|
But oddly, despite rioting being so much fun, it's rarely the rich or even the middle class that riot. It always seems to be the lower classes, whether they're racially divided or just the poor.
People act like riots are something special. They happen quite regularly, since the dawn of time, every few years, in this country and others. Riots in London, riots in Bradford, riots in Birmingham, riots in Paris, riots in LA, and so on. There are reasons, but in the end some guys somewhere are going to want to mix it up. The reasons are a lot more complex that either just racist policing, simple criminality or gang culture, or whatever the trendy explanation of the day is. In the end, rioting is fun. If the answers were easy, it would be dealt with by now.
Weeell... except for the millionaire's daughter who was jailed for rioting in the last lot. It's true, of course, that rioting is a <ahem> lower class activity. I suspect it's more to do with having a stake in society and owning property you don't want smashed up, more than anything else. I'm not suggesting that there aren't underlying issues but simply because riots happen regularly it doesn't follow the reasons are the same each time. The Brixton riots weren't the same as the recent ones.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm gonna go ahead and say that, at their roots, riots are about power. They're a stifled cry of frustration at a system in which the rioters have very little. If you look hard enough, everything is about power and wealth.
Everyone has a stake in society, not everyone has a stake in perpetuating the status quo of the power structure.
since greece is kind of the peak crisis in europe at the moment, this seemed relevant:
http://www.businessinsider.com/lagarde-list-of-swiss-bank-accounts-leaked-2 012-10
The controversial 'Lagarde List' has been leaked to the media in Greece.
The list contains the names of 1,991 Greeks with bank accounts at HSBC's Geneva branch, and it got its name after Christine Lagarde gave it to former Greek finance minister Giorgos Papakonstantinou in 2010.
The list has been kept secret by the Greek government ever since.
Lately, the question of whether or not the accounts have been used by wealthy Greeks to evade taxes while its country is in dire fiscal shape has generated a political firestorm.
One name on the list is Stavros Papastavros, an advisor to [Prime Minister] Samaras. Another is Georgios Voulgarakis, a former minister and a member of Samaras' New Democracy political party
The list also contains the names of officials in the finance ministry, which has been at the center of the crisis in Greece. The list went inexplicably missing for more than a year after outgoing finance minister Papakonstantinou passed it to incoming finance minister Evangelos Venizelos in 2011.
I believe the listed accounts are meant to total around 2 billion euro, and tese are only from HSBC bank in Switzerland, so excluding other swiss banks, and banks in other countries. supposedly the largest single account totals 500 million euro. EDIT: although the accounts may now be empty, transferred to somewhere else.
SYRIZA: Concealment of 'Lagarde list' a major political issue
AMNA--The main opposition Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA-EKM) party on Wednesday issued an announcement concerning the notorious 'Lagarde list' of Greeks with large Swiss bank accounts, saying that its concealment by two finance ministers was a major political issue.
"The fact that for two years, the ministers of finance that recommended the most catastrophic measures the country has ever known had in their drawers lists of tax-evading Swiss bank account holders, without considering it expedient to inform Parliament, is a major political issue," SYRIZA said.
It accused the representatives of the Greek government of covering up the affair "with the same ease that the slashed wages and pensions" at a time when their counterparts in Germany, Italy and France had won sizeable sums in out-of-court settlements for their countries based on the similar evidence.
The party said the excuses put forward by PASOK leader Evangelos Venizelos for not using the evidence on the lists were "lacking in seriousness and politically unacceptable" and "indicative of a policy that makes the weaker classes its target while covering for the powerful."
|
|
I'm gonna go ahead and say that, at their roots, riots are about power. They're a stifled cry of frustration at a system in which the rioters have very little. If you look hard enough, everything is about power and wealth.
Everyone has a stake in society, not everyone has a stake in perpetuating the status quo of the power structure.
