Any London left?

gtvlusso

What the f*ck did I miss?!

The demographic, IMHO, appears to be young males of all races - thats it.

Mr Duggan Known to Police
Mr Duggan carries gun
Mr Duggan gets shot by Police

Very sad for his family, but ultimately, Mr Duggan could have been intent on endangering the public. Tragic, but the lesson is simple: - handguns are banned in the UK and the Police will shoot you, if they think that you are a danger to the public by carrying a handgun.

garnett

Sketchley wrote:

Garnett wrote:

To say “these riots have nothing to do with race” is a bizarre thing to say. You yourself go straight on to talk about demographics so you seem to accept that most of the looters in London were young black men (be that for whatever reason, as I said earlier), a point accepted by most people, albeit most very keen to avoid the elephant in the room.

Disagree. Show me the evidence..

Google Image Search Results

Sketchley wrote:

[Common theme seems to be young kids mostly male. I've seen no evidence to suggest that most of them were black. In fact every single commentary I've seen from eye witnesses have said it was mixed race group, white, black, asian etc.

My point above was that C4 and BBC were seemingly very keen to portray it that way too. And I don't believe, from the evidence I've seen, that that was the case.

Sketchley wrote:

This had nothing to do with race. Everything to do with being young and aspirational with no readily available means of fulfilling that aspiration. i.e I want those trainers/iphone/ipad/clothers etc, I can't afford them so I'll take them.

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying that those people, also happened to be black.

It's easy, wrong, and unpleasant for the BNP to say "it's all the blacks", but I am saying that matching their misrepresentations with similarly forceful diametrically opposed misrepresentations is not the best way to deal with the problem.

I appreciate that poverty is more common in minority areas, and crime is directly linked with poverty, but I would contend that on top of that, the degree of disengagement, and the attitude that society owes them something appears (anecdotal, 1st person subjective opinion I concede) to be more acute in young black men.

[EDIT:And, to reiterate and elaborate a point I made above - every single person (out of maybe 30 people, that I saw carrying stuff past our flat was young and black, and 90% male - for completeness, I must add, I saw one white guy who wasn't carrying anything but who looked like he most definitely had been looting) and 5 or 6 of those got out out of a new ford focus, and an older BMW (and so I would conjecture, cannot have been crushingly poor.]

rjsterry

I imagine C4 and BBC were studiously trying to avoid any accusation of inflaming the situation by adding a racial aspect to the reporting. I'm not convinced of Garnett's observation, but it's certainly worth investigating the demographics of those involved once the dust has settled.

notsoblue

Garnett wrote:

I appreciate that poverty is more common in minority areas, and crime is directly linked with poverty, but I would contend that on top of thet, the degree of disengagement, and the attitude that society owes them something appears (anecdotal, 1st person subjective opinion I concede) to be more acute in young black men.

Do you think theres a problem with the way that the metropolitan police treat young black men?

notsoblue

rjsterry wrote:

I imagine C4 and BBC were studiously trying to avoid any accusation of inflaming the situation by adding a racial aspect to the reporting. I'm not convinced of Garnett's observation, but it's certainly worth investigating the demographics of those involved once the dust has settled.

Some have been surprised that a proportion of those arrested didn't fit the presumed demographic. "But he's a graphic designer!"

Ben6899

notsoblue wrote:

Garnett wrote:

I appreciate that poverty is more common in minority areas, and crime is directly linked with poverty, but I would contend that on top of thet, the degree of disengagement, and the attitude that society owes them something appears (anecdotal, 1st person subjective opinion I concede) to be more acute in young black men.

Do you think theres a problem with the way that the metropolitan police treat young black men?

I know you didn't ask me, but I do. What you getting at?

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

Garnett wrote:

I appreciate that poverty is more common in minority areas, and crime is directly linked with poverty, but I would contend that on top of thet, the degree of disengagement, and the attitude that society owes them something appears (anecdotal, 1st person subjective opinion I concede) to be more acute in young black men.

Do you think theres a problem with the way that the metropolitan police treat young black men?

No experience of this myself - can count on one hand the number of times I have even spoken to a police officer - but a close friend (Nigerian, brought up in a smarter part of NE Surrey) related the kind of thing that DDD and others have described: repeatedly stopped and questioned on fairly dubious grounds.

