And historically it annoys people and encourages further resistance, as we have seen across the Arab world this year and throughout history. If a whiff of grapeshot was all that was needed to disperse rioters, the USA would still be a British colony.
Furthermore, how much does British law protect victims who defend themselves against ruffians?
Better than it did, though in British legal history we have precedents of people using 'self-defence' as an excuse to commit murder (most famously a farmer who scared off a trespasser, which was fine, but then gunned him down from behind whilst he was running off his property, which was not). In a major riot situation with multiple people trying to burn down your property, this is less of an issue.
My understanding is that victims have been arrested by authorities for fighting back, and sued by the ruffians for damages.
Citation needed.
The best explanation I've heard is this: What we are seeing in London and other English cities is an outpouring of evil.
That is curiously non-specific and not very helpful.
The urge to do evil is a primary motivation, not the indirect consequence of something else.
Interesting. So you have interviewed the rioters and everyone involved and learned this through direct investigation? Or you're just making sweeping and generalised comments from the keyboard with no basis in historical or factual reality?
There is real evil in the world and it needs to be combatted. But evil does not grow in a vacuum. Circumstances allow it to flourish. Evil was certainly done during the riots - the rioter who ran over three people trying to protect their property in his car most notably - but the situation was rather more complex.
Take, as just one example, this video of a young man in London who has been beaten and is bleeding profusely. A group of thugs approach him and pretend that they are going to help. Instead, they loot his backpack. Just for fun: the guy who steals his possessions throws them in the street a few moments later. They just wanted to do evil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6Gex_ya4-Oo
If you call petty theft evil, which is a valid POV, then yes, in this case they did (they actually threw packaging on the floor but kept the stolen items, including a media player and a mobile phone). But then this specific person doing the robbing was arrested a few days later and is now awaiting trial, so he didn't get away with it.
No, there is no social struggle against income inequality and social disenfranchisement. There's just major-league jerkitude
To a large extent, yes. A lot of the rioters were white and a lot of them had jobs (council workers and teaching assistants were among those arrested), though not the majority as was initially reported. And certainly social inequality does not excuse violence and intimidation of innocents. The riots last year against the government in which government buildings and banks (the causes of the recession) were targetted made a lot more sense as those institutions had a direct hand in the rioters being disadvantaged (not David Gilmour's son though, who was simply a retard), so the motivation was understandable.
A lot of the rioters in this case were opportunistic thieves and organised criminal gangs had a hand in the events. But the initial riot in Tottenham was sparked by a police overreaction to an event, followed by the police spreading misinformation (the police shot dead a man whom they claimed was firing a gun at them; later they admitted he didn't fire a shot and later still admitted he wasn't even armed, though a weapon was found 'nearby'). Anger in that case against the police was understandable, though the reaction to it was unacceptable. Subsequent riots were copycat events carried out mostly for the purposes of acquiring wealth. Attempts by the rioters to subsequently justify their actions have been contradictary and confused (some mentioning the Tottenham incident, most not, some claiming a racist element, some inquality and so on).
if the authorities had any sense, they'd have used real bullets against the rioters to protect lives and property.
Which would have made the situation far, far worse. Fifty people died in the LA Riots because people started breaking out the guns. In the UK riots five people were killed, and those responsible for the deaths are behind bars charged with murder with the riots now over. If the police had started gunning people down, the riots would be ongoing, would be increasing in severity and the government would have been forced to resign.
Hmm. So then, Doug, what would you see as social struggle against income inequality and social disenfranchisement? A lot of what you said makes it sound like it's the poor's fault that they're poor, and that anything done in disgruntled recognition of that should be a bullet to the base of the skull at worst, ignorance at best.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
we are the absolute worst country on earth for having "income disparites," and yet we do not see our youth rioting.
Apart from all the times you do: Seattle, the LA riots, the Mardi Gras riots and so on.
From my understanding, law enforcement in Britain is . . . pathetic, at best. There were several days of rioting without an adequate police response. That sort of ineptitude encourages miscreant behavior.
There were two nights where the police were unable to effectively intervene at the moment because they lacked the numbers due to police budget cuts (set in motion by David Cameron's government). Once additional numbers were brought to bear, the situation was resolved very quickly. In addition, many of the rioters who thought they 'got away with it' because they escaped arrest on the spot have subsequently been arrested, their stolen goods impounded and, in extreme cases, their families evicted. The message has now been firmly sent out that if you take part in these riots, you may escape punishment on the spot but you will be found and arrested within a few days.
Historically, a "whiff of grapeshot" over the heads of rioters has been enough to make them clear out; a second is never needed.
Whenever a government resorts to firing on its own citizens, it has lost the argument. And historically it annoys people and encourages further resistance, as we have seen across the Arab world this year and throughout history. If a whiff of grapeshot was all that was needed to disperse rioters, the USA would still be a British colony.
Furthermore, how much does British law protect victims who defend themselves against ruffians?
Better than it did, though in British legal history we have precedents of people using 'self-defence' as an excuse to commit murder (most famously a farmer who scared off a trespasser, which was fine, but then gunned him down from behind whilst he was running off his property, which was not). In a major riot situation with multiple people trying to burn down your property, this is less of an issue.
My understanding is that victims have been arrested by authorities for fighting back, and sued by the ruffians for damages.
Citation needed.
