Any London left?

SimonAH

Guys,

We can end the thread now as I have discovered the reason for the riots / looting / trouble.

It has nothing to do with poverty, angst or disenfranchisement.

It has no roots in Police conduct or misconduct.

There is no relationship to ethnicity whatsoever.

It was one man. Dave Angel.

sketchley

http://newsthump.com/2011/08/11/governm ... up-a-book/

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

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.

[Firstly, I think Trident do some superb work. That needs to be said. It's not the overall work they do it's the message they sent out. This has been changed to simply "stopping gun crime" as oppose to "black on black gun crime" which I take issue with.]

rjsterry, in answer to your question:

Very few positive things in this World are said or promoted about Black people or Black culture in comparison to other cultures. Seeing an advert stating we exist to stop "black on black gun crime" just adds to the weight of self-disbelief that exists on the shoulders of many disaffected young black people. Some who have given up are willing to the become the negative image portrayed of them. And they do this out of frustration, anger and seemingly a belief that there isn't any other choice (other than Rapper/Music Producer). That's why I believe the message - not the work - is counterproductive.

How about something positive for a change? "Your black, you could be a Doctor too" Have a photo in a suit and brogues and then same block at home in his hoody. That would be a nice message. No it's like:

"Oh so I'm the descendent of slaves, have to work twice as hard as anyone else to be considered for the same job. I'm only good for sport, dancing, music and fucking white women with my extra long dick. I'm more likely to mug someone, rape, stab and shoot".

(Those were things said to me or that I've read - and many other black people - more than once in school, by peers and in the media over the course of my life).

Walk around life reading the constant stream of negative messages associated to everything you can identify with. Devoid of self-belief and aspiration but filled with anger and frustration and then wonder why you've become the stereotype people hate and the police - who you feel have treated you unfairly - are trying to stop.

I'm not trying to make excuses or justify, but Tupac was right. The Hate You Give Little Infants Fucks Everybody. (Thug life - yes the U mean You).

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.

You've kind of proved my point. About the implied perception Trident's "black on black gun crime" message perpetuates.

Gun crime and stabbings does affect the wider community "that much". It's absolute nonsense to even attempt to conceive that it doesn't or that these types of crimes are solely carried out by black people or are solely a problem within the black community.

Trident's "stop black on black gun crime" perpetuates a preconception that gun crime only happens amongst black people. For those wanting to rebel this becomes the adopted norm and it's something only associated with black people. In and of itself it's counterproductive.

SimonAH

Are we back to Gangsta Rap DDD? Easy now, easy...

DonDaddyD

SimonAH wrote:

Are we back to Gangsta Rap DDD? Easy now, easy...

I'm protective over my people, should change my name to 'Moses X'.

Sewinman

Clever Pun wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Errr, they paid up to avoid a criminal record. Neither Boris nor Bumface would have achieved high office with a criminal record, they used mumsie's cash to avoid any unpleasantness with Johnny Law, now Cameron's waving his might sword of Justice around as if he has any claim whatsoever to the moral high ground!

I hope they both die in freak gardening accidents.

but they showed remorse... other than the occasional mumbled sorry the looter/rioters have shown no inclination as far as I've seen.

agreed on the second paragraph

I very much doubt they felt 'remorse'. More like - 'oh crumbs, oh bloody hell, I think high jinks must have gone a tad too far eh what Cammers....Yahh Johno, better get the C. Hoare & Co cheque book out and pay off this prole....same time next week, what!'

The Bullingdon club 'high jinks' are a tradition and are, being largely premeditated, more morally repugnant than some impromptu looting - particularly when perpetrated by such well-bred young bucks.

One rule for them....and as is ever thus.

Sewinman

DonDaddyD wrote:

I'm only good for sport, dancing, music and ******* white women with my extra long dick. ".

What is not to like!?

Coach H

You do have some good things to say DDD but sometimes you do give a quite polarised view which may not help getting your message across. Although sometimes this polarised view may also communicate a message itself.

DonDaddyD wrote:

How about something positive for a change? "Your black, you could be a Doctor too" Have a photo in a suit and brogues and then same block at home in his hoody. That would be a nice message.

"Your black, you could be the de-facto leader of the western world" is a pretty powerful message at the moment if people want to look for positive messages.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Tupac was right. The Hate You Give Little Infants Fucks Everybody. (Thug life - yes the U mean You).

Tupac is just the kind of role model these kids don't need! Why is Martin Luther King Jr not such a powerful role model any more? 'I have a dream.....' is one of the most inspiring oratories ever and inspiring to all creeds.

Clever Pun

Sewinman wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Errr, they paid up to avoid a criminal record. Neither Boris nor Bumface would have achieved high office with a criminal record, they used mumsie's cash to avoid any unpleasantness with Johnny Law, now Cameron's waving his might sword of Justice around as if he has any claim whatsoever to the moral high ground!