Well, yes and no. You suggestion feels a like it involves a bit too much political forethought. I don't think a lot of the rioters were making a "stifled cry of frustration", they were nicking some new trainers and tellies. But I do agree that for riots to happen there need to be acute social issues that are not being dealt with through democratic channels. But what those are might vary - "power" and "wealth" are pretty vague terms.
I'm gonna go ahead and say that, at their roots, riots are about power. They're a stifled cry of frustration at a system in which the rioters have very little. If you look hard enough, everything is about power and wealth.
Everyone has a stake in society, not everyone has a stake in perpetuating the status quo of the power structure.
That may have been true about the first rioters, but with the way it spread and jumped from city to city it seemed as though a lot of people were thinking 'Hey! a riot! sounds fun, let's join in', or taking the opportunity to loot and smash things, or realising the police were overstretched, and struggling to impose order. And I don't think all or even most of the rioters were from poor backgrounds.
You might be right about the mobs wanting to test the powers of the police, though, and see what they could get away with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, yes and no. You suggestion feels a like it involves a bit too much political forethought. I don't think a lot of the rioters were making a "stifled cry of frustration", they were nicking some new trainers and tellies. But I do agree that for riots to happen there need to be acute social issues that are not being dealt with through democratic channels. But what those are might vary - "power" and "wealth" are pretty vague terms.
Just because it wasn't given "political forethought" doesn't mean their actions don't have political meaning. They wouldn't even want to steal things if the system was just.
Why do they smash and loot? Because they are disenfranchised from the system.
Yeah, it's true that some people join riots just to cause trouble.
But that doesn't mean that the riots were originally formed just for fun.
|
|
The system is basically just, I'm afraid. And they smashed and looted because they wanted to nick stuff. There are deeper issues, sure, but let's call criminality what it is. You address the problems but you punish the guilty.Well that's good to know. Aubrey has spoken. The system is just and the British rioter just wanted to steal stuff.
Does this apply to all rioters? Or just the British ones?
What, and you never pontificate? This is what this section of the board is for, and it's not like you hold back on the leftie stuff. Or can't you handle diversity of views?
The riots took hold primarily because of the policing response (or lack thereof) initially, and when the police got a grip the riots died off. As such, it wasn't a spontaneous uprising of political angst but an opportunistic crime spree. And rioting is, y'know, illegal. In a democratic society I honestly find it difficult to say these people are disenfranchised when they enjoy universal suffrage along with everyone else - they get the same vote I do. They are as enfranchised as me. Most of them weren't in poverty. Most of them had jobs. Most of them don't even really know why they were there, other than to nick stuff. So I'm wondering what exactly these people wanted. Other than a new pair of trainers they didn't want to pay for. It is, of course, easy to make windy statements about how they are oppressed but no one really seems able to tell me how.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because there are rich people who fare better than you and me combined, Aubrey.
I think in our modern day and age we should strive for equality rather than live like we always have.
As in, the rich being rich and the poor being poor. It's not a problem of the past. We're still living it today.
|
|
That's not oppression, that's just envy. Lots of guys earn more than me but it doesn't entitle me to burn down a newsagent.
I understand that there are issues with inequality. I don't buy the moral argument that someone who is very wealthy is de facto somehow oppressing the poor. But there is evidence that unequal societies can be economically inefficient. For example, Carlos Slim, the richest man in Mexico (and possibly the world, I'm not sire) operates in a market (mobile phones) where he has monoplistic profits and political protection. This raises costs for consumers, enriching Slim at their expense. But that's probably not what you are talking about.
Most of them weren't in poverty. Most of them had jobs. Most of them don't even really know why they were there, other than to nick stuff. So I'm wondering what exactly these people wanted.
If I remember correctly, the first 200 wanted the police to come out and explain why they shot Mark Duggan.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that doesn't account for the other few thousand. I'm still waiting for a justification for violence. "The police didn't come out to talk to us, let's burn down Tesco!" Apart from the fact that it was subject to an investigation, and that the police probably couldn't say much, or that the facts were not established (and remain so today). There are ways of dealing with this stuff. That isn't it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The system is basically just, I'm afraid. And they smashed and looted because they wanted to nick stuff. There are deeper issues, sure, but let's call criminality what it is. You address the problems but you punish the guilty.