W1

DDD,

Generally I think you're right on this one. Except that I don't agree that there's "all chance" that the gun found at the scene was planted/nothing to do with the chap. There is "a" chance, but a small one based on what we do in fact know. Do you agree?

I would generally fall into the camp that gives the police the benefit of the doubt.

Being in posession of a gun does not give police the legitimacy to kill someone. And, generally speaking, I would say they don't. Plenty of people are imprisoned for carrying a firearm - i.e. it's not an automatic shootable offence.

The police don't open fire for fun - each police shooting is indepently investigated and the officer is removed from duties in the meantime. The police don't need to be shot at in order to shoot someone - the threat is sufficient (and I'm fine with that). The fact that this guy didn't get the chance to fire off a shot (if indeed he had a gun) doesn't mean he didn't provide the police with a reason to shoot.

"Live by the sword, die by the sword" is not the same as "an eye for an eye" as you seem to suggest. It means that if you take extra risks, you should be prepared to be bitten. If you choose to carry a gun, you should be prepared for the fact that you are more likely to get shot.

As to the race issue - I can't help but feel that it's the elephant in the room. If indeed it is "a" rather than "the" problem, just ignoring it for fear of causing offence or being labelled a racist won't be of any use in dealing with the various back-issues surrounding the communities from where the rioters adn looters came from. The police probably felt that they weren't able to robusstly tackle the rioters for fear of (a) being labelled as recist or (b) having another Tomlinson. That's a difficult - but absurd - position to be in.

antfly

Garnett wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Garnett wrote:

Just as an addendum, now the BBC are reporting on the groups tidying up the mess. They interviewed a random attendee, who just happened to be black... against a backdrop of 10s of other tidiers, all of whom were white.

Don't get me wrong. A lot of black Londoners have been outstanding in their response, and I genuinely believe a lot will now work hard to address the problems.

I'm just concerned that if all the facts of the problem aren't recognised it won't be solved properly.

Living in the community, I would say that for whatever reason, the combination of disengagement from society, the sense of entitlement, and the absolutely brazenness with which antisocial and immoral behaviour is carried out is disproportionately accentuated in the young black men here.

If that problem is going to addressed it has to first be acknowledged.

What are you trying to say Alf Garnett?

Considering that these riots have nothing to do with race and if you watched footage of the riots outside London you'd realise there was higher proportion of white people rioting/looting.

I'm not going to dignify you with a response about demograhpic distribution of people in and outside London, specifically in poor areas.

Prick.

Aside from the personal invective, and the poor internal logic ("I'm not going to dignify you with a response ...blah, blah blah, demograhpic distribution of people in and outside London, specifically in poor areas"), you've exercised considerable prejudice ("Garnett", so therefore it must be "Alf Garnett", rather than say, "Garnett Fleischaker") in a post where you appear to be accusing me of it, and you've completely missed the point of the post you've quoted - if it is all down to demographics, why were the groups looting, and then tidying up the same area so utterly different?

To say “these riots have nothing to do with race” is a bizarre thing to say. You yourself go straight on to talk about demographics so you seem to accept that most of the looters in London were young black men (be that for whatever reason, as I said earlier), a point accepted by most people, albeit most very keen to avoid the elephant in the room.

I appreciate you’re on the defensive and lashing out at anything you think could score you points given your position in the debate has fallen so low, but personally, I would say that by trying to stereotype my post as a standard “Efnics ouht” post, you’ve undermined what little credibility you’ve got left. I’ll say again:

Garnett wrote:

Living in the community, I would say that for whatever reason, the combination of disengagement from society, the sense of entitlement, and the absolutely brazenness with which antisocial and immoral behaviour is carried out is disproportionately accentuated in the young black men here.

Perhaps I need to more clear. It could well be that the reasons for the above are purely the bad parenting, and lack of ambition or moral values that come with poverty. (As an aside, the looters I saw from my flat were turning up in new cars (ford focus and BMW parked on our street) and were well dressed, and not interested in stealing food, or other essentials, but lifestyle items of clothing and electrical goods).

Regardless of the causes, to purposefully ignore a common trait of essentially all the looters because it is unsavoury, could very easily blinker you to solutions that might otherwise be more obvious.

