Any London left?
Comments
-
MonkeyMonster wrote:notsoblue wrote:Why can't you just accept that there is some societal complicity here? Because not demonising them might make you empathise with the rioters?
Not sure anyone would really disagree there is an element of social issue at cause here but it's not, nor near being the primary or majority cause. You can't blame society for parenting skills that allow a child to grow up thinking anything near the behaviour of late is acceptable.
Society is to blame for the reactions (ie post cause) of the police force against such behaviour. No baton usage because if more racial minorities "said" they had been beaten then there would be a massive outcry etc etc.
To re-educate the parents and those kids to a level at which they knew and believed what was morally correct to do would require buckets of cash and a willingness to change. The latter will control the former and I doubt they want to.
I agree, you can't blame society for bad parenting, but surely you can seek to understand how that situation arose? Otherwise you're simply writing off a whole generation of people and thats just not practical. It won't make things better.0 -
Cool, I get you.Ben6899 wrote:You don't need to repeat anything to me, I never accused you of excusing the rioters. And I actually replied with "fair enough" to your post i.e. I agree society is to blame.
I can make that agreement WITHOUT empathising; the state of society has left me unemployed since last November and sometimes I'm really quite angry about that given the reasons behind the spending cuts and subsequent unemployment (they're not as a result of my chosen lifestyle). So I could also go looting/rioting, using society as an excuse, if I was a dickhead.
Sorry, I'm digressing. In short; we are in agreement, but I maybe didn't make that so clear!0 -
notsoblue wrote:MonkeyMonster wrote:
stuffnotsoblue wrote:stuff
I agree, you can't blame society for bad parenting, but surely you can seek to understand how that situation arose? Otherwise you're simply writing off a whole generation of people and thats just not practical. It won't make things better.
Indeed but I suspect you will have to go back a large number of years and sift through lots of different influences. As a number of people have said though, it's [fortunately] not an entire generation and actually a relatively small number of a particular one. It will take a more forgiving and easier going person than I to assist these people(kids) back into living in with us in a normal(ish) society.
Never thought I'd see a discussion on socieconomic shenanigans on a bike forrum though
Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
No I called him a blinkered prick. I called antfly, and quite rightly, a racist.Ben6899 wrote:DDD, if you accuse someone of being racist, then you have to be absolutely, ABSolutely, ABSOLUTELY sure that you're correct in that accusation.
I believe you calling Garnett "vile" and "sickening" was based on you thinking he is making racist comments. I also believe you don't have any real credible evidence to do that.
I'm trying to be the voice of reason here - I'd suggest Garnett double checks the fact in bold.
Maybe I should have quoted the entirity of his posts. Maybe I could have quoted a better example. I can't be bothered to go back over Garnett's posts to point out why I'll simply repost what I've written:DDD wrote:I think you are a blinkered prick.
Here's why, you based on your singular experience of witnessing the riots in Clapham you've continually asserted that the majority of rioters were black. Then you've jumped to the assumption that this must clearly be a race issue.
Despite every single report person and the rioters themselves saying that this was nothing to do with race you've stuck with that view.
I'm not denying that the majority of rioters may have been of another ethnicity other than white british. What is clear is that they the riots and the reason for rioting were not a race related issue.
If there is an overwhelming number of other ethnicities involved in the riots but the reason for rioting was not race related then it is highly probable that any solution (mirroring the cause) will have nothing to do with race.
I also asserted that under darkness, and a hoodie, cap or scarf around the face it may be hard to identify what ethnicity the person may be.
Fact of the matter is this. Garnett (Alf) saw a large number of black people looting in Clapham and therefore, it seems, thinks that
(i) the riots that have happened (all over the UK I might add) are race related.
(ii) hasn't considered any external or other circumstances as to why the riots happened.
He mostly saw black people so asserts that it must be a specific race issue and/or the problem resides within the black community and not society itself.
What he said is not racist like antfly's brilliant "Reduce the black population = no riots" fvcking moronic bullshit. As though no other ethnicities riot.
But I believe it is pretty blinkered.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
W1 wrote:You'll correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that even if statistically it's a "waste" to S&S those who do not necesarily fit the criminal demographic in order to avoid being accused of being discriminatory, then that "waste" is in fact worthwhile to have good community relations. Yes, I can see the value of that and hadn't considered it before.
