Any London left?

rjsterry

The Guardian's blog has picked up on the BBC's Nick Ravenscroft's interview of a looter

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/aug/10/manchester-riots-uk-disorder-day-four-live

I think this is the same thing Sketchley posted via a different route.

rjsterry

Also this

http://motowns.blogspot.com/2011/08/im-no-writer.html

notsoblue

Greg T wrote:

Want to talk about

The Met have a track record of shooting people in cases where they've subsequently been found to have acted improperly. Its not unreasonable to suggest that they may have here

some more?

Ok then, so which bit were you disagreeing with? That they've shot people they shouldn't have? Or that its not unreasonable to suggest that they might have here? Or both? Or have I phrased that incorrectly? What I've said effectively boils down to "some people don't give the police the benefit of the doubt, and I can understand why that might be". I never said I disliked or distrusted the Met. In fact in my own experience of them they've been great. I'm baffled as to why you're so keen to 'hand my *arse to me in a bag'. This is just a friendly debate, no need to be a d*ck about it

notsoblue

Btw, not sure if this has been posted before but this has been doing the rounds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmo8DG1gno4

Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily condoning or agreeing 100% with what this chap is saying. But its interesting.

bigmat

DonDaddyD wrote:

rjsterry,

I don't think Trident in it's approach is either productive or positive. I do, however, think it is needed.

DDD on the telegraph article,

I don't think the police are nearly as bad now as they were iIn my Dad's day. Back then they were institutionally racist. It's bullshit when these people say we're protesting about the police, Government et al.

Likewise most people from poorer backgrounds complaining today are almost insulting compared to poor when my Grandparents came over and when my Dad was growing up. Most people who wanted to get ahead had multiple jobs an turned their hands to anthing just to get ahead.

I'll go on to say that parental punnishment now is nothing like it was back then. Riot? The beating you would have got back then - in fact the psychology fear of having to go upstairs and choose the belt that would moments later be wrapping itself around you skin - was enough to make you stay at home.

bigmat,
I stand by my assertion. I've just watched a clip showing people looting in Birmingham, mixture of urbanites. Likewise the clip of the kid being helped and then robbed was being robbed by a white and black person. The white person bopping away...

You see, the thing about the younger generation that most of you (many older) don't realise, acknowledge or maybe give credit for is that their culture (the clothes, the walk, the slang) is far more ethnically integrated than older generations. They operate in far more ethnically diverse social circles - this becomes more apparent the further down you go the social classes.

Young people share the same music, clothes, food, slang and interests far more freely than any older generation does and YES while those may have been heavily influenced by previous Black culture (American/Jamican) , young people have taken and made it theirs in their own way and not limited said "ownership" to ethnicity. Hence the acknowledge term 'Urban Culture'. They've been born here and raised here like - for most - their parents. Their self, social and group identity is British and they probably identify themeselves as British. So why should this be about race when it isn't likely to be the case for them. This aint 1980s Brixton when some were still fresh off the boat and others were being raised by those who came off the boat. These are quite simply British people with some people living in those areas acting in such a detrimental way to society, so it is a social issue.

The solution isn't "what do we do about black people?" To do so when it is clearly a societal issue would be counter productive because society as wholle needs to ask itself serious questions. The solution amongst many others IMO resides in "what do we do about youth culture" (as a whole) and "what do we do to improve social mobility, aspiratioal and social values in the disaffected lower classes". At the same time real questions have to be asked about law enforcement and "how respect for police and their authority is rebuilt". (amongst the many other issues).

But I'm steadfast in the belief that this isn't about race, it isn't a racially driven issue or 'racial looting' and therefore the solution doesn't reside in dealing with any one ethnic group.

very good post that.

Cleat Eastwood

notsoblue wrote:

Btw, not sure if this has been posted before but this has been doing the rounds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmo8DG1gno4

Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily condoning or agreeing 100% with what this chap is saying. But its interesting.

Nice find. That is the funniest thing on this whole thread

"you can't do noffin normal for it to happen right." Still it was nice of the guy to take time out from his PHD in english lit to explain the situation.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Greg T wrote:

If I wanted to get shot by plod I think I'd have to work quite hard to manage it.

I'm not sure I accept that. Could you produce some empirical evidence, please? Pretty please?


[pokes embers]
wasn't there a bloke called Stephen something, who the Met shot 23 times while he was sitting in his car (a mini?). He survived, but it was a case of mistaken identity.