Well put. It would be easy to ignore the elephant in the room for fear of being called a racist but that would be childish, cowardly and intellectually dishonest and you can't solve the problems by ignoring the facts. Also, i've never heard thieving described as being "aspirational" before. Are all criminals out to make money aspirational?

W1

notsoblue wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I imagine C4 and BBC were studiously trying to avoid any accusation of inflaming the situation by adding a racial aspect to the reporting. I'm not convinced of Garnett's observation, but it's certainly worth investigating the demographics of those involved once the dust has settled.

Some have been surprised that a proportion of those arrested didn't fit the presumed demographic. "But he's a graphic designer!"

It's not surprising that not everyone fits the presumed demographic. But what is the "presumed demographic" and why do you think people "presume" it in the first place?

Reporting the exceptions to the "presumed demographic" surely indicates that the majority fit it? Otherwise the exceptions wouldn't be exceptions!

BTW before someone calls for me to be banned, that's a question, not a statement.

Ben6899

W1. Good post (the 1st one).

EDIT: and the 2nd one aint bad either.

FoldingJoe

Greg T wrote:

Or do you have other examples?

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

garnett

notsoblue wrote:

Garnett wrote:

I appreciate that poverty is more common in minority areas, and crime is directly linked with poverty, but I would contend that on top of thet, the degree of disengagement, and the attitude that society owes them something appears (anecdotal, 1st person subjective opinion I concede) to be more acute in young black men.

Do you think theres a problem with the way that the metropolitan police treat young black men?

I do, but to continue playing devil's advocate, I'd say it's not wholly the Met's fault. I'd need to look at stats about crime rates to see whether, after normalising for the fact more crime is committed by black people than white people (i think that's right, and I think it can be attributed to what others have identified already: the link between being black, and being poor, and being poor and committing crime), the rate of stop and search and similar is out of kilter.

That said, the Met is massively white. What are the reasons for that? Can they be laid at everyone's feet bar the black community?

I'm not saying my subjective experience trumps everything else, and my suspicions trump properly analysed stats, but I suspect there may be merit in looking at the causes for why young black men don't want to be policemen, or politicians or go into the professions.

Presumably at some stage we will have figures for convictions for all this looting and a clearer picture can be drawn. It may well prove me wrong. It may appear to prove me right, until people start saying "The Met only arrested the black looters" and "if you look back at the C4 and BBC reports it clearly says the looters were from all walks of life", who knows?

notsoblue

Ben6899 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Garnett wrote:

I appreciate that poverty is more common in minority areas, and crime is directly linked with poverty, but I would contend that on top of thet, the degree of disengagement, and the attitude that society owes them something appears (anecdotal, 1st person subjective opinion I concede) to be more acute in young black men.

Do you think theres a problem with the way that the metropolitan police treat young black men?

I know you didn't ask me, but I do. What you getting at?

Well people seem to totally ignore this. Especially when they make comments like "the attitude that society owes them something appears to be more acute in young black men". I'm no sociologist, but to me it seems that theres a very large group of young people that feel that society simply expects them to behave in a certain way. So they do. That doesn't excuse the behaviour, but you can't ignore that society (specifically the bits of it represented by the Met Police) is complicit in this.

W1

rjsterry wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Garnett wrote:

I appreciate that poverty is more common in minority areas, and crime is directly linked with poverty, but I would contend that on top of thet, the degree of disengagement, and the attitude that society owes them something appears (anecdotal, 1st person subjective opinion I concede) to be more acute in young black men.

Do you think theres a problem with the way that the metropolitan police treat young black men?

No experience of this myself - can count on one hand the number of times I have even spoken to a police officer - but a close friend (Nigerian, brought up in a smarter part of NE Surrey) related the kind of thing that DDD and others have described: repeatedly stopped and questioned on fairly dubious grounds.

So do you blame the police, or blame those that cause such preconceptions to be created? Do crime stats support police stop & search policy? Do we want police to waste disproportionate time S&Sing those who are less statistically likely to be out and about with criminal intend to avoid the appearence of discrimination?

I can't help feel that if this discussion was on anyting other than race it would be far more easily done. If people who wore green shoes were more likely to be criminals, would we object to the poliec searching more people wearing green shoes than blue ones?