The best explanation I've heard is this: What we are seeing in London and other English cities is an outpouring of evil.
That is curiously non-specific and not very helpful.
The urge to do evil is a primary motivation, not the indirect consequence of something else.
Interesting. So you have interviewed the rioters and everyone involved and learned this through direct investigation? Or you're just making sweeping and generalised comments from the keyboard with no basis in historical or factual reality?
There is real evil in the world and it needs to be combatted. But evil does not grow in a vacuum. Circumstances allow it to flourish. Evil was certainly done during the riots - the rioter who ran over three people trying to protect their property in his car most notably - but the situation was rather more complex.
Take, as just one example, this video of a young man in London who has been beaten and is bleeding profusely. A group of thugs approach him and pretend that they are going to help. Instead, they loot his backpack. Just for fun: the guy who steals his possessions throws them in the street a few moments later. They just wanted to do evil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6Gex_ya4-Oo
If you call petty theft evil, which is a valid POV, then yes, in this case they did (they actually threw packaging on the floor but kept the stolen items, including a media player and a mobile phone). But then this specific person doing the robbing was arrested a few days later and is now awaiting trial, so he didn't get away with it.
No, there is no social struggle against income inequality and social disenfranchisement. There's just major-league jerkitude
To a large extent, yes. A lot of the rioters were white and a lot of them had jobs (council workers and teaching assistants were among those arrested), though not the majority as was initially reported. And certainly social inequality does not excuse violence and intimidation of innocents. The riots last year against the government in which government buildings and banks (the causes of the recession) were targetted made a lot more sense as those institutions had a direct hand in the rioters being disadvantaged (not David Gilmour's son though, who was simply a retard), so the motivation was understandable.
A lot of the rioters in this case were opportunistic thieves and organised criminal gangs had a hand in the events. But the initial riot in Tottenham was sparked by a police overreaction to an event, followed by the police spreading misinformation (the police shot dead a man whom they claimed was firing a gun at them; later they admitted he didn't fire a shot and later still admitted he wasn't even armed, though a weapon was found 'nearby'). Anger in that case against the police was understandable, though the reaction to it was unacceptable. Subsequent riots were copycat events carried out mostly for the purposes of acquiring wealth. Attempts by the rioters to subsequently justify their actions have been contradictary and confused (some mentioning the Tottenham incident, most not, some claiming a racist element, some inquality and so on).
if the authorities had any sense, they'd have used real bullets against the rioters to protect lives and property.
Which would have made the situation far, far worse. Fifty people died in the LA Riots because people started breaking out the guns. In the UK riots five people were killed, and those responsible for the deaths are behind bars charged with murder with the riots now over. If the police had started gunning people down, the riots would be ongoing, would be increasing in severity and the government would have been forced to resign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All societies have rich and poor.
Yes. Total income equality would require so much social control that even North Korea couldn't achieve it(providing they where in the business). But the point is irrelivant.
Many have larger differences between rich and poor than Britain does.
While globally this may be true, not really interested in checking your claim, because it is irrelevant. Up until average income per person reaches $10,000 a year, increasing wealth swamps the effects effects income inequality. So when you look it globally, the effect is invisible, because of the statistical noise generated by general wealth increase.
However, look at the top 50 or so economise, what your find is ...shock horror, the UK is currently the second or third most unequal depending on measure. After the states( and Portugal).
In fact, if you believe the detractors of the United States, we are the absolute worst country on earth for having "income disparites," and yet we do not see our youth rioting. Therefore, there must be something else at work.
The use, on comparable measures, has the worst social issues in that same group, and the UK slots in about 2/3rd. To say that your youth doesn't riot is inaccurate. Your nation has its fair share of riots, which have seen their fair share of looting and arson.
But your mistaking me for some one who see's the world in a binary fashion. The evidence is consistent with income inequality being the primary driver, but of cause their are other factors.
For instance, city structure.
Tell me, are their many cities in the US, where you have 4 bedroom houses worth $2,640,000 have their back gardens back onto the shared garden of a poorly designed council block (housing project) from the 1960's? That describes the area I spent my teenage years. London(like many british cities) is a patchwork of the very affluent, and very poor, pressed up against each other. A perfect breeding ground for social evaluative threat. The fact is we could dig in to it and I am sure find many other factors.
From my understanding, law enforcement in Britain is . . . pathetic, at best. There were several days of rioting without an adequate police response. That sort of ineptitude encourages miscreant behavior.
Our methods of policing may have played a part in why the riots lasted as long as they did, but it wasn't the cause of the riots.
However, I am proud to say that to my knowledge, not a single individual died as a result of the policing of the riots. That has not historically been the case. And the police are engaged in investigation and arrest of looters.
Historically, a "whiff of grapeshot" over the heads of rioters has been enough to make them clear out; a second is never needed.
I am sure former President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, former President Hosni Mubarak, and Muammar Gaddafi all agreed with you six months ago.
Furthermore, how much does British law protect victims who defend themselves against ruffians? My understanding is that victims have been arrested by authorities for fighting back, and sued by the ruffians for damages. Once again, that is pathetic. Refusing to recognize the right of people to defend themselves places power squarely in the hands of the bad guys.
Oh dear flying spaghetti monster, what utter non-sense. Our law allows for reasonable force in self defence and the defence of your property. Your being sold a line of bull excrement, and your buying it.