Leopards can't change their spots etc, but personally, I'd offer the benefit of the doubt there. Mini drivers deserve everything they get.
[/pokes embers]

notsoblue

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Btw, not sure if this has been posted before but this has been doing the rounds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmo8DG1gno4

Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily condoning or agreeing 100% with what this chap is saying. But its interesting.

Nice find. That is the funniest thing on this whole thread

"you can't do noffin normal for it to happen right." Still it was nice of the guy to take time out from his PHD in english lit to explain the situation.

lol, well I think you've just summed up part of the problem right there Mr Eastwood "People like that" don't deserve to have a voice, right?

Ben6899

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

Btw, not sure if this has been posted before but this has been doing the rounds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmo8DG1gno4

Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily condoning or agreeing 100% with what this chap is saying. But its interesting.

Nice find. That is the funniest thing on this whole thread

"you can't do noffin normal for it to happen right." Still it was nice of the guy to take time out from his PHD in english lit to explain the situation.

He makes some good points, but what does any of it have to do with chav scum looting?

Protests ensue, this escalates to riots, then to looting. Scum jump on the bandwagon and then toe the "society gave me nuffin innit" line if they're asked why they're doing it. Some people are legitimately p1ssed off, but others, well,,, they're wearing more expensive clothes than me, toting iphones and Blackberries and turning up to the looting in BMWs.

This guy here... look at the pain in his eyes.



I'm struggling to give a fu*k about the situation, when pricks like him are posting Twitter updates like this.

notsoblue

Ben6899 wrote:

He makes some good points, but what does any of it have to do with chav scum looting?

Ah but under which conditions do good kids become chav scum? How can we prevent new chav scum from appearing? These are interesting questions to which I think he gives some insight.

crumbschief

These issues are just not black and white here,i mean what about blue.

Barry Nice

notsoblue wrote:

Btw, not sure if this has been posted before but this has been doing the rounds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmo8DG1gno4

Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily condoning or agreeing 100% with what this chap is saying. But its interesting.

I'm not buying all this 'no future for the yuts' stuff.

The future is so bleak that 5 million (or whatever the number is) Poles have come to the UK for the employment opportunities the UK offers. Can't these young people from the UK see these jobs advertised, they have far less distance to travel to the interview.

deptfordmarmoset

There's been some mention but really not much about Operation Trident here, which surprises me considering that it was a Trident operation accompanied by CO19 officers that led to Duggan getting stopped and then killed. As far as I understand it, Trident gets a fair degree of support from the law-abiding black community who don't want their children to grow up in a gun-friendly, grab-what-you-can gangsta culture, and above all, don't want to find a police officer knocking on their door in the middle of the night with tragic news about their offspring.

So, here's a question that I don't think has been asked here:

Whose interest do you think is best served by undermining Operation Trident?

a) the black community

or

b) the gangsta culture that Operation Trident is attempting to address.

DonDaddyD

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

There's been some mention but really not much about Operation Trident here, which surprises me considering that it was a Trident operation accompanied by CO19 officers that led to Duggan getting stopped and then killed. As far as I understand it, Trident gets a fair degree of support from the law-abiding black community who don't want their children to grow up in a gun-friendly, grab-what-you-can gangsta culture, and above all, don't want to find a police officer knocking on their door in the middle of the night with tragic news about their offspring.

So, here's a question that I don't think has been asked here:

Whose interest do you think is best served by undermining Operation Trident?

a) the black community

or

b) the gangsta culture that Operation Trident is attempting to address.

Sigh...

I take it this was aimed at me.

I think a better question would be, why just black people? Why is it's message not "trying to prevent inner city gun crime"?

While Trident is needed it's message (even if it may be the case) promotes the assumption that poor black folk shoot other poor black folk, which kinda breeds it's own hatred, self-loathing, compounds upon the problem and perpetuates it.

It's a negative message and when you're living in that kind of environment where (i) it's hard to see a way out (ii) there are very few positive cultural messages about black people you are likely to sucuumb to the image within the message itself.

The 'underclass' - but specifically in this case Black people - living in those environment need positive messages to believe they can overcome their issues not negative ones that feel like a great weight and make you want to give up before even trying to aspire.

iPete

Lets lighten the mood a little..