No doubt all this makes me a bad person but I'd be interested to hear some views.

Specialized Needs

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

FACT US WE DON’T KNOW YET AND THERE COULD BE A NUMBER OF CIRCUMSTANCES TO COME TO LIGHT.

Despite the all caps, this bit I agree with. A lot of people seem to be giving the police the benefit of the doubt here. They assume that the guy *must* have done something to warrant being shot. Because he was the type, right? He was a violent criminal who carried a gun around with him. And the police are a trusted authority that are here to protect us from people like him, right?

Not always no. We've been through this, the police can be subject to mistakes, wrongful actions, corruption and racism. They can also demonstrate levels of heroism that I can only dream of.

Initial reports said that there was a shoot out. There wasn't that wasn't the reason he was shot for. We don't know why he was shot. Until confirmation there is the possibility of police wrong doing. It's possible that they did the right thing.

I don't know, but when police just kill folk I don't immediately think they did the right thing, without acknowledged justification.

Because he was the type, right?

So we are typecasting and applying stereotypes now. Who's idiotic again?

Anyone in a hood is a criminal I guess. I'm prone to wearing a hoodie to go to the shops - having taken my brogues and suit off - I guess I'm up to no good.

As you found out when NSB pointed out, he was supporting your approach. You have now edited the above. But it does demonstrate how easy it is to take the wrong message from published information.

Generally we, the public, rely on third hand information - media reports of bodies' press releases (please note - the IPCC and the police authorities are not one and the same; except to someone who sees all publicly funded bodies as 'the Estabishment'). We have already seen how such 'chinese whispers' can be misleading: giving the impression the IPCC had made a statement which they didn't.

I have some sympathy for what you appear to be trying to do here, DDD. There is a spectrum of possible scenarios in the Duggan shooting ranging from one extreme to the other. Currently we have little evidence to go one way or another. We may get sufficient information to be able to draw our own conclusions eventually. I read you as asking people to pause and consider that, although the police may have acted reasonably, they also may not have - and to keep an open mind.

We do, however, have a lot of speculation and a lot of assumptions being made; here, in the media, and 'on the streets'. People will inevitably jump to conclusions based on their expectations. Some will give the benefit of the doubt to the police. Some will go the other way.

squired

Sketchley wrote:

Garnett wrote:

To say “these riots have nothing to do with race” is a bizarre thing to say. You yourself go straight on to talk about demographics so you seem to accept that most of the looters in London were young black men (be that for whatever reason, as I said earlier), a point accepted by most people, albeit most very keen to avoid the elephant in the room.

.

Disagree. Show me the evidence. Common theme seems to be young kids mostly male. I've seen no evidence to suggest that most of them were black. In fact every single commentary I've seen from eye witnesses have said it was mixed race group, white, black, asian etc.

This had nothing to do with race. Everything to do with being young and aspirational with no readily available means of fulfilling that aspiration. i.e I want those trainers/iphone/ipad/clothers etc, I can't afford them so I'll take them.

I was passing through Croydon on my way home on Monday. This was around the time they started pulling people from cars and the group of 200 odd people began their rampage in West Croydon. This eye witness can confirm that 95% percent of the people there were black. What was even more sad was that it wasn't just young black man, but there were quite a few women too. Mind you, Croydon is known to have problems with predominently black gangs, so the demographic there was probably to be expected.

One thing I find sad is that the police in Croydon clearly messed up. The lines of defense they formed to protect the pedestrianised part of Croydon didn't include the road round the back of the shopping centre - a major tactical error. Having said that, one of my police friends was among the riot police. He made 5 arrests that night. Even if the guys at senior level made mistakes one can't help but admire him and his colleagues for getting through what must be among the worst experiences of their careers.

Greg T

notsoblue wrote:

The have form of shooting people who didn't deserve to get shot... .

Who?

What form?

Your Forest gate example didn't fly did it? So have another go. Who?

Ben6899

notsoblue wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Garnett wrote:

I appreciate that poverty is more common in minority areas, and crime is directly linked with poverty, but I would contend that on top of thet, the degree of disengagement, and the attitude that society owes them something appears (anecdotal, 1st person subjective opinion I concede) to be more acute in young black men.