There have been prosecutions, and civil cases where, individuals accused of criminal behaviour have sued or charges been brought against home owners, but they are of such rarity as to be of negligible consequence. They arise in cases where home owners have seriously overstepped the law, and used unreasonable force, usual with an illegally owned weapon.
If you think that this is some how a common or serious issue, I think I will go with Adam and say [Citation Needed].
The best explanation I've heard is this: What we are seeing in London and other English cities is an outpouring of evil. To try to explain evil as the result of something else is almost always a mistake. The urge to do evil is a primary motivation, not the indirect consequence of something else. Take, as just one example, this video of a young man in London who has been beaten and is bleeding profusely. A group of thugs approach him and pretend that they are going to help. Instead, they loot his backpack. Just for fun: the guy who steals his possessions throws them in the street a few moments later. They just wanted to do evil: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6Gex_ya4-OoNo, there is no social struggle against income inequality and social disenfranchisement. There's just major-league jerkitude,
What is this evil? You have a way of measuring it? You have a material causative link between it and the actions your describing? Is it a particle or a wave?
See, what I see in that video clip is a weakened individual being mugged for property with a value that will impact on the happiness and survival prospects of the thieves. You know, like a lion stealing a hyena's kill, or a hyena stealing a lions kill.
Are hyenas and lions evil?
Nature isn't pretty.
and if the authorities had any sense, they'd have used real bullet against the rioters to protect lives and property.
I for one welcome our new Dougian overlord. Let me be in the front line to shoot the children of 11, please, oh great dictator.
|
So, developments in the social sciences over the last few years provide a fairly solid theoretical frame work for understanding the causes of the London riots.Individuals and groups of individuals stealing high value goods for personal use, or resale. These individuals largely coming from the poorest segments of society. It fits the model of engaging in criminality to release pressure of stress caused by social evaluative threat. It was an activity undertaken largely by those most likely to be effected by social evaluative threat related stress, at a time of record income inequality between the richest and poorest in society.
But, according to David Cameron biological/economic drivers are not to blame. Rather he sees it as an issue of a break down in morals.
"The greed and thuggery we saw during the riots did not come out of nowhere, there are deep problems in our society that have been growing for a long time: a decline in responsibility, a rise in selfishness, a growing sense that individual rights come before anything else."
David Cameron is describing himself.
He and his friends enjoyed trashing small businesses as a hobby whilst at university.
Of course, because they were rich they could throw Daddy's money at the blowback so that it went away.
Poor people with the same reckless, selfish attitude to other people's property and livelihoods will, on the other hand, feel the full force of the law.
So, developments in the social sciences over the last few years provide a fairly solid theoretical frame work for understanding the causes of the London riots.Individuals and groups of individuals stealing high value goods for personal use, or resale. These individuals largely coming from the poorest segments of society. It fits the model of engaging in criminality to release pressure of stress caused by social evaluative threat. It was an activity undertaken largely by those most likely to be effected by social evaluative threat related stress, at a time of record income inequality between the richest and poorest in society.
But, according to David Cameron biological/economic drivers are not to blame. Rather he sees it as an issue of a break down in morals.
"The greed and thuggery we saw during the riots did not come out of nowhere, there are deep problems in our society that have been growing for a long time: a decline in responsibility, a rise in selfishness, a growing sense that individual rights come before anything else."David Cameron is describing himself.
He and his friends enjoyed trashing small businesses as a hobby whilst at university.
Of course, because they were rich they could throw Daddy's money at the blowback so that it went away.
Poor people with the same reckless, selfish attitude to other people's property and livelihoods will, on the other hand, feel the full force of the law.
How dare you imply that the Bullingdon Club is anything other than a dining club! Fergusson would never put a plant pot through a window. Tally hoe, I see a fair maiden in need of the protection of a the knight on boris bike.
How dare you imply that the Bullingdon Club is anything other than a dining club! Fergusson would never put a plant pot through a window. Tally hoe, I see a fair maiden in need of the protection of a the knight on boris bike.
So, developments in the social sciences over the last few years provide a fairly solid theoretical frame work for understanding the causes of the London riots.Individuals and groups of individuals stealing high value goods for personal use, or resale. These individuals largely coming from the poorest segments of society. It fits the model of engaging in criminality to release pressure of stress caused by social evaluative threat. It was an activity undertaken largely by those most likely to be effected by social evaluative threat related stress, at a time of record income inequality between the richest and poorest in society.
But, according to David Cameron biological/economic drivers are not to blame. Rather he sees it as an issue of a break down in morals.
"The greed and thuggery we saw during the riots did not come out of nowhere, there are deep problems in our society that have been growing for a long time: a decline in responsibility, a rise in selfishness, a growing sense that individual rights come before anything else."David Cameron is describing himself.
He and his friends enjoyed trashing small businesses as a hobby whilst at university.
Of course, because they were rich they could throw Daddy's money at the blowback so that it went away.
Poor people with the same reckless, selfish attitude to other people's property and livelihoods will, on the other hand, feel the full force of the law.
I feel it only fair to admit that Boris is one of only two conservative politicians that I actually quiet like. He seems, despite it all to be a toughly nice man, and is a have a go hero to boot. Also Boris bikes are a great addition to our fine capital. It's just a pity he is so completely unable to grasp the problems of his constituents. I can't help but feel certain that if he had half a clue, he'd change his politics in a second...he's just oblivious. :(
Yeah a little. :D
The humanoid, and his cronies have been talking some rubbish since the riots, and it's all gotten to me a little,so a rant was needed :D
So to actually give the thread a topic proper.