Aaaaand they wanted to nick stuff because they're poor and/or disenfranchised. For the record:
Disenfranchised 2- Deprived of power; marginalized.
When your vote is between choices that seek to perpetuate the system at your expense, what power has that vote? The system is uniformly unjust because the rich are allowed to profit off our labor. We are treated as chattle; worse so because even chattle get health care.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
And that doesn't account for the other few thousand. I'm still waiting for a justification for violence. "The police didn't come out to talk to us, let's burn down Tesco!" Apart from the fact that it was subject to an investigation, and that the police probably couldn't say much, or that the facts were not established (and remain so today). There are ways of dealing with this stuff. That isn't it.
If violence is never the answer, why do the police have cart blanche on its use against us filthy peasants?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"We're conducting an internal investigation" translates to "shove off you bloody peasants!"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apart from the fact that it was subject to an investigation, and that the police probably couldn't say much, or that the facts were not established (and remain so today).
So, I guess, seeing how the police didn't have anything to say, they should just beat down a female 16-year-old protester. That usually smoothes things over.
As for the other rioters, I couldn't say, I wasn't there. I just read articles off of the internet, remember? Such as: Deaths in police custody since 1998: 333; officers convicted: none
The system is, basically, just.
The system is basically just, I'm afraid. And they smashed and looted because they wanted to nick stuff. There are deeper issues, sure, but let's call criminality what it is. You address the problems but you punish the guilty.Well that's good to know. Aubrey has spoken. The system is just and the British rioter just wanted to steal stuff.
Does this apply to all rioters? Or just the British ones?
What, and you never pontificate? This is what this section of the board is for, and it's not like you hold back on the leftie stuff. Or can't you handle diversity of views?
The riots took hold primarily because of the policing response (or lack thereof) initially, and when the police got a grip the riots died off. As such, it wasn't a spontaneous uprising of political angst but an opportunistic crime spree. And rioting is, y'know, illegal. In a democratic society I honestly find it difficult to say these people are disenfranchised when they enjoy universal suffrage along with everyone else - they get the same vote I do. They are as enfranchised as me. Most of them weren't in poverty. Most of them had jobs. Most of them don't even really know why they were there, other than to nick stuff. So I'm wondering what exactly these people wanted. Other than a new pair of trainers they didn't want to pay for. It is, of course, easy to make windy statements about how they are oppressed but no one really seems able to tell me how.
People who spend their careers studying suchthingshave come to very different conclusions. Do you have any actual evidence of your conclusions? Or are they just things you decided?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@CP- Unsure how a gradual rearrangement of the population proves that austerity is the best economic policy.
Ever been to Mexico or China yourself?There's a similar difference in property taxes, sales taxes (7.25-9.75% in CA, 4-6% in SD), all the way down the line. Where's the massive migration of rich Americans to flyover states?New York used to have 42 electoral college votes. Now it has 29.
Michigan used to have 21. Now it has 17.Both characterized by high tax democratic institutions. And subsequent flight.
Austerity not only works - its the only policy that works. Whats the whole point of the Greek bailout - certainly not to allow them to keep funding their deficits as they have.
Sooner or later, everyone has to pay the piper. TANSTAFL.
Poor and uneducated people are more likely to have more children. That's an example of causation. Would you like to try again?
Europe has a welfare state, but from 1945-1990 Europe as a whole saw faster per capita income gains than the US. Since 1990, Sweden has continued to see faster gains, but still has a strong welfare state.
Maybe it's their war on Christmas that works so well. We should eat more Rudolphs.
|
|
People who spend their careers studying suchthingshave come to very different conclusions. Do you have any actual evidence of your conclusions? Or are they just things you decided?The system is basically just, I'm afraid. And they smashed and looted because they wanted to nick stuff. There are deeper issues, sure, but let's call criminality what it is. You address the problems but you punish the guilty.Well that's good to know. Aubrey has spoken. The system is just and the British rioter just wanted to steal stuff.