I hope they both die in freak gardening accidents.

but they showed remorse... other than the occasional mumbled sorry the looter/rioters have shown no inclination as far as I've seen.

agreed on the second paragraph

I very much doubt they felt 'remorse'. More like - 'oh crumbs, oh bloody hell, I think high jinks must have gone a tad too far eh what Cammers....Yahh Johno, better get the C. Hoare & Co cheque book out and pay off this prole....same time next week, what!'

The Bullingdon club 'high jinks' are a tradition and are, being largely premeditated, more morally repugnant than some impromptu looting - particularly when perpetrated by such well-bred young bucks.

One rule for them....and as is ever thus.

was wondering when the firestarter would get involved... you were winding up the youth right?

tailwindhome

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Mad Mel is particularly insane today

Takes one to ....

Oh I couldn't be bothered any more.

Sewinman

Clever Pun wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Errr, they paid up to avoid a criminal record. Neither Boris nor Bumface would have achieved high office with a criminal record, they used mumsie's cash to avoid any unpleasantness with Johnny Law, now Cameron's waving his might sword of Justice around as if he has any claim whatsoever to the moral high ground!

I hope they both die in freak gardening accidents.

but they showed remorse... other than the occasional mumbled sorry the looter/rioters have shown no inclination as far as I've seen.

agreed on the second paragraph

I very much doubt they felt 'remorse'. More like - 'oh crumbs, oh bloody hell, I think high jinks must have gone a tad too far eh what Cammers....Yahh Johno, better get the C. Hoare & Co cheque book out and pay off this prole....same time next week, what!'

The Bullingdon club 'high jinks' are a tradition and are, being largely premeditated, more morally repugnant than some impromptu looting - particularly when perpetrated by such well-bred young bucks.

One rule for them....and as is ever thus.

was wondering when the firestarter would get involved... you were winding up the youth right?

Eh? If I am understanding you correctly (not always easy), then a) I have already posted numerous times on this thread, and b) no - I did not wind up any youth.

rjsterry

@DDD: There was a perception (probably inaccurate) a year or so back that the string of shootings and stabbings of young people was largely confined to gangs and that so long as you didn't wander on to the wrong estate with a well-stuffed wallet, it was not something that affected the majority of the population beyond hearing it on the news. Indeed, it was bigger news when someone got 'caught in the crossfire'. It was implied (again perhaps inaccurately) that these gangs were predominantly made up of black youths - hence presumably the original way that Trident was publicised. In retrospect, maybe 'gang-related crime' or as you stated just 'gun crime' would have been a better way of putting it.

From a white, liberal, middle class perspective, I don't see Trident as promoting a negative image of black people, I see it as an attempt to tackle a specific type of crime that was affecting a particular community, similar to, say, a particular task force being set up to deal with homophobic attacks. Having said this, I'm not so naive as to think that some people take the existence of Trident as confirmation of their racist views.

hAnyway, I'm certainly not trying to have a go, just interested in expanding the debate. BTW, is impending dadhood/husbandhood stressing you out a bit? You seem a bit on edge this last week or so?

MonkeyMonster

Sewinman wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

stuff

stuff

stuff

was wondering when the firestarter would get involved... you were winding up the youth right?

Eh? If I am understanding you correctly (not always easy), then a) I have already posted numerous times on this thread, and b) no - I did not wind up any youth.

You hadn't on this branch and the youth is MBC. I think CP is implying you are/were trying to goad the young scamp into a higher state of manicness... not actually being brutally honest (which I think you were)

bdave262000

The problem we have is this government, they are so removed from reality that even the middle classes have nothing in common with them never mind working class. They go from Eton onto Oxbridge then straight into politics, they were basically born with silver spoons up their backsides and have made a career out of politics.

They have no idea what it is like to look for a job, worry about putting food on the table for your family, worry about your job and future. I heard Cameroon earlier today bang on about evicting the rioters from their council flats, the guy is a complete tool, where does he expect them to go.

How do they expect these people to behave when our so called leaders are steeling to buy duck houses, second homes, and porn for their spouses. They need to bring in people with real life experience. Like them or not at least people like, Wilson, Thatcher, Major and Prescott had some real life experience and were not career politicians. Cameroon, Johnson, Milliblands etc are a bunched of groomed robots and are so far removed from reality that they have no connection with anyone other than aristocracy

notsoblue

bdave262000 wrote:

The problem we have is this government, they are so removed from reality that even the middle classes have nothing in common with them never mind working class. They go from Eton onto Oxbridge then straight into politics, they were basically born with silver spoons up their backsides and have made a career out of politics.