What do you think the cause of looting and rioting was amongst young brits?
What evidence do you have to support your hypothesis, and what psychological, criminalogical or epedimiological theory underpins your hypothesis.
How would you test it?
Dump the Humanoid, and get with the Numanoid!
I'm not British, so I have no choice but to learn about the laws of that country second-hand.
However, I understand the Prevention of Crime Act of 1953 prevents anyone from carrying an article in a public place with the idea that it could be used for protection if attacked. An American tourist from Arizona was attacked on a subway in the great nation of Britain, defended herself with a penknife, and was arrested for carrying an offensive weapon.
Y'all have banned knives with a blade longer than 3 inches. How's that worked out for ya?
On this story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-13977726
the 59 year old man on bail is the homeowner who defended his house when the masked gang broke in. Yes, one of the burglars died. Why is it a man defending himself was arrested?
The Brits here seem to have taken offense that I've pointed out the problems with "policing by video," but one issue that the riots seem to highlight is that thanks to the government's focus on video enforcement of laws instead of using actual people, the London police now have hours and hours of video showing masked hoodlums doing bad things to innocent people. Way to go.
Regarding "Income Inequality" as a cause for crime . . . .
The data I searched says New York City has the largest income difference, while Washington DC has the lowest. But, and this is important, Washington DC has a violent crime rate twice that of NYC. Oakland, CA is close to San Francisco, but Oakland's violent crime rate is over twice that of SF's. That feel-good theory is easily disproven.
So Mr Cameron, why should I believe you when the evidence controdicts your, and your hypothesis provides no causative link between cause and effect and agree to give up my Guy Fawkes mask, and twitter account?
I didn't know David Cameron was on the boards!
Whenever a government resorts to firing on its own citizens, it has lost the argument. And historically it annoys people and encourages further resistance, as we have seen across the Arab world this year and throughout history. If a whiff of grapeshot was all that was needed to disperse rioters, the USA would still be a British colony.
Um, no. When a government defends the property of its citizens, it is doing the right thing. Firing on looters and thugs is not a bad thing. Regarding the Arab world . . . when governments fire on PEACEFUL protesters, yes, that tends to annoy people and encourage resistance. The rioters in London were not peaceful.
You may need to go back and study History of the Colonial Americas, because peaceful means were tried first. And when legitimate complaints are met with violence, the colonists became a bit tweaked.
Like the Boston Tea Party! No destruction of property there!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It offends me to hear people blame activity like
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=327J3ISiVOU
on income disparity - as if the poor cannot help but act like thugs.
If we can figure out why people engaged in the kind of stuff I linked to above, then Occam's razor comes into play from there.
What I think is interesting is the metanarratives in play - everything from "the thugs are the victims" to "the media did it" to "the city is to blame". I think if you really want to understand what happened in Britain, try to figure out the mental patterns which have created the "justifications" and blame patterns for the whole thing.
I think there are quite a few factors, other than income disparity, such as youth unemployment, massive cuts to social programs that young people would need to help find employment, and a police force that has been caught taking bribes and shooting people because they are black. Add those all up and you have a generation of kids who find it easy to blame the rich and their tools, the police.
Mind you, I am not saying that looters have a free conscience, just that its not coming out of "nowhere". When hypocrisy in government reaches intolerable levels, populist uprisings follow. Hell the tools of the rich in this country are blaming the poor for not being taxed enough!
Like the Boston Tea Party! No destruction of property there!
Once again, that occurred after peaceful means to oppose an unjust and punishing tax were ignored. And I don't recall the participants of the Boston Tea Party setting fire to residences, stealing iphones, or mugging random passerby. Plus, Ben Franklin, among others, said the tea needed to be paid for, and offered to, but those offers were refused (according to wikipedia - take it for what it's worth).
And I don't recall the participants of the Boston Tea Party setting fire to residences, stealing iphones, or mugging random passerby.
I think Citizen Yellow Dingo's ancestors had their iphones stolen by George Washington.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think Citizen Yellow Dingo's ancestors had their iphones stolen by George Washington.
Yeah, but we're talking about Yellow Dingo's ancestors. They totally deserved it.
.
..
...
....
.....
There were two nights where the police were unable to effectively intervene at the moment because they lacked the numbers due to police budget cuts (set in motion by David Cameron's government).
The proposed cuts have not yet been introduced. Hence the arguments about whether the decision/s should be reviewed after the riots.
The current changes within the police force relate to overtime/holidays and working shifts.
::
The majority of the folks trashing the cars (many of which were very nice, very expensive cars) and stealing did not own shops or cars. The majority were teenagers too young to own/drive cars, too young to own/run businesses.
The vast majority of the crimes involved theft, arson and destruction of other, richer people's property.
::
Hilarious footage of the 40-something lady trying on shoes before taking them and the father being sent back inside to liberate a more appropriate TV.
::
Normality is a general term and can rapidly change from one local to the next - when the world and it's wife are doing what ever they want to do, with no repercussions, then the illusions of Law and Order falters and fades.
::
It's *fun* to smash things and set things on fire.