Does this apply to all rioters? Or just the British ones?
What, and you never pontificate? This is what this section of the board is for, and it's not like you hold back on the leftie stuff. Or can't you handle diversity of views?
The riots took hold primarily because of the policing response (or lack thereof) initially, and when the police got a grip the riots died off. As such, it wasn't a spontaneous uprising of political angst but an opportunistic crime spree. And rioting is, y'know, illegal. In a democratic society I honestly find it difficult to say these people are disenfranchised when they enjoy universal suffrage along with everyone else - they get the same vote I do. They are as enfranchised as me. Most of them weren't in poverty. Most of them had jobs. Most of them don't even really know why they were there, other than to nick stuff. So I'm wondering what exactly these people wanted. Other than a new pair of trainers they didn't want to pay for. It is, of course, easy to make windy statements about how they are oppressed but no one really seems able to tell me how.
I assume that the people studying this stuff are able to put it better than you, then, since you've posted nothing much other than your own prejudices. I get the inequality argument, as far as it goes, I don't buy the moral argument that justifies rioting. And it strikes me that a lot of the problems arose from well-meaning leftie policies that have had a long term pernicious effect, like a welfare system that penalises work and family life and an education system that actually traps people with low expecations and outcomes. I agree that if these people could actually see that there is something beyond their own situation for which they can strive, then they would have the stake in society that they feel they lack. I don't believe saying "Dear, dear, you poor poor person, here, have some cash to make you feel better" is the way to do it. Dismantling the dead hand of left-wing local authorities and teaching unions on education and redesigning welfare so it is a safety net and not a way of life would probably help. At the moment, the "disenfranchised youth" are largely infantilised by the current system that takes away their accountability for their actions. On that basis, it is hardly surprising if they act like spoilt children, grabbing what they want. Like I say, I don't see this as being political, I see it as being economic and driven by statist systems. I do not see the solution as coming from that.
At the same time, there clearly is inequality. Most of the super-rich like the Russian oligarchs, Chinese billionaires and so on have achieved their wealth through political connections where the dice are loaded against everyone else. I don't believe that it makes sense, as happens in the US, UK and other places, that capital should be taxed less than income (a la Mitt Romney and the private equity guys) since it encourages tax avoidance and doesn't make sense economically (the value of an asset is the net present value of the cash flows associated with it; the increase in an asset's value is the perception of increased cash flow; therefore increases in asset proces are actually income and should be taxed as such). I think monopolistic and oligopolistic businesses should be broken up. The problem is with a lot of the argument here - "targeted" spending, more regulation - is that it actually benefits the politically well-connected and big business at the expense of the little guy (with some exceptions, but not many). The diagnosis is broadly correct, but the prescription would actually harm the patient.
|
|
Apart from the fact that it was subject to an investigation, and that the police probably couldn't say much, or that the facts were not established (and remain so today).So, I guess, seeing how the police didn't have anything to say, they should just beat down a female 16-year-old protester. That usually smoothes things over.
As for the other rioters, I couldn't say, I wasn't there. I just read articles off of the internet, remember? Such as: Deaths in police custody since 1998: 333; officers convicted: none
The system is, basically, just.
Out of the total of 333 deaths, 87 people had been restrained, most commonly being physically held down by officers. In 16 of those cases, restraint was linked directly to the death, and four were classed as "positional asphyxia".
The majority were from natural causes, with nearly three-quarters relating to drug or alcohol abuse. The report questioned whether those arrested for being very inebriated should be taken to alternative facilities, such as the "drunk tanks" introduced in Scotland. It called on the Home Office and Department of Health to pilot facilities with medical care to replace police cells.
Those who died in custody were mostly white (75%), male (90%) and aged between 25 and 44.
The number of deaths each year had fallen from 49 in 1998-99 to 15 in 2008-09, slightly increasing to 17 last year.