Do you think theres a problem with the way that the metropolitan police treat young black men?

I know you didn't ask me, but I do. What you getting at?

Well people seem to totally ignore this. Especially when they make comments like "the attitude that society owes them something appears to be more acute in young black men". I'm no sociologist, but to me it seems that theres a very large group of young people that feel that society simply expects them to behave in a certain way. So they do. That doesn't excuse the behaviour, but you can't ignore that society (specifically the bits of it represented by the Met Police) is complicit in this.

There's some validity in there, but two wrongs will never make a right. Unfair treatment from the Police is not an excuse to be a little chippy bastard.

Suggesting they are acting as they are expected to do is a massive leap as well.

UndercoverElephant

Garnett wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Garnett wrote:

To say “these riots have nothing to do with race” is a bizarre thing to say. You yourself go straight on to talk about demographics so you seem to accept that most of the looters in London were young black men (be that for whatever reason, as I said earlier), a point accepted by most people, albeit most very keen to avoid the elephant in the room.

Disagree. Show me the evidence..

Google Image Search Results

That's hardly evidence, is it? In fact if you look at this shot:



Of the looters in Croydon, you could make plenty of wildly different generalisations. I think the best-fit would be that they're all young kids from a relatively poor area. If these riots were to occur in the poor areas around the country, the mix of races would be different. The Bradford riots, for instance were started by white kids attacking Asian businesses. Again, poor young men with no prospects and little hope.

jzed

There is an interesting article here on the mix of rioters here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/london-riots-who-took-part.

notsoblue

antfly wrote:

Well put. It would be easy to ignore the elephant in the room for fear of being called a racist but that would be childish, cowardly and intellectually dishonest and you can't solve the problems by ignoring the facts. Also, i've never heard thieving described as being "aspirational" before. Are all criminals out to make money aspirational?

I think you need to just say what you feel, antfly. Don't keep referring to the elephant in the room, if for you the elephant is some abhorrent notion about racial inferiority.

garnett

notsoblue wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Garnett wrote:

I appreciate that poverty is more common in minority areas, and crime is directly linked with poverty, but I would contend that on top of thet, the degree of disengagement, and the attitude that society owes them something appears (anecdotal, 1st person subjective opinion I concede) to be more acute in young black men.

Do you think theres a problem with the way that the metropolitan police treat young black men?

I know you didn't ask me, but I do. What you getting at?

Well people seem to totally ignore this. Especially when they make comments like "the attitude that society owes them something appears to be more acute in young black men". I'm no sociologist, but to me it seems that theres a very large group of young people that feel that society simply expects them to behave in a certain way. So they do. That doesn't excuse the behaviour, but you can't ignore that society (specifically the bits of it represented by the Met Police) is complicit in this.

Sorry, takes me an age to bash out my rambling posts and by the time I'm done the debates gone away. I think that - "a very large group of young people that feel that society simply expects them to behave in a certain way. So they do." - certainly has a strong element of truth.

I would say though, that while the Met, and other parts of society who come into contention with that group do help form that group's mindset, they are not the only ones.

The role models that group choose for themselves, the lifestyles to which they choose to aspire to, and their peer group also expect them to behave in a certain way: do not engage in any way with the police, treat people you don't know as though they are subhuman, have no regard for the space you live in or the neighbours you live next to, etc etc.

While the Met seems to me to be under quite a bit of scrutiny (cf the speed at which the IPCC is releasing details of its findings), the other groups affecting the mindset do not seem to be held to nearly as much account.

notsoblue

Ben6899 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Garnett wrote:

I appreciate that poverty is more common in minority areas, and crime is directly linked with poverty, but I would contend that on top of thet, the degree of disengagement, and the attitude that society owes them something appears (anecdotal, 1st person subjective opinion I concede) to be more acute in young black men.

Do you think theres a problem with the way that the metropolitan police treat young black men?

I know you didn't ask me, but I do. What you getting at?

Well people seem to totally ignore this. Especially when they make comments like "the attitude that society owes them something appears to be more acute in young black men". I'm no sociologist, but to me it seems that theres a very large group of young people that feel that society simply expects them to behave in a certain way. So they do. That doesn't excuse the behaviour, but you can't ignore that society (specifically the bits of it represented by the Met Police) is complicit in this.

