Any London left?

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

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.

Where have there been official suggestions that it might be about "race issues". All reports I've seen, heard and read said that the problem is with young people. Even then that was being challenged as some have pointed out that adults were involved.

Yes, some race specific communities have banded together to speak out but no where official that I've seen claimed it had anything to do with race. And on this I think making about race would be counter productive to the solution.

Funnily enough live on BBC right now the reportere said that it was a demograhpic mix of people appearing in front of court. Including levels of affluency.

antfly

That's because everyone is scared to say it.

rick_chasey

Having said all that, just saw a BBC news item e-mailed round:


BBC reporter at Highbury Magistrates Court John Brain tells BBC 5 live the first person who appeared in the dock this morning was a 31-year-old teacher called Alexis Bailey. She pleaded guilty to being part of the looting of the Richer Sounds store in Croydon.


So maybe I'm further from the mark than I think I am.

Clever Pun

yeah clearly it's not just the disaffected youth... it's w@nkers looking for free stuff when the opportunity arose

Alexis is going to have real trouble getting a job once the punishment has ended

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

No I called him a blinkered prick. I called antfly, and quite rightly, a racist.

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.

I think it was Croydon, actually, but I could be wrong. My reading of his posts is that his personal experience of the riots conflicted noticeably with the media portrayal, and that he was questioning whether that portrayal was accurate, or was deliberately avoiding the issue of race. You didn't actually witness any rioting, did you DDD?

I think it's fairly clear that there is no direct race-related cause/motive behind the rioting, beyond the observation that it seems to have arisen in poorer areas and ethnic minorities tend to be more highly represented in poorer areas. But that's not to say that the issue can't even be discussed. You don't know Garnett's ethnicity, do you?

UndercoverElephant

rjsterry wrote:

You don't know Garnett's ethnicity, do you?

I should imagine he's bright red.

rick_chasey

There are rumblings that it may turn racial, on the guardian, in part due to people's interpretation of the cause.

rjsterry

UndercoverElephant wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

You don't know Garnett's ethnicity, do you?

I should imagine he's bright red.

And semi-precious?

Wallace1492

Anyone else getting a bit bored with the various in depth investigations here into the cause of the riots? They are all starting from a lack of information, then speculating from their own point of view and making it up as they go along.

Speculation is just that. Then we have counter speculation and various accusations.

It basically is putting me off this fine site, and I don't think I will be reading this thead anymore.

rick_chasey

There' also the other weapon in the leftie's closet.

It's no coincidence that crime, ill-health, imprisonment rates, mental illness, and rioting are much more common in highly unequal societies. Given that the UK has steadily been less and less equal since the '80s, this is not entirely out of the blue (with hindsight).

Go progressive policies! *woo*... :P

fidbod

This is worth a read in relations to the way this thread has rund
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100100316/black-children-think-the-police-are-racist-we-must-teach-them-about-the-1980s/

rick_chasey

Wallace1492 wrote:

Anyone else getting a bit bored with the various in depth investigations here into the cause of the riots? They are all starting from a lack of information, then speculating from their own point of view and making it up as they go along.

Speculation is just that. Then we have counter speculation and various accusations.

It basically is putting me off this fine site, and I don't think I will be reading this thead anymore.

(not that you'll read this).

I'd imagine you'd take a bigger interest if it was in the city you lived in.

RowCycle

Clever Pun wrote:

yeah clearly it's not just the disaffected youth... it's w@nkers looking for free stuff when the opportunity arose

Alexis is going to have real trouble getting a job once the punishment has ended

Yep, the only commanilty between the people are there intelligence (or lack of)

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

No I called him a blinkered prick. I called antfly, and quite rightly, a racist.

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.

I think it was Croydon, actually, but I could be wrong. My reading of his posts is that his personal experience of the riots conflicted noticeably with the media portrayal, and that he was questioning whether that portrayal was accurate, or was deliberately avoiding the issue of race. You didn't actually witness any rioting, did you DDD?