So of the 333, 87 (about 25%) involved actual contact with an officer. Of those, 16 (about 5%) were the result of restraint. The rest died of natural causes or drug and alcohol abuse. So, actually, the correct unsensationalist statistic is that since 1998 (14 years) 16 people died in police custody where the police restaint contributed to the death of the individual involved. And the number of deaths in custody has dropped significantly over the period. And that still doesn't prove any of these people were killed, unless (again) you know better than the juries in the cases involved who had access to the facts. These cases are getting to court where the due processes of law are followed, even if the verdicts don't seem "fair" to you, indicating they are taken seriously. And, of course, the article doesn't tell you how many have passed through police hands totally unharmed in that period, but it's probably a hell of a lot (thousands? tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?). Basically just? Yes, basically. Any death is to be regretted but this doesn't point to systematic abuse.
Sweden has a strong welfare state... well. The truth is swedes pay around 70% of their income in taxes. The production companies we do have have moved abroad, such as IKEA, Volvo, ABB, and so on. Another relevant fact is that swedes have little savings and huge loans, far worse economic status than in most vaguely comparable countries. We live in a country where the banks, cartels in most branches, and foreign corporations call the shots and make huge profits - which don't go to us, but are counted as growth. Yeah, it's a brilliant example of economic fortitude.
I followed the events and investigation of the murder of Jean de Menezes. Yeah, it is probably true that most british cops don't like to carry guns, but those who do certainly aren't accountable. When someone is followed by civilian-clad police waving weapons around, runs desperately for their lives, is pursued into the tube, wrestled to the ground and executed in front of dozens of witnesses by five high-speed bullets into the back of his head, something has gone deeply wrong. However, even that failure, as dramatic as it is, is as nothing compared to the disaster that followed: When the tube car was emptied and the people inside gave statements, there were policemen walking around telling the witnesses "Better be careful with what you say now". Another aspect is the sheer, monumental stupidity of the murder. The police panicked (or something similar) because they had experimental new guidelines for how they were allowed to kill suspected terrorists. This was called the Icarus protocol, IIRC, and one aspect of this was that they had to shoot at the suspect's head to avoid setting off explosives carried on the person's torso, and to avoid giving the person time to set off his bomb. This was modeled after Israeli policy. Somehow, I seriously doubt these two provisions (not triggering, not giving time) was fulfilled by first chasing the person for hundreds of meters, then wrestling him to the ground BEFORE shooting him in the head.
And this is without going into the fact that the police lied about his clothing, and that that evening held a raid on his apartment where all the tenants were forced out.
Last I heard, no heads rolled for this. If not even that is enough incompetence, stupidity, corruption and irresponsibility... yeah, I understand why the UK gets shitstorms every time their police kills people.
I followed the events and investigation of the murder of Jean de Menezes.
You stole my next article!
Hmm, well, how about some poetry instead:
"They hang the man and flog the woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
But leave the greater villain loose
Who steals the common off the goose.”
Yeah, the situation in Sweden sounds like the direction to which Finland is heading...
|
|
I followed the events and investigation of the murder of Jean de Menezes.You stole my next article!
Hmm, well, how about some poetry instead:
"They hang the man and flog the woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
But leave the greater villain loose
Who steals the common off the goose.”
I thought we were talking about policing. Given your love of revolutionary socialism, shall I start with the gulags or the Great Leap Forward?
|
|
Sweden has a strong welfare state... well. The truth is swedes pay around 70% of their income in taxes. The production companies we do have have moved abroad, such as IKEA, Volvo, ABB, and so on. Another relevant fact is that swedes have little savings and huge loans, far worse economic status than in most vaguely comparable countries. We live in a country where the banks, cartels in most branches, and foreign corporations call the shots and make huge profits - which don't go to us, but are counted as growth. Yeah, it's a brilliant example of economic fortitude.