No, not saying that at all. It would be a waste of time to ignore profiling when looking for suspects. And thats not what the met have done to improve community relations.0 -
antfly wrote:notsoblue wrote:Garnett wrote:Is it prejudice to allow what I saw to affect my attitude? Should I be allowed to adopt a different attitude because a different part of society came into unpleasant contact with my daily life? Feck knows. Anyway, a good debate, and some insightful stuff for me to take away.
I don't think it is. And I'd class your attitude as being very different from Antfly's.
Funny that because he has said a whole lot more than me and what little I have written he has elaborated on at much greater length.
What little you have written has given enough insight into the opinions you hold.0 -
MonkeyMonster wrote:Never thought I'd see a discussion on socieconomic shenanigans on a bike forrum though
What?
Back in the Golden Era of 'Commuting General' we knew it was beer o clock when DDD's threads went nuclear and before we got sucked into the vortex of endlessly nested quotes.
Them was 'appy days. So young, so carefree.
I blame Apple“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Well I don't think "sickening and vile" is warranted because someone is "blinkered". "Blinkered" to me seems to suggest the person needs educating, but they're not really all that bad as a person. "Vile and sickening" is a pretty damning critique.
The cynics might say you've back-tracked a bit there.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
Wouldn't have happened if the Krays were still here............ 0
-
Ben6899 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:notsoblue wrote:
I'm getting pretty tired of repeatedly stating that I'm not making excuses for rioters or painting them as victims
Why can't you just accept that there is some societal complicity here? Because not demonising them might make you empathise with the rioters?
Quite.
More eloquently than I could have put.
By saying there are clearly socio-economic problems that have forged a group of people who don't feel bound by acceptable behaviour does not mean you are making an excuse for people who are behaving unacceptably.
Did you both read my reply to this point? Not being funny, but I hope you did.
I did. It's different. We're not just talking about being unemployed for a while though.
It's a different level. It's excessive social and economic exclusion. That exclusion removes acceptable social boundries, since they're excluded from them. That exclusion makes them angry. They probably don't live stable lives, and spend a lot of time in groups outside - especially in summer.
That exclusion anger manifests into destructive anger. They're even excluded from the police - who they see as an enemy, rather than as a protector. They feel so excluded that what they steal they feel is not so much because they feel they're owed something, but more they want to get back at the society that excludes them, to have, ultimately, what the rest of society has. In manifests in anarchic, angry, egoistical consumerism, since that's what seems to define social status. What you own.
This exclusion is likely not to be articulated. They're not likely to be educated, they're not even likely to be especially intelligent.
It's no excuse. They necessarily should and will be punished for it. That part of society they will understand - that feeling excluded from society does not exclude them from the boundaries society has to keep society civilised. But to continue to keep them huddled away in some underclass neighbourhood, brandished as unfit for society, as chavs, as scum, won't solve the problem. It will concentrate it, reinforce it and let it fester.
It needs to be solved. They need to feel included into society, both by the laws and rules it has and by the benefits it provides. That includes feeling that they have some opportunities in life. Not for luxury, but for a life where they can feel valued and included.0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:You'll correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that even if statistically it's a "waste" to S&S those who do not necesarily fit the criminal demographic in order to avoid being accused of being discriminatory, then that "waste" is in fact worthwhile to have good community relations. Yes, I can see the value of that and hadn't considered it before.
No, not saying that at all. It would be a waste of time to ignore profiling when looking for suspects. And thats not what the met have done to improve community relations.
In which case I don't understand. What is the "effect" you mentioned that I have ignored?0 -
MonkeyMonster wrote:Indeed but I suspect you will have to go back a large number of years and sift through lots of different influences. As a number of people have said though, it's [fortunately] not an entire generation and actually a relatively small number of a particular one. It will take a more forgiving and easier going person than I to assist these people(kids) back into living in with us in a normal(ish) society.
Never thought I'd see a discussion on socieconomic shenanigans on a bike forrum though
Generation was probably the wrong term to use, but its still a significantly large group of people. It isn't just those who end up breaking the law. You can't use the criminal justice system as a convenient way of separating them. This is a pretty wide problem, and I think it was visible in the way that kids treat teachers and the police much before it got to the point where hundreds of them were looting JJB. I don't have any solutions, though :S0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:You'll correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that even if statistically it's a "waste" to S&S those who do not necesarily fit the criminal demographic in order to avoid being accused of being discriminatory, then that "waste" is in fact worthwhile to have good community relations. Yes, I can see the value of that and hadn't considered it before.