I'm not British, so I have no choice but to learn about the laws of that country second-hand.
However, I understand the Prevention of Crime Act of 1953 prevents anyone from carrying an article in a public place with the idea that it could be used for protection if attacked. An American tourist from Arizona was attacked on a subway in the great nation of Britain, defended herself with a penknife, and was arrested for carrying an offensive weapon.
Y'all have banned knives with a blade longer than 3 inches. How's that worked out for ya?
On this story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-13977726the 59 year old man on bail is the homeowner who defended his house when the masked gang broke in. Yes, one of the burglars died. Why is it a man defending himself was arrested?
Research fail.
I am satisfied that Peter Flanagan acted in self-defence after being woken by noises downstairs in his house shortly before midnight.
On investigating the disturbance, he was confronted by intruders, one of whom was armed with a machete.People are entitled to use reasonable force in self-defence to defend themselves, their family and their property.
All the evidence indicates that in the frightening circumstances that he faced, Mr Flanagan did what he honestly and instinctively believed was necessary to protect himself and his home from intruders.
It is standard practice when an individual has been killed for the police to investigate, arrest the person they believe to be responsible for the death and pass their file to the CPS. It is the role of the CPS to decide if they believe their is a case to answer, and enough evidence obtain a successful conviction.
Perhaps we could see a citation for your story of the american tourist. See if it really supports your argument, or if you just think it does. ;)
It is standard practice when an individual has been killed for the police to investigate, arrest the person they believe to be responsible for the death and pass their file to the CPS. It is the role of the CPS to decide if they believe their is a case to answer, and enough evidence obtain a successful conviction.
Or, the police could say "Yep, these guys broke into your house, you killed one. Have a nice day."
Your country has eroded the individual's right to self-defense. You couldn't see riots coming at some point?
It is standard practice when an individual has been killed for the police to investigate, arrest the person they believe to be responsible for the death and pass their file to the CPS. It is the role of the CPS to decide if they believe their is a case to answer, and enough evidence obtain a successful conviction.
Or, the police could say "Yep, these guys broke into your house, you killed one. Have a nice day."
Your country has eroded the individual's right to self-defense. You couldn't see riots coming at some point?
"No officers, she is my wife, but I thought she was am intruder and that I was in danger, so I killed her."
"Very good sir. Clearly this was just a horrible accident. You where just protecting your home. Have a good day. I'm very glad the law is a massive loop hole through which a murderer can happily skip and jump through."
Of cause we want the police to investigate possible crimes, else how exactly do they judge that the man was just defending his home, as opposed to trying to commit murder on the sly.
I am in no way put of from defending my life and my home. Nor is anyone I know.
Riots happen, they happen in far more draconian nations than this. You haven't shown the slightest evidence that the riots were caused by this.
Riots happen, they happen in far more draconian nations than this. You haven't shown the slightest evidence that the riots were caused by this.
No, the riots weren't caused by that, and I never said that was the cause. However, the riots were facilitated by it. As for the article I posted, yes, an investigation can and should happen, but most police agencies gather evidence to support the accusation before arresting a perpetrator. The suspect would be taken into custody, questioned, and the police can quickly discover that his story matches the facts they have seen. Suspect is released, not assigned bail, which punishes the victim on this burglary. What would have happened if he couldn't meet bail? Should he lose his job because he was held in jail because he was defending his property?
Thuggery gets brave when it knows there's not an effective response from its victims.
Riots happen, they happen in far more draconian nations than this. You haven't shown the slightest evidence that the riots were caused by this.No, the riots weren't caused by that, and I never said that was the cause. However, the riots were facilitated by it.
As for the article I posted, yes, an investigation can and should happen, but most police agencies gather evidence to support the accusation before arresting a perpetrator. The suspect would be taken into custody, questioned, and the police can quickly discover that his story matches the facts they have seen. Suspect is released, not assigned bail, which punishes the victim on this burglary.
I am glad to know that you are in possession of the CPS file on this case, and are an experienced US cop, able to speak for all police and sheriff departments in the U.S.A.
The truth is, that Arrest on suspicion, with release on bail is a common practice in the US, just like it is here in the UP and almost all modern countries which share our system of jurisprudence.
What would have happened if he couldn't meet bail? Should he lose his job because he was held in jail because he was defending his property?
I suspect a letter to liberty would probably come in at that point.
Thuggery gets brave when it knows there's not an effective response from its victims.
Does it? I have stood between a man and his girl friend, allowing him to punch, and head butt me, rather than his girl friend, without returning blows. I didn't stike him back, I merely allowed him to hit me and remained uncowed. Hardly what I think would fit the what you'd call an effective responce (I didn't have to hurt him, injure him or us a weapon).
He didn't grow bolder...he gave up and wandered off, only to be picked up by the police and arrested later.
Violence is as capable of making these things worse as better.
Violence is as capable of making these things worse as better.
Congratulations on your restraint. My two year old son hits me, too, and I don't hit him back. But the drunken hilljack who tried to accost me as I returned to my car? Yes, he gets hit. More precisely, a finger flick to the eye. More than enough to allow me to back away so I don't risk my own health. After all, GenCon still had two days to go, and I didn't want to injure my dice rolling hand.
And I think you are deliberately misreading my posts. Not every police officer will reach the same conclusion.