I followed the events and investigation of the murder of Jean de Menezes. Yeah, it is probably true that most british cops don't like to carry guns, but those who do certainly aren't accountable. When someone is followed by civilian-clad police waving weapons around, runs desperately for their lives, is pursued into the tube, wrestled to the ground and executed in front of dozens of witnesses by five high-speed bullets into the back of his head, something has gone deeply wrong. However, even that failure, as dramatic as it is, is as nothing compared to the disaster that followed: When the tube car was emptied and the people inside gave statements, there were policemen walking around telling the witnesses "Better be careful with what you say now". Another aspect is the sheer, monumental stupidity of the murder. The police panicked (or something similar) because they had experimental new guidelines for how they were allowed to kill suspected terrorists. This was called the Icarus protocol, IIRC, and one aspect of this was that they had to shoot at the suspect's head to avoid setting off explosives carried on the person's torso, and to avoid giving the person time to set off his bomb. This was modeled after Israeli policy. Somehow, I seriously doubt these two provisions (not triggering, not giving time) was fulfilled by first chasing the person for hundreds of meters, then wrestling him to the ground BEFORE shooting him in the head.
And this is without...
Well, if you followed it closely you'll know there seem to be several inaccuracies in the facts you cite. He wasn't chased for hundreds of meters by police waving guns, for example. If you can't get that right I'm not really going to get too excited about your opinions or prescriptions.
I thought we were talking about policing. Given your love of revolutionary socialism, shall I start with the gulags or the Great Leap Forward?I followed the events and investigation of the murder of Jean de Menezes.You stole my next article!
Hmm, well, how about some poetry instead:
"They hang the man and flog the woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
But leave the greater villain loose
Who steals the common off the goose.”
If you like. My historical antecedents were opposed to both of them.
since greece is kind of the peak crisis in europe at the moment, this seemed relevant:
http://www.businessinsider.com/lagarde-list-of-swiss-bank-accounts-leaked-2 012-10
The controversial 'Lagarde List' has been leaked to the media in Greece.
The list contains the names of 1,991 Greeks with bank accounts at HSBC's Geneva branch, and it got its name after Christine Lagarde gave it to former Greek finance minister Giorgos Papakonstantinou in 2010.
The list has been kept secret by the Greek government ever since.
Lately, the question of whether or not the accounts have been used by wealthy Greeks to evade taxes while its country is in dire fiscal shape has generated a political firestorm.
One name on the list is Stavros Papastavros, an advisor to [Prime Minister] Samaras. Another is Georgios Voulgarakis, a former minister and a member of Samaras' New Democracy political party
The list also contains the names of officials in the finance ministry, which has been at the center of the crisis in Greece. The list went inexplicably missing for more than a year after outgoing finance minister Papakonstantinou passed it to incoming finance minister Evangelos Venizelos in 2011.I believe the listed accounts are meant to total around 2 billion euro, and tese are only from HSBC bank in Switzerland, so excluding other swiss banks, and banks in other countries. supposedly the largest single account totals 500 million euro. EDIT: although the accounts may now be empty, transferred to somewhere else.
...SYRIZA: Concealment of 'Lagarde list' a major political issue
AMNA--The main opposition Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA-EKM) party on Wednesday issued an announcement concerning the notorious 'Lagarde list' of Greeks with large Swiss bank accounts, saying that its concealment by two finance ministers was a major political issue.
"The fact that for two years, the ministers of finance that recommended the most catastrophic measures the country has ever known had in their drawers lists of
Bump, in case it got missed in all the London riots chat.
|
|
If you like. My historical antecedents were opposed to both of them.I thought we were talking about policing. Given your love of revolutionary socialism, shall I start with the gulags or the Great Leap Forward?I followed the events and investigation of the murder of Jean de Menezes.You stole my next article!
Hmm, well, how about some poetry instead:
"They hang the man and flog the woman
Who steals the goose from off the common
But leave the greater villain loose
Who steals the common off the goose.”