Hello Rioters
Look at your Friend, now back to me
Now at your friend, now back to me
Sadly, he isn't me
But if he stopped using petrol bombs
And started using Job centre he could potentially be me
Look down, Back up. Where are we?
You're at an interview with the man your friend could work for
What's in your hand? Back at me
I have it. It's an application form to that job you need
Look again. The form is now money
Anything is possible when you get a job and stop looting
I'm on a horse

rick_chasey

If you're a leftwinger, the causes of the violence and looting are straightforward: they're the result of monstrous inequality and historic spending cuts; while the youth running amok through branches of JD Sports are what happens when you offer a generation plastic consumerism rather than meaningful jobs.

For the right, explaining the violence is even simpler – because any attempt at understanding is tantamount to condoning it. Better by far to talk of a society with a sense of over-entitlement; or to do what the prime minister did and simply dismiss "pockets of our society that are not just broken but, frankly, sick". You can expect to hear more of the same rhetoric in today's debate in parliament, especially from backbenchers on either side

A reasonable summation of the political discussion here and elsewhere. You see what you want to see.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/1 ... al-classes

deptfordmarmoset

I thought you said you weren't going to respond to my posts in the future...oh well, times change.

But yes, seeking to undermine Trident is the single most wilfully destructive thing for the vast majority of law-abiding blacks that I've seen on this thread's 37 pages.


The negative message is that pillaging and looting is the way forward, that wandering around with a gun as a status symbol is cool, that defending the route to lawlessness and opportunistic thievery is the best way to preserve life in our cities. That you can brutally run over a few aliens just to make a couple of quid.

The positive message is far, far harder to see today.

DonDaddyD

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

I thought you said you weren't going to respond to my posts in the future...oh well, times change.

But yes, seeking to undermine Trident is the single most wilfully destructive thing for the vast majority of law-abiding blacks that I've seen on this thread's 37 pages.

I can't remember the names of all the people on the internet that piss me off. It's not like I have a spreadsheet lisiting people open at all times.

I don't think I was ever seeking to undermine Trident. I've always made it clear that it is needed.

However, as a black person having lived amongst and aspired out of that environment I think the message it promotes is counter productive. I'm sure there are black people who disagree with that.

You may also disagree, you are entitled to that.

Fireblade96

The Search facility may have failed me, but it seems strange that no-one has mentioned the irony of David Cameron and Boris Johnson, both past members of the Bullingdon Society, lambasting others for trashing the property of innocent shop/restaurant owners ?

Note: this is in no way condoning any thuggery that has happened this week. I equally despise any and all who wilfully damage others' property.

Greg T

Fireblade96 wrote:

The Search facility may have failed me, but it seems strange that no-one has mentioned the irony of David Cameron and Boris Johnson, both past members of the Bullingdon Society, lambasting others for trashing the property of innocent shop/restaurant owners ?

Note: this is in no way condoning any thuggery that has happened this week. I equally despise any and all who wilfully damage others' property.

Probably because it's stupid and would make you look a dick if you did.

Did Boris and Cameron ever smash anything up - no.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

I thought you said you weren't going to respond to my posts in the future...oh well, times change.

But yes, seeking to undermine Trident is the single most wilfully destructive thing for the vast majority of law-abiding blacks that I've seen on this thread's 37 pages.

I can't remember the names of all the people on the internet that wee-wee me off. It's not like I have a spreadsheet lisiting people open at all times.

I don't think I was ever seeking to undermine Trident. I've always made it clear that it is needed.

However, as a black person having lived amongst and aspired out of that environment I think the message it promotes is counter productive. I'm sure there are black people who disagree with that.

You may also disagree, you are entitled to that.

I can understand why you see Trident as unnecessarily emphasising a negative image of black people, but surely it's primary objective is stopping people from being killed or maimed. The fact that the Met has set up a particular operation to deal with this, rather than just ignoring it as something that doesn't affect the wider society that much, is surely a positive thing.

notsoblue

Fireblade96 wrote:

The Search facility may have failed me, but it seems strange that no-one has mentioned the irony of David Cameron and Boris Johnson, both past members of the Bullingdon Society, lambasting others for trashing the property of innocent shop/restaurant owners ?

Note: this is in no way condoning any thuggery that has happened this week. I equally despise any and all who wilfully damage others' property.