However, the more important piece of cultural information that facilitated those riots will not make you happy. The culture of entitlement (give me what I didn't earn) is strong in Britain. Don't worry, it's strong over here, too. But I don't recall riots (burning, looting, etc) happening with the express reason of "income inequality." Here's a big tidbit of information: If you work more hours at a skilled job, you will have a much larger income than someone who doesn't have a skill. A doctor makes more money than a fish-n-chip prep cook. That means that the cook doesn't get to have all the bells and whistles in his house that the doctor has. I know that's a problem for you, so I wanted to save it for last.
So what caused the riots? People who were stupid, got caught up in a frenzy, and decided that burning a house down was more productive than going out and seeing if the neighbours needed to have their dogs walked for a couple quid. This decision was made easier by the fact that the thugs rationalized their actions ("We deserve it!") and the police response could be pretty much guaranteed to be minimal.
How do I test it? Find any mob - what are the defining characteristics? Unruly and chaotic, meaning their is no rational thought behind their actions. Add in a dose of "I deserve a job because I'm breathing" or "that stranger wronged us!" along with the likelihood of light punishment. Any time you have those elements mixed, you are likely to have a bad scene.
But go ahead and continue to blame "income inequality." Because that's so much easier to fix than addressing the real problems.
I didn't know David Cameron was on the boards!
So Mr Cameron, why should I believe you when the evidence controdicts your, and your hypothesis provides no causative link between cause and effect and agree to give up my Guy Fawkes mask, and twitter account?
He checks them every day, didn't you know? :D
Regarding "Income Inequality" as a cause for crime . . . .
The data I searched says New York City has the largest income difference, while Washington DC has the lowest. But, and this is important, Washington DC has a violent crime rate twice that of NYC. Oakland, CA is close to San Francisco, but Oakland's violent crime rate is over twice that of SF's. That feel-good theory is easily disproven.
I have no idea where your getting you data, but I am disinclined to accept your claims at face value. DC's Gini coefficiant score is 0.532, higher than any of the states.
Income inequality by state (Gini) positively correlates with violent crime. It isn't as tight a correlation as the international statistical data, but its still there. You can check the Gini coefficient against the crime figures for yourself.
You have not disproven anything.
Income inequality by state (Gini) positively correlates with violent crime. It isn't as tight a correlation as the international statistical data, but its still there. You can check the Gini coefficient against the crime figures for yourself.You have not disproven anything.
Your data looks at an entire state. My data looks at individual cities. Most of New York isn't New York City, just like most of Britain isn't London. New York State is about half the size of Great Britain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
What was the term? Oh yeah, research fail.
That's the joy of dealing with social scientists; they keep trying to use real-scientist tools, but keep using them wrong.
Income inequality by state (Gini) positively correlates with violent crime. It isn't as tight a correlation as the international statistical data, but its still there. You can check the Gini coefficient against the crime figures for yourself.You have not disproven anything.
Your data looks at an entire state. My data looks at individual cities. Most of New York isn't New York City, just like most of Britain isn't London. New York State is about half the size of Great Britain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate
What was the term? Oh yeah, research fail.
That's the joy of dealing with social scientists; they keep trying to use real-scientist tools, but keep using them wrong.
I am aware that you where looking at at specific cities. I haven't claimed that cities and states are the same thing, and nations are the same.
No research fail here.
You claimed that 'supposed' evidence in your possession 'disproves' the hypothesis that their is a causal link between income inequality and crime violent crime rates.
1: I haven't actually made that specific claim
Just to avoid confusion, and to make my position falsifiable, I will formally state my position.
"The balance of currently available data suggests that their is a strong causative link between income inequality and a number of factors, here collectively called the Index of health and social problems(IHSP).
The causation comes from income inequalities ability to generate social evaluative threat. Social evaluative threat is demonstrably one of the most effective stress generators humans face, and the physiological and psychological effects of stress are well documents. Moreover, human willingness to perform complex actions to reduce their levels of stress are well documented, and go some way to explain criminal behaviour as a result of high levels of social evaluative threat.
This is not the only factor that effects IHSP. However, after poverty(average early income below $10,000), income inequality is greatest single pressure on IHSP. This effect is most visible at the national population level and when using the 20:20 measure of income inequality."
Your statement, even if it where supported by cited evidence would not disprove this position.
2: You haven't provided evidence.
You still haven't provided evidence that supports your claim. Specifically you have provided no data(Gini, 20:20 or otherwise) that say new york has a higher rate of inequality that DC.
It seems unlikely that DC has low income inequality compared to other major cities, because it's Gini coefficient is very high. But until you provide data, there is no way of checking your claim.
Forbes "The Capitalist's Tool" Magazine thought that the riots might have something to do with income inequality.
I am aware that you where looking at at specific cities. I haven't claimed that cities and states are the same thing, and nations are the same.
Well, if you lump enough averages together, statistics start to not matter so much. If you use the "average" for a state, you mask data, since most of New York State is rather rural. Rural areas generally have lower crime rates, as well as lower liquid wealth.
So if I submitted a paper to my instructors back in college that stated "People with longer fingers are better piano players" and included infants in that study, I'd have not graduated. In fact, I probably would have been thrown out on my keister.
If you want to play scientist, you need to follow all the scientists' rules, not just the ones that prove the thing you were trying to prove (another failure of the social sciences).