Hmmm, irrespective of your historical antecedents I'm trying to think of revolutionary socialist systems that didn't end with the abuse and impoverishment of the citizenry and the establishment of an elite that nabbed the perks. But, again, this thread is supposed to be about the euro crisis. Funny how we keep drifting off the straight and narrow.
Yes, well, back to another one of those capitalist systems that ended with the abuse and impoverishment of the citizenry and the establishment of an elite that nabbed the perks, shall we?
Re-bump
...since greece is kind of the peak crisis in europe at the moment, this seemed relevant:
http://www.businessinsider.com/lagarde-list-of-swiss-bank-accounts-leaked-2 012-10
The controversial 'Lagarde List' has been leaked to the media in Greece.
The list contains the names of 1,991 Greeks with bank accounts at HSBC's Geneva branch, and it got its name after Christine Lagarde gave it to former Greek finance minister Giorgos Papakonstantinou in 2010.
The list has been kept secret by the Greek government ever since.
Lately, the question of whether or not the accounts have been used by wealthy Greeks to evade taxes while its country is in dire fiscal shape has generated a political firestorm.
One name on the list is Stavros Papastavros, an advisor to [Prime Minister] Samaras. Another is Georgios Voulgarakis, a former minister and a member of Samaras' New Democracy political party
The list also contains the names of officials in the finance ministry, which has been at the center of the crisis in Greece. The list went inexplicably missing for more than a year after outgoing finance minister Papakonstantinou passed it to incoming finance minister Evangelos Venizelos in 2011.I believe the listed accounts are meant to total around 2 billion euro, and tese are only from HSBC bank in Switzerland, so excluding other swiss banks, and banks in other countries. supposedly the largest single account totals 500 million euro. EDIT: although the accounts may now be empty, transferred to somewhere else.
SYRIZA: Concealment of 'Lagarde list' a major political issue
AMNA--The main opposition Coalition of the Radical Left (SYRIZA-EKM) party on Wednesday issued an announcement concerning the notorious 'Lagarde list' of Greeks with large Swiss bank accounts, saying that its concealment by two finance ministers was a major political issue.
"The fact that for two years, the ministers of finance that recommended the most catastrophic measures the country has ever known had in their
|
|
I think that goes to show that, no matter what system we think will bring benefits for all, some bastards will try and corner the system for themselves. But that is human nature and I don't see that changing any time soon. And the main thing which prevents bastards cornering everything for themselves is accountability and liberal democracy. Most (all?) of the revolutionary social systems haven't had those, hence the (easy and cheap) shots I can make about just about any of the communist states you care to mention.
That said, I'm curious about your "historical antecedents". I expect you've mentioned it elsewhere but I haven't seen you post it myself. What are they?
I believe you Brits call them Trots.
EDIT: But not Gerry Healy!
Aubrey: They started chasing him at street level. He ran down the stairs, through the entire station, all the way to the tube car. That is a pretty significant distance. Sorry, not impressed.
I assume that the people studying this stuff are able to put it better than you, then, since you've posted nothing much other than your own prejudices. I get the inequality argument, as far as it goes, I don't buy the moral argument that justifies rioting....People who spend their careers studying suchthingshave come to very different conclusions. Do you have any actual evidence of your conclusions? Or are they just things you decided?The system is basically just, I'm afraid. And they smashed and looted because they wanted to nick stuff. There are deeper issues, sure, but let's call criminality what it is. You address the problems but you punish the guilty.Well that's good to know. Aubrey has spoken. The system is just and the British rioter just wanted to steal stuff.
Does this apply to all rioters? Or just the British ones?
What, and you never pontificate? This is what this section of the board is for, and it's not like you hold back on the leftie stuff. Or can't you handle diversity of views?