There's some validity in there, but two wrongs will never make a right. Unfair treatment from the Police is not an excuse to be a little chippy bastard.

Suggesting they are acting as they are expected to do is a massive leap as well.

I never said two wrongs make a right, and I never made any excuses. I was just speculating as to how this dysfunctional situation may have arisen and was suggesting that simply vilifying the rioters and leaving it at that is the right solution. I think some introspection is necessary here.

Greg T

notsoblue wrote:

I think some introspection is necessary here.

Why do so many people think the Met Police kill people without justification?

or you want to wring your hands for looters?

W1

I think this chap speaks some sense:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-14462102

We can blame "society" all we like, but at the end of the day the reason these riots and lootings happened was because people thought (a) it was acceptable and (b) they could get away with it. (a) is largely down to parenting - and it's no good blaming a lack of youth facilities, investment etc etc and passing the parenting responsibility to the state. (b) is perhaps more mob mentality combined with the police fears.

sketchley

Garnett wrote:

Google Image Search Results

FFS Look at these pictures again. White male climbing out shop window, hooded asian youths, Chinese and yes black. Mixed race like I said. There *maybe* more black than others but this does not make it about race it may simply be the case the demographic in that area has a higher percentage of black youth to white white youth which is reflected in the group rioting. Show me the same thing in Manchester. Was it black youths there? Certainly not from the TV footage last night.

DonDaddyD

Yon know in places like Walworth road - where there is a high number of ethnic

minorities and generally the less affluent - I can accept that those riots were mostly African and Caribbean teenagers there were however other ethnicities involved ergo these riots weren't about ethnicity.

In places like Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Wolverhampton etc where there is genrally less ethnic minorities and still high numbers of young people, some poor, there were still riots. Ergo, it's not about race.

The problem itself isn't Black vs White vs Asian. Black people aren't the sole problem. The problem as my ever growingly beloved Ed Miliband said is a comlex subject. It extends beyond race and ethnicity and is rooted in society. Young people in general across the Country think it was OK to act in that way.

Make it a race issue at British Society's peril.

---

If we look at the demographics the riots happened mostly in areas deemed socio-economically deprived, near poorer areas or carried out by (what it seems) people from poorer areas.

Ethnic minorities comprise 2% of the population and of that includes black people. It is unfortunate that high numbers of all ethnic minorities live in those areas.

It is assumed that mostly people from poor areas were rioting and questions have to be asked about their social values that led to them thinking it was OK to riot and what can be done.

But that isn't limited to just black people as Alf Garnett and Antfly suggest.

Ben6899

notsoblue wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Garnett wrote:

I appreciate that poverty is more common in minority areas, and crime is directly linked with poverty, but I would contend that on top of thet, the degree of disengagement, and the attitude that society owes them something appears (anecdotal, 1st person subjective opinion I concede) to be more acute in young black men.

Do you think theres a problem with the way that the metropolitan police treat young black men?

I know you didn't ask me, but I do. What you getting at?

Well people seem to totally ignore this. Especially when they make comments like "the attitude that society owes them something appears to be more acute in young black men". I'm no sociologist, but to me it seems that theres a very large group of young people that feel that society simply expects them to behave in a certain way. So they do. That doesn't excuse the behaviour, but you can't ignore that society (specifically the bits of it represented by the Met Police) is complicit in this.

There's some validity in there, but two wrongs will never make a right. Unfair treatment from the Police is not an excuse to be a little chippy bastard.

Suggesting they are acting as they are expected to do is a massive leap as well.

I never said two wrongs make a right, and I never made any excuses. I was just speculating as to how this dysfunctional situation may have arisen and was suggesting that simply vilifying the rioters and leaving it at that is the right solution. I think some introspection is necessary here.

Yes fair enough, but along this line one could be coming very close to seeing the rioters as victims. And that's the last thing they are.

clarkey cat

its absolutely mob mentality from theiving scum - but what are you going to do with that?

you have to create a society where people aren't or don't want to be or if they are then they arent inclined to act on being theiving scum. We don't have that.

pointing the finger at the scum and saying 'this is unacceptable - you have no excuses - you are just scum' will get you nowhere. They've already shown they couldn't give a hoot.

But for now we just need to crack some heads.