Plus, their wording is wrong. Once again, that's social scientists trying to be real scientists. Poverty sucks, and THAT causes many social stress factors. Poor people tend to have unhealthy lifestyles. Broke people, on the other hand, tend to have significantly healthier lifestyles. You should probably understand the difference.
And I'm terribly sorry, but I can't seem to find my city data link anymore. Too bad, since it was a wonderful chart that had your beloved Gini coefficient for major US cities. You'll have to look for it yourself, as I'm busy fighting off double lung pneumonia. And I know you're gonna throw a fit, but them's the breaks. I'm gonna take my antibiotics and T-3s and go to sleep.
I found a website called 'City-Data.com' which amongst other lists had this list of 101 US cities ranked in terms of wealth disparity: *link*
I don't know if it's the same data you were looking at though...
Thanks, Charles. Not the same data, but close enough.
New York vs Washington DC . . . and yet the crime rates are vastly different.
Look at College Station, TX. Huge wealth disparity, and yet the crime rate is below the US national average.
And in my drug-fueled sleep, I realized something else. If "income inequality" were fixed, everyone would make the same amount of money as everyone else, which means everyone is probably doing the same job. Naturally, those more skilled would have to work fewer hours than those who didn't care, meaning there would then be a new statistic to care about: "Free Time Inequality." That really reinforces the idea that the concern about "income inequality" is really nothing more than a red-herring to punish the successful even further, as if punishing the successful would somehow help those who don't try to better their own situation.
No, the riots in London were caused by a bunch of thugs making the latest in a series of really bad choices, and then trying to cover their hind ends with some social justice excuse, as if it forgives them for their violence.
|
|
I found a website called 'City-Data.com' which amongst other lists had this list of 101 US cities ranked in terms of wealth disparity: *link*
I don't know if it's the same data you were looking at though...
Thanks, Charles. Not the same data, but close enough.
New York vs Washington DC . . . and yet the crime rates are vastly different.
Look at College Station, TX. Huge wealth disparity, and yet the crime rate is below the US national average.
...snip...
No, the riots in London were caused by a bunch of thugs making the latest in a series of really bad choices, and then trying to cover their hind ends with some social justice excuse, as if it forgives them for their violence.
So...
The question becomes, why has London got a whole bunch of thugs who make repeated bad choices?
Is it because they feel disenfranchised from mainstream society? Is it because MI5 put chemicals in the water? Is it because they went to schools designed to churn out thugs who make bad choices? Is it because their parents are terrible parents?
I don't think the looters were filled with a burning sense of injustice. I do think it is interesting that these riots only happened in certain UK cities and not in others. How is Cardiff, Glasgow, Nottingham or Leicester different to London, Manchester or Birmingham?
The obvious difference is population size, maybe a critical mass of people is required for such a riot? Or maybe it has something to do with the policing in these areas? Or the employment patterns? Or social housing? Or income disparity? Or...? Or...?
"No, the riots in London were caused by a bunch of thugs making the latest in a series of really bad choices, and then trying to cover their hind ends with some social justice excuse, as if it forgives them for their violence."
This seems to me like a surface reasoning. I don't think you'll easily find anyone who disagrees. I think the question which people are trying to answer when they look at things like income disparity is: "How did we come to have a population like that and how did we create a circumstance in which they felt able to act like that?"
You have argued that the English judicial system is 'soft' and that has emboldened these people, which goes some way to answering half of the question.
I would disagree with the notion that our judicial system is soft, it is actually balanced quite fiercely against the poor and disadvantaged and both punishes and enforces the law against street-level crime far more enthusiastically than it does the law against 'white-collar' crime. It is very easy to find people in the UK arguing that the law is too soft, it is also very easy to find people arguing that the law is too harsh. C'est la vie.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And in my drug-fueled sleep, I realized something else. If "income inequality" were fixed, everyone would make the same amount of money as everyone else, which means everyone is probably doing the same job. Naturally, those more skilled would have to work fewer hours than those who didn't care, meaning there would then be a new statistic to care about: "Free Time Inequality." That really reinforces the idea that the concern about "income inequality" is really nothing more than a red-herring to punish the successful even further, as if punishing the successful would somehow help those who don't try to better their own situation.
I thought this was a separate point and thus worth responding to separately.
People are not simply employed and paid based upon their raw potential.
For instance, there are entire industries in the UK which are much easier for the wealthy to enter (design is a good example, as is fashion) because they are entered through two stages.
Stage 1 = university = Much easier to attend if you come from a wealthy background. Students with wealthy, educated parents do better at school. Once they have achieved the grades required students with wealthy parents also find it easier to afford university life. They also are able to network with other well-positioned people. They have also had greater opportunity to learn the social skills which are succesful in such an environment.
Stage 2 = internship = Even after receiving a relevant qualification these industries then require you to work for free for several years before getting an appropriate job. The children of the wealthy can live in a nice neighbourhood near the office where they can entertain key figures from the industry. They have more opportunity to network and they come from similar backgrounds to the rest of the people in the industry. Meanwhile, our determined poor-background student has to work two jobs and live in a less desirable neighbourhood further from work. This negatively impacts the quality of his work and his ability to network within the industry.
The end result is that for every one bootstraps we have hundreds of silver spoons.