No, not saying that at all. It would be a waste of time to ignore profiling when looking for suspects. And thats not what the met have done to improve community relations.
In which case I don't understand. What is the "effect" you mentioned that I have ignored?
Widespread distrust and/or contempt for police authority.0 -
Thanks Ben. As far as you can trust it, here's what Wikipediahas to say:Ben6899 wrote:I'm trying to be the voice of reason here - I'd suggest Garnett double checks the fact in bold.
"The figures showed that the majority of males who were accused of violent and sexual crimes (including those subsequently acquitted) in 2009–10 were black. Of the recorded 18,091 such accusations against males, 54 percent accused of street crimes were black; for robbery, 59 percent; for gun crimes, 67 percent; and for sexual offences, 32 percent."
But also, and hopefully demonstrably exactly as I was saying:
"Evidence shows that the black population in London boroughs increases with the level of deprivation, and that the level of crime also increases with deprivation, such that "It is clear that ethnicity, deprivation, victimisation and offending are closely and intricately inter-related"."
Anyway, definitely last post in this thread from me - the things that most undermines DDD's arguments are in fact what DDD posts himself. Barring any more unhighlighted edits or dishonest misrep from him, that's me done.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I did. It's different. We're not just talking about being unemployed for a while though.
It's a different level. It's excessive social and economic exclusion. That exclusion removes acceptable social boundries, since they're excluded from them. That exclusion makes them angry. They probably don't live stable lives, and spend a lot of time in groups outside - especially in summer.
That exclusion anger manifests into destructive anger. They're even excluded from the police - who they see as an enemy, rather than as a protector. They feel so excluded that what they steal they feel is not so much because they feel they're owed something, but more they want to get back at the society that excludes them, to have, ultimately, what the rest of society has. In manifests in anarchic, angry, egoistical consumerism, since that's what seems to define social status. What you own.
This exclusion is likely not to be articulated. They're not likely to be educated, they're not even likely to be especially intelligent.
It's no excuse. They necessarily should and will be punished for it. That part of society they will understand - that feeling excluded from society does not exclude them from the boundaries society has to keep society civilised. But to continue to keep them huddled away in some underclass neighbourhood, brandished as unfit for society, as chavs, as scum, won't solve the problem. It will concentrate it, reinforce it and let it fester.
It needs to be solved. They need to feel included into society, both by the laws and rules it has and by the benefits it provides. That includes feeling that they have some opportunities in life. Not for luxury, but for a life where they can feel valued and included.
Very well put.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:I did. It's different. We're not just talking about being unemployed for a while though.
It's a different level. It's excessive social and economic exclusion. That exclusion removes acceptable social boundries, since they're excluded from them. That exclusion makes them angry. They probably don't live stable lives, and spend a lot of time in groups outside - especially in summer.
That exclusion anger manifests into destructive anger. They're even excluded from the police - who they see as an enemy, rather than as a protector. They feel so excluded that what they steal they feel is not so much because they feel they're owed something, but more they want to get back at the society that excludes them, to have, ultimately, what the rest of society has. In manifests in anarchic, angry, egoistical consumerism, since that's what seems to define social status. What you own.
This exclusion is likely not to be articulated. They're not likely to be educated, they're not even likely to be especially intelligent.
It's no excuse. They necessarily should and will be punished for it. That part of society they will understand - that feeling excluded from society does not exclude them from the boundaries society has to keep society civilised. But to continue to keep them huddled away in some underclass neighbourhood, brandished as unfit for society, as chavs, as scum, won't solve the problem. It will concentrate it, reinforce it and let it fester.
It needs to be solved. They need to feel included into society, both by the laws and rules it has and by the benefits it provides. That includes feeling that they have some opportunities in life. Not for luxury, but for a life where they can feel valued and included.