I think it's fairly clear that there is no direct race-related cause/motive behind the rioting, beyond the observation that it seems to have arisen in poorer areas and ethnic minorities tend to be more highly represented in poorer areas. But that's not to say that the issue can't even be discussed. You don't know Garnett's ethnicity, do you?

His/her gender, ethnicity and level of affluency have nothing to do with it. Why should it?

If the riots and the motive behind the riots aren't race related then I don't see how it is productive to discuss or turn it into a race related issue. What a positive message that sends out. "There have been riots across the UK for many complex reasons and what we are going to do is make it specifically about the problems faced in the black community".

Look I'm all for acknowledging the difference in the cultures that form a society where appropriate. However on this I seriously see it as a problem if we start saying that an apparent problems within this Countries society is specifcally the result of one specific ethnicity. I cite, again Antfly's assertion that the black population should be reduced to quell future riots, as that's where that kind of discussion leads.

We have a real opporunity to address multicultural urban youth culture, to make it a race issue where there is none and hasn't been in that demographic would be a mistake.

Wallace1492

Rick Chasey wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Anyone else getting a bit bored with the various in depth investigations here into the cause of the riots? They are all starting from a lack of information, then speculating from their own point of view and making it up as they go along.

Speculation is just that. Then we have counter speculation and various accusations.

It basically is putting me off this fine site, and I don't think I will be reading this thead anymore.

(not that you'll read this).

I'd imagine you'd take a bigger interest if it was in the city you lived in.

Well I had to have one last look.....

Nothing to do with the city, just the direction of the debate. far too much speculation, not enough facts.

DonDaddyD

And rjsterry

I repeat how can Garnett or anyone be certain that the majority of the youths were in fact black when the majority of them were wearing hoods and tyring to mask their identity?

It would be damn hard to tell an Asian, mixed raced person, black person and even a white person apart when they're covering their most identifiable features.

tailwindhome

RowCycle wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

yeah clearly it's not just the disaffected youth... it's w@nkers looking for free stuff when the opportunity arose

Alexis is going to have real trouble getting a job once the punishment has ended

Yep, the only commanilty between the people are there intelligence (or lack of)

HeHe

rjsterry

fidbod wrote:

This is worth a read in relations to the way this thread has rund
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/katharinebirbalsingh/100100316/black-children-think-the-police-are-racist-we-must-teach-them-about-the-1980s/

It seems the Telegraph is less worried about moderating its comments section, though.

gtvlusso

[sillycomment]

Has this become the "Silly Commuting Racism" thread

[/sillycomment]

Ben6899

gtvlusso wrote:

[sillycomment]

Has this become the "Silly Commuting Racism" thread

[/sillycomment]

Erm. No.

Greg T

notsoblue wrote:

Greg T wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Wow, strong opinions.

Nope fact.

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

Still stand by that?

Menezes and an accident?

Whats your point?

What's your answer?

Do you still maintain that the met have a deserved reputation for shooting people with without justification.

My point is that you are wrong on this.

Jay dubbleU

From the figures released by police I don't see how this can be related to one ethnic group - the participants are black, white, asian and male and female and any age between 13 and 45

Confusedboy

I'll say this again; rioting and looting are completely separate and different issues. They have different root causes, different aims, and are carried out by different types of people. It is important to be continually aware of this as there is, not a conspiracy, but perhaps a commonality of interest amongst the media and those that have influence over it that seeks to promote the view that rioting, a fundamentally political activity, is carried out by people with the same sort of criminal intent as looting. It isn't; looters just take advantage of riots.

Rioters will usually have some belief that thier actions are justified (and sometimes they actually are!) as the only option left to them to effectively protest a situation. Looters just want free stuff, and cannot even make the attempt to justify thier actions.

Sewinman

My first hand experience in Clapham Junction was that the looters were largely black kids, seemingly coming from the local estates. There were white kids too, again probably from the estates. I watched them walking up and down my road and into the Peabody Estate for about 3 hours with their loot. So i think it was mainly socio-economic problem i.e. disaffected youth from council estates - which in Battersea means a high % of black youth.

notsoblue

Greg T wrote:

Do you still maintain that the met have a deserved reputation for shooting people with without justification.