The riots took hold primarily because of the policing response (or lack thereof) initially, and when the police got a grip the riots died off. As such, it wasn't a spontaneous uprising of political angst but an opportunistic crime spree. And rioting is, y'know, illegal. In a democratic society I honestly find it difficult to say these people are disenfranchised when they enjoy universal suffrage along with everyone else - they get the same vote I do. They are as enfranchised as me. Most of them weren't in poverty. Most of them had jobs. Most of them don't even really know why they were there, other than to nick stuff. So I'm wondering what exactly these people wanted. Other than a new pair of trainers they didn't want to pay for. It is, of course, easy to make windy statements about how they are oppressed but no one really seems able to tell me how.
You're making the claim that the welfare state caused these people to be criminally inclined to riot. I assume you actually have something to back this up, other than your own assertions that it's true.
I made the claim that poverty and unemployment was a factor. Here's an article that breaks some of that down.. 42% of the kids arrested were recipients of school lunches, which are only given to the 16% poorest families.
So it's your claim that free school lunches made these kids bad?
|
|
Aubrey: They started chasing him at street level. He ran down the stairs, through the entire station, all the way to the tube car. That is a pretty significant distance. Sorry, not impressed.
Really, read what happened, and not some biased political blog. The poor sod never knew what was going on. He was sitting on the tube quite happily when the police sat down beside him, and then basically ambushed him. Whatever the whys and wherefores, he wasn't pursued in the way you say. Yes, he was obviously followed, but he wasn't aware and was as surprised as everyone else in the carriage. There was a lot of misinformation that the media put out in the immediate aftermath, but the facts around his actual killing are now reasonably clear.
If you claim that he was actually sitting on the tube when they burst in and killed him, that does not match the statements of any of the police involved. Please, do your own reading before you demand it of someone else.
|
|
You're making the claim that the welfare state caused these people to be criminally inclined to riot. I assume you actually have something to back this up, other than your own assertions that it's true.
I made the claim that poverty and unemployment was a factor. Here's an article that breaks some of that down.. 42% of the kids arrested were recipients of school lunches, which are only given to the 16% poorest families.
So it's your claim that free school lunches made these kids bad?
Ah, the Guardian again... No, I'm suggesting there are a number of factors, including the design of some aspects of the welfare state and other policies, which don't help. Which the article itself actually says. Clearly, deprivation is an issue - as I said above, having a stake in society involves having something to lose that you want to protect. Take that away, and you maybe aren't so bothered and rioting seems like more of an option.
But let's ask some questions the article doesn't. Why are these kids poor? Are they from predominately single-parent families, where there is no father? Policies for public housing have made it a quite viable option to become a single mother, although there is evidence that young men brought up in families without fathers tend, on average, to be more inclined the disorder. So is that wise? That's not a moralistic argument, it's a practical issue about social policy and the behaviours it encourages.
Another example. Labour governments abolished selective schooling (more or less) and brought in the comprehensive system. The result? Less social mobility that before under the "bad" system that supposedly left the ones who failed the 11+ "on the scrapheap". So if you are born poor now, you are less likely to actually lift yourself out through educational attainment that you were fifty years ago, and this in our supposedly more meritocratic society. Add in teaching unions hostile to any form of accountability for their members, and you have an education system that typically fails those who are more vulnerable. So, again, you may feel you have no real stake if you leave school with crappy qualifications and no prospect of getting a decent job.
So did free school meals cause the riots? No, of course not. Is all welfare spending bad? No. That's not to say that stupid policies from supposedly caring left-wing governments haven't had a very pernicious effect on the lowest stratas of society, the very people they are supposed to be prioritised on helping.
|
|
If you claim that he was actually sitting on the tube when they burst in and killed him, that does not match the statements of any of the police involved. Please, do your own reading before you demand it of someone else.
I read the wikipedia article, which probably isn't perfect but is likely reasonably accurate, particularly as it has the advantage of being written when all the available details were out there. It goes into some detail on the facts, and the non-facts, as they were established by the various enquiries. For example, it was established that he didn't vault the barriers in terror at pursuit, but used his Oyster card and went down the escalators obliviously. I did actually check my facts. Read it, then we can talk.
Wikipedia... I am speechless. I read the investigation. You are of course aware that anyone can edit Wikipedia?