That's a good post, Rick. And don't be mistaken; I wasn't comparing my temporary unemployment with being a social outcast.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
notsoblue wrote:the way that kids treat teachers and the police much before it got to the point where hundreds of them were looting JJB. I don't have any solutions, though :S
Ahhh, well that fits nicely into having to go back quite a few years to work out where it broke. I remember in 4th year at school wondering wtf had happened when the 1st year shits were giving all the bigger kids and teachers such mouth. Anyway case closed on this bit of the thread discussion. Time to see what those in charge can do/suggest to sort something out at least. Wouldn't be surprised if there is a riot surge in a day or so though after people think its calmed back down...Le Cannon [98 Cannondale M400] [FCN: 8]
The Mad Monkey [2013 Hoy 003] [FCN: 4]0 -
Ben6899 wrote:Well I don't think "sickening and vile" is warranted because someone is "blinkered". "Blinkered" to me seems to suggest the person needs educating, but they're not really all that bad as a person. "Vile and sickening" is a pretty damning critique.
The cynics might say you've back-tracked a bit there.
I stand by what I said, from early on this guy was making it about ethnicity when there was no suggestion from anywhere else that it was.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:It needs to be solved. They need to feel included into society, both by the laws and rules it has and by the benefits it provides. That includes feeling that they have some opportunities in life. Not for luxury, but for a life where they can feel valued and included.
The opportunities are there, they are just not taken. Free education? Free healthcare? Free housing? Free money? Those are the benefits of society. They are there for those who need them. Millions has been thrown at this problem and the reality is that money clearly isn't the answer because that breeds dependency and a lack of value(s).
I do think it's back to parenting but how do we deal with that? And aren't these kids just going to have kids of their own with the same attitudes and so on until, well, who knows?0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:You'll correct me if I'm wrong, but what you're saying is that even if statistically it's a "waste" to S&S those who do not necesarily fit the criminal demographic in order to avoid being accused of being discriminatory, then that "waste" is in fact worthwhile to have good community relations. Yes, I can see the value of that and hadn't considered it before.
No, not saying that at all. It would be a waste of time to ignore profiling when looking for suspects. And thats not what the met have done to improve community relations.
In which case I don't understand. What is the "effect" you mentioned that I have ignored?
Widespread distrust and/or contempt for police authority.
OK, so why is that not what I thought you were getting at? The point I was making was whether it's a waste of resoruces to evenly distrubute S&Ss, when statistically criminality is not evenly distributed. You say that this creates widespread distrust etc, which Ican see. But then you say that ignoring profiling is a waste when looking for suspects? So which is it - be seen to be discruminatory and producde distrust, or waste resoucrces through deliberately mis-targetting?
I'm not being argumentative but I don't understand what you're getting at.0 -
W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It needs to be solved. They need to feel included into society, both by the laws and rules it has and by the benefits it provides. That includes feeling that they have some opportunities in life. Not for luxury, but for a life where they can feel valued and included.
The opportunities are there, they are just not taken. Free education? Free healthcare? Free housing? Free money? Those are the benefits of society. They are there for those who need them. Millions has been thrown at this problem and the reality is that money clearly isn't the answer because that breeds dependency and a lack of value(s).
I do think it's back to parenting but how do we deal with that? And aren't these kids just going to have kids of their own with the same attitudes and so on until, well, who knows?
When I was at school I was told that as a black person I would have to work twice as hard as a white person to be considered for the same job. This was a general message given by most teachers to all black/mixed raced students and not just said one school either.
What do you think growing up living in that sort of World does to a child. To be told that you're already going to be unfairly treated. And when you get annoyed by this reality you're immediately told that you've got a chip on your shoulder. As though you are supposed to shut up and accept your fate.
Yes there are opportunities W1, it's not as simple as that.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
W1 wrote:I'm not being argumentative but I don't understand what you're getting at.
I'm clearly very bad at putting my point across on a forum. We'll be posting across eachother for days if we continue in this vein. Not sure you'd ever get my point of view via a forum. Next time at the Morpeth perhaps :P0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Ben6899 wrote:Well I don't think "sickening and vile" is warranted because someone is "blinkered". "Blinkered" to me seems to suggest the person needs educating, but they're not really all that bad as a person. "Vile and sickening" is a pretty damning critique.
The cynics might say you've back-tracked a bit there.
I stand by what I said, from early on this guy was making it about ethnicity when there was no suggestion from anywhere else that it was.
There are (and have been) plenty of suggestions that it might be (or at least, race issues may potentially be "a" factor). There have been plenty of comments sought (and given) from the various ethnic communites and their "leaders".
To ignore even the possibility is naiive and to ignore the potential and get all offended (and offensive) won't help the debate nor finding the solutions.0 -
W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It needs to be solved. They need to feel included into society, both by the laws and rules it has and by the benefits it provides. That includes feeling that they have some opportunities in life. Not for luxury, but for a life where they can feel valued and included.