Thats quite an irony, I hadn't thought about it before. Someone has really gone to town on making up smears about the Bullingdon Club here at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullingdon_Club#Reputation

Clever Pun

UndercoverElephant

Clever Pun wrote:

That's a very fine job!

mybreakfastconsisted

"Things got out of hand and we'd had a few drinks. We smashed the place up and Boris set fire to the toilets."


David Cameron, Oxford, 1986.
Dec 11

http://yfrog.com/h7xmqxyj


Dear Mr & Mrs Cameron,

Why did you never take the time to teach your child basic morality?

As a young man, he was in a gang that regularly smashed up private property.

We know that you were absent parents who left your child to be brought up by a school rather than taking responsibility for his behaviour yourselves. The fact that he became a delinquent with no sense of respect for the property of others can only reflect that fact that you are terrible, lazy human beings who failed even in teaching your children the difference between right and wrong. I can only assume that his contempt for the small business owners of Oxford is indicative of his wider values.

Even worse, your neglect led him to fall in with a bad crowd.

http://universallyaware.ning.com/forum/ ... en_twitter

Clever Pun

But his parents will have paid for that damage... what are you suggesting?

mybreakfastconsisted

Clever Pun wrote:

But his parents will have paid for that damage... what are you suggesting?

Yes, that's what happened, Cameron and Boris would smash a restaurant to bits then hand over a fistful of tenners to the owner, say no more, all forgotten. A kind of Fast Track Justice System not accessible to hackney teenagers.

Boris could have faced a l;ife term, Arson with Intent to Endanger life carries a life term. Instead they coughed up a stack of dosh and no more was said. And now they're both lecturing us about property damage, the stupid over-priveleged sacks of shit.

Clever Pun

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

But his parents will have paid for that damage... what are you suggesting?

Yes, that's what happened, Cameron and Boris would smash a restaurant to bits then hand over a fistful of tenners to the owner, say no more, all forgotten. A kind of Fast Track Justice System not accessible to hackney teenagers.

Boris could have faced a l;ife term, Arson with Intent to Endanger life carries a life term. Instead they coughed up a stack of dosh and no more was said. And now they're both lecturing us about property damage, the stupid over-priveleged sacks of shoot.

while I dislike them both intently, least they paid up of their own free will for anywrong doings.. Not the right thing to do initially but they were in a position to attempt to right the wrongs.

The people looting/rioting have made zero attempt to right their wrongs and if they get caught they will pay involuntarily.

Quite an obvious dividing line there for me.. it's not about rich or poor it's about the right attitude. While they both stink initially only one group has a social conscience.

notsoblue

Clever Pun wrote:

while I dislike them both intently, least they paid up of their own free will for anywrong doings.. Not the right thing to do initially but they were in a position to attempt to right the wrongs.

The people looting/rioting have made zero attempt to right their wrongs and if they get caught they will pay involuntarily.

Quite an obvious dividing line there for me.. it's not about rich or poor it's about the right attitude. While they both stink initially only one group has a social conscience.

Seriously? Its ok to trash someone else's property as long as you pay them for it afterwards? The looting isn't equivalent to a "Bullingdon Blind" but come on, trashing someone's restaurant is pretty thuggish whether you pay the owner for the damages or not. If anything the fact that they paid people off adds insult to injury. To me it basically says "We're rich enough to do whatever the f*ck we want, we're above the law".

MonkeyMonster

notsoblue wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

while I dislike them both intently, least they paid up of their own free will for anywrong doings.. Not the right thing to do initially but they were in a position to attempt to right the wrongs.

The people looting/rioting have made zero attempt to right their wrongs and if they get caught they will pay involuntarily.

Quite an obvious dividing line there for me.. it's not about rich or poor it's about the right attitude. While they both stink initially only one group has a social conscience.

Seriously? Its ok to trash someone else's property as long as you pay them for it afterwards? The looting isn't equivalent to a "Bullingdon Blind" but come on, trashing someone's restaurant is pretty thuggish whether you pay the owner for the damages or not. If anything the fact that they paid people off adds insult to injury. To me it basically says "We're rich enough to do whatever the f*ck we want, we're above the law".

They were likely very very drunk at the time and not in control of their faculties or sense of right/wrong. Once realised they made amends. That they had the money to pay is largely irrelevant in this case. If they went back and worked (for free) to pay off the damages would that be acceptable?

They did wrong, they made amends.