My point is that you are wrong on this.

I really don't see how trying to pin me on this is relevant given everything else I've said about the riots... Whether the reputation is deserved or not, its the reputation they have.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

His/her gender, ethnicity and level of affluency have nothing to do with it. Why should it?

If the riots and the motive behind the riots aren't race related then I don't see how it is productive to discuss or turn it into a race related issue. What a positive message that sends out. "There have been riots across the UK for many complex reasons and what we are going to do is make it specifically about the problems faced in the black community".

Look I'm all for acknowledging the difference in the cultures that form a society where appropriate. However on this I seriously see it as a problem if we start saying that an apparent problems within this Countries society is specifcally the result of one specific ethnicity. I cite, again Antfly's assertion that the black population should be reduced to quell future riots, as that's where that kind of discussion leads.

We have a real opporunity to address multicultural urban youth culture, to make it a race issue where there is none and hasn't been in that demographic would be a mistake.

I don't think Garnett was trying to say that it was a race related riot, but perhaps I'm misreading his posts. Antfly's posts are something else entirely (and would fit nicely into the comments section on the Telegraph article). I don't think that the obvious anti-police sentiment evident in the rioting is entirely without race-related issues - more specifically, a reaction to perceived racism (whether it actually exists to that extent or not) in the police service (not just the Met).

Sadly it seems the rioting in the West Midlands is starting to taken on racial motives.

Greg T

notsoblue wrote:

Whether the reputation is deserved or not, its the reputation they have.

get off the fence.

You made a statement - defend it or change it.

Ben6899

BOSH!

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

His/her gender, ethnicity and level of affluency have nothing to do with it. Why should it?

If the riots and the motive behind the riots aren't race related then I don't see how it is productive to discuss or turn it into a race related issue. What a positive message that sends out. "There have been riots across the UK for many complex reasons and what we are going to do is make it specifically about the problems faced in the black community".

Look I'm all for acknowledging the difference in the cultures that form a society where appropriate. However on this I seriously see it as a problem if we start saying that an apparent problems within this Countries society is specifcally the result of one specific ethnicity. I cite, again Antfly's assertion that the black population should be reduced to quell future riots, as that's where that kind of discussion leads.

We have a real opporunity to address multicultural urban youth culture, to make it a race issue where there is none and hasn't been in that demographic would be a mistake.

I don't think Garnett was trying to say that it was a race related riot, but perhaps I'm misreading his posts. Antfly's posts are something else entirely (and would fit nicely into the comments section on the Telegraph article). I don't think that the obvious anti-police sentiment evident in the rioting is entirely without race-related issues - more specifically, a reaction to perceived racism (whether it actually exists to that extent or not) in the police service (not just the Met).

Sadly it seems the rioting in the West Midlands is starting to taken on racial motives.

Garnett was saying exactly that. He was sying that the majority of the looters and rioters were black and then went on to make it a race issue, without IMO looking at anyother circumstances.

At this point I'm going to give credit to Sewiman's analysis of the situation. The looters and rioters in Clapham were likely to be mostly black people. However, that doesn't mean the reason for doing so was race related or that the solution is one that should target a sole ethnicity.

On police perception.

Trident promotes itself as specifically dealing with "black on back gun crime" last time I looked. I've always thought that was counter productive as it generally sends out a negative message (amongst the many) about the black community.

It is no wonder why there is an anti-police sentiment. Rightly or wrongly people will feel unfairly targeted when a police operation goes about promoting itself the way trident does.

The protest's in Tottenham was very much about the community proteting against the police, that community may have mostly comprised black people.

The riots and looting that ensued elsewhere I don't believe were racially charged. Turning it into that will make matters worse.

Ben6899

DonDaddyD wrote:

Trident promotes itself as specifically dealing with "black on back gun crime" last time I looked. I've always thought that was counter productive as it generally sends out a negative message (amongst the many) about the black community.

So let's just paint over the cracks and say Trident is for something else.