The opportunities are there, they are just not taken. Free education? Free healthcare? Free housing? Free money? Those are the benefits of society. They are there for those who need them. Millions has been thrown at this problem and the reality is that money clearly isn't the answer because that breeds dependency and a lack of value(s).
I do think it's back to parenting but how do we deal with that? And aren't these kids just going to have kids of their own with the same attitudes and so on until, well, who knows?
I'm not talking about state money and education or health. I'd imagine these kids are just as excluded in school. They're treated at school the same way their parents are. Keep them away from everyone. Tell them how awful they are. Don't tolerate them. Teachers don't want them. Suspend them. Exclude them.
I also doubt these kids see any doll money. They're not old enough for a start.
Their behaviour is likely to be disturbed because of their background. Parents can barely cope with themselves, high crime, etc.
I'm talking about things like feeling like the police protect you. Feeling like you have a stable home to go to, or at least that there is someone somewhere looking out for you. If the parents can't do that, someone should step in. When you get older, than you might have an opportunity to make something of yourself. That people in the street might actually respect you, rather than sneering with either fear or contempt. I sincerely doubt any kid stealing stuff has ever felt that they have opportunities for the future, even if they can't articulate it.
I don't know the solutions, but the exclusion is plain to see. I do the same. I don't want them near my street. I don't like it when they walk down my road being all noisy. I want them holed up somewhere where I never have to meet them, and they know that.I even refer to them as 'them'. That's how far the exclusion has gone.0 -
notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:I'm not being argumentative but I don't understand what you're getting at.
I'm clearly very bad at putting my point across on a forum. We'll be posting across eachother for days if we continue in this vein. Not sure you'd ever get my point of view via a forum. Next time at the Morpeth perhaps :P
OK. But if you come up with a way of explaining it in terms I can grasp (i.e. simply) I'm all ears. Well, eyes.0 -
W1 wrote:notsoblue wrote:W1 wrote:I'm not being argumentative but I don't understand what you're getting at.
I'm clearly very bad at putting my point across on a forum. We'll be posting across eachother for days if we continue in this vein. Not sure you'd ever get my point of view via a forum. Next time at the Morpeth perhaps :P
OK. But if you come up with a way of explaining it in terms I can grasp (i.e. simply) I'm all ears. Well, eyes.
Ah but it's not simple.. That's the point isn't it? It's bloody complex.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:W1 wrote:Rick Chasey wrote:It needs to be solved. They need to feel included into society, both by the laws and rules it has and by the benefits it provides. That includes feeling that they have some opportunities in life. Not for luxury, but for a life where they can feel valued and included.
The opportunities are there, they are just not taken. Free education? Free healthcare? Free housing? Free money? Those are the benefits of society. They are there for those who need them. Millions has been thrown at this problem and the reality is that money clearly isn't the answer because that breeds dependency and a lack of value(s).
I do think it's back to parenting but how do we deal with that? And aren't these kids just going to have kids of their own with the same attitudes and so on until, well, who knows?
I'm not talking about state money and education or health. I'd imagine these kids are just as excluded in school. They're treated at school the same way their parents are. Keep them away from everyone. Tell them how awful they are. Don't tolerate them. Teachers don't want them. Suspend them. Exclude them.
I also doubt these kids see any doll money. They're not old enough for a start.
Their behaviour is likely to be disturbed because of their background. Parents can barely cope with themselves, high crime, etc.
I'm talking about things like feeling like the police protect you. Feeling like you have a stable home to go to, or at least that there is someone somewhere looking out for you. If the parents can't do that, someone should step in. When you get older, than you might have an opportunity to make something of yourself. That people in the street might actually respect you, rather than sneering with either fear or contempt. I sincerely doubt any kid stealing stuff has ever felt that they have opportunities for the future, even if they can't articulate it.
I don't know the solutions, but the exclusion is plain to see. I do the same. I don't want them near my street. I don't like it when they walk down my road being all noisy. I want them holed up somewhere where I never have to meet them, and they know that.I even refer to them as 'them'. That's how far the exclusion has gone.
Interesting posts from you and DDD.0 -
Rick Chasey wrote:Ah but it's not simple.. That's the point isn't it? It's bloody complex.
Well, you could just call them scum. That would be quite simple
0