Perhaps income inequality is a less relevant factor than social mobility? With high social mobility in a broad income disparity society it would be much more difficult for those who were poor to resent the wealthy as that would include their schoolfriends and family members.
I don't think the looters were filled with a burning sense of injustice. I do think it is interesting that these riots only happened in certain UK cities and not in others. How is Cardiff, Glasgow, Nottingham or Leicester different to London, Manchester or Birmingham?
Minor point, but there was rioting in Nottingham as well as the bigger cities. A police station was set on fire there.
OT, but Nottingham is actually an anomalous case in the UK, as it's a reasonably mid-ranking city in size but has its own gun culture and gang problems that other cities, even much bigger ones, don't have. It's very peculiar phenomenon that I don't think has been ever really explained.
I remember when I took my mom (who was already a senior citizen at the time) on a European trip (her hearing and vision problems were growing faster and I wanted to give her something nice before she went totally blind and deaf). We landed in Heathrow and, so, here I was guiding her (like one guides a blind person) -and- carrying her and my luggage (enough for two weeks) through a HUGE airport in a foreign country that I knew absolutely nothing about. Keep in mind that while my back wasn't as bad as it is now (I've been largely bed ridden for mosst of this year) it was quite bad. Of course, I was determined that this vacation be excellent for my mother.
My plan was that we'd go to the train station and ride it to Dover where we'd stay for a couple of days before our cruise ship headed out of port. My mom was very anxious - we were in large crowds of people, she couldn't see all that well (Heathrow isn't that well lit up), for most of the time we had limited money (because I was having trouble finding a money exchange), etc. To make matters worse, many people in Heathrow were very rude (not all of them, I hasten to add). Finally, to get down to the train station required an escalator - iirc, the elevator was broken.
The gate from which the train we needed was changed about 4 or 5 times (causing me to guide my mom back to the escalator, help her get back on, and I'd be carrying two weeks of luggage at the same time) and the door for the train opened and closed -very- quickly (which made it difficult for my mom to get on and she was terrified -justifiably- that she and I might get seperated while getting on the train (as I needed to get her on and then get the luggage)) - this causing us to miss several trains.
Finally, I got her and the luggage on and we sat down, collapsed under the exhaustion of such a long flight, navigating the largest airport in the world, in a foreign country, while handling a significantly blind and deeaf person and two weeks of clothes.
It was at that time that I looked up and...
You mean first class seating right?
|
|
I remember when I took my mom (who was already a senior citizen at the time) on a European trip (her hearing and vision problems were growing faster and I wanted to give her something nice before she went totally blind and deaf). We landed in Heathrow and, so, here I was guiding her (like one guides a blind person) -and- carrying her and my luggage (enough for two weeks) through a HUGE airport in a foreign country that I knew absolutely nothing about. Keep in mind that while my back wasn't as bad as it is now (I've been largely bed ridden for mosst of this year) it was quite bad. Of course, I was determined that this vacation be excellent for my mother.
My plan was that we'd go to the train station and ride it to Dover where we'd stay for a couple of days before our cruise ship headed out of port. My mom was very anxious - we were in large crowds of people, she couldn't see all that well (Heathrow isn't that well lit up), for most of the time we had limited money (because I was having trouble finding a money exchange), etc. To make matters worse, many people in Heathrow were very rude (not all of them, I hasten to add). Finally, to get down to the train station required an escalator - iirc, the elevator was broken.
The gate from which the train we needed was changed about 4 or 5 times (causing me to guide my mom back to the escalator, help her get back on, and I'd be carrying two weeks of luggage at the same time) and the door for the train opened and closed -very- quickly (which made it difficult for my mom to get on and she was terrified -justifiably- that she and I might get seperated while getting on the train (as I needed to get her on and then get the luggage)) - this causing us to miss several trains.
Finally, I got her and the luggage on and we sat down, collapsed under the exhaustion of such a long flight, navigating the largest airport in the world, in a foreign country, while handling a significantly blind and deeaf person and two weeks of clothes.
It was at that time that I looked up and...
That is potentially hilarious, although the joke backfired on you.
I don't know who put up that sign but it cannot have been real.
Probably a comment on the class system by some wag.
|
|
I don't think the looters were filled with a burning sense of injustice. I do think it is interesting that these riots only happened in certain UK cities and not in others. How is Cardiff, Glasgow, Nottingham or Leicester different to London, Manchester or Birmingham?Minor point, but there was rioting in Nottingham as well as the bigger cities. A police station was set on fire there.
OT, but Nottingham is actually an anomalous case in the UK, as it's a reasonably mid-ranking city in size but has its own gun culture and gang problems that other cities, even much bigger ones, don't have. It's very peculiar phenomenon that I don't think has been ever really explained.
When I lived in Nottingham there was serious resentment about the Shottingham tag that the city acquired.
The tabloids gave the city the name after a horrible couple of months with a lot of gun crime. Those three months came during the time the serious crime squad and drug squad were both shut down.
Shut down? Yep. All of the serious crime was/is drug-related so the two units were amalgamated but rather than a gradual process they were both formally shut down and then officers formally re-assigned.
This did not have a huge impact upon policing but it was interpreted by some drug gangs as a window of opportunity and they set about arming themselves and shooting each other.
2009 saw the first shooting in Nottingham for three years.
Leftlion is a good resource for Nottingham culture and news.
I could have guessed where the riots happened without seeing it. Sadly.