They have no idea what it is like to look for a job, worry about putting food on the table for your family, worry about your job and future. I heard Cameroon earlier today bang on about evicting the rioters from their council flats, the guy is a complete tool, where does he expect them to go.

How do they expect these people to behave when our so called leaders are steeling to buy duck houses, second homes, and porn for their spouses. They need to bring in people with real life experience. Like them or not at least people like, Wilson, Thatcher, Major and Prescott had some real life experience and were not career politicians. Cameroon, Johnson, Milliblands etc are a bunched of groomed robots and are so far removed from reality that they have no connection with anyone other than aristocracy

The problem is that they've only been in power for a short period of time. Its more complicated than being about whichever political party is in power.

Sewinman

MonkeyMonster wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

stuff

stuff

stuff

was wondering when the firestarter would get involved... you were winding up the youth right?

Eh? If I am understanding you correctly (not always easy), then a) I have already posted numerous times on this thread, and b) no - I did not wind up any youth.

You hadn't on this branch and the youth is MBC. I think CP is implying you are/were trying to goad the young scamp into a higher state of manicness... not actually being brutally honest (which I think you were)

Ohhhh! :idea: Way too subtle for me!

itboffin

well hello

clarkey cat

Did Ann Summers get looted?

BURN HER!!!!!

MonkeyMonster

itboffin wrote:

well hello

Ohhhh! Idea Way too subtle for me!

mybreakfastconsisted

Iinteresting stats here:

The average rioter was young, male, and had travelled from another postcode.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14489984

Cameron came out with a load of old cobblers in the HOC about stopping benefits and evicting rioters who are council tenants.

If an employed rioter doesn't have their wages docked we have a two-tier justice system where those on benefits receive a harsher punishment. This is just tory posturing, there will be no benefit dockings or evictions.

sketchley

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Iinteresting stats here:

The average rioter was young, male, and had travelled from another postcode.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14489984

Cameron came out with a load of old cobblers in the HOC about stopping benefits and evicting rioters who are council tenants.

If an employed rioter doesn't have their wages docked we have a two-tier justice system where those on benefits receive a harsher punishment. This is just tory posturing, there will be no benefit dockings or evictions.

No you miss the point. If an employer wants to continue to pay someone who has been rioting then that's up to them, they are probably perfectly withing their rights to sack them for bringing the company in to disrepute. Stopping benefits is about the state / tax payer not paying them. Either way go to prison, loose benefits, go to prison loose job.

If will be interesting to see what happens to that teaching assistant, I can't see him being allowed to continue with primary kids following conviction for looting. CRB check being what they are these days.

Not a two tier system at all really. However stopping benefits of looters may end up being counter productive, where are they going to live and what will they eat......

mybreakfastconsisted

Sketchley wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Iinteresting stats here:

The average rioter was young, male, and had travelled from another postcode.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14489984

Cameron came out with a load of old cobblers in the HOC about stopping benefits and evicting rioters who are council tenants.

If an employed rioter doesn't have their wages docked we have a two-tier justice system where those on benefits receive a harsher punishment. This is just tory posturing, there will be no benefit dockings or evictions.

No you miss the point. If an employer wants to continue to pay someone who has been rioting then that's up to them, they are probably perfectly withing their rights to sack them for bringing the company in to disrepute. Stopping benefits is about the state / tax payer not paying them. Either way go to prison, loose benefits, go to prison loose job.

If will be interesting to see what happens to that teaching assistant, I can't see him being allowed to continue with primary kids following conviction for looting. CRB check being what they are these days.

Not a two tier system at all really. However stopping benefits of looters may end up being counter productive, where are they going to live and what will they eat......

You've a fundamental ignorance of the justice system. Punishment is decided by the courts, entitlement to benefits is decided by the DWP. The DWP don't decide on legal sanctions, the courts don't assess benefits entitlement.

There is no guarantee an employer will sack anyone caught up in the riot, so it's a two-tier justice system. With housing, it's even dafter, the council evict a rioter from social housing, the ex-tenant is then homeless and the obligation to find them accommodation falls on...guess who.

That's why it will never happen.

Besides, surely everyone found guilty should get a second chance - or does that just apply to Andy Coulson?

SimonAH

Listen soss and two egg. I have a well paying high profile job in the private sector. If I were convicted of looting I would be fired. If anyone reporting to me were convicted I would fire them.

Greg T

SimonAH wrote:

If I were convicted of looting I would be fired. If anyone reporting to me were convicted I would fire them.

Same - no doubt.

notsoblue

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

There is no guarantee an employer will sack anyone caught up in the riot, so it's a two-tier justice system.

I'd get sacked :?

Its not really a matter of it being a two-tier system. I'm pretty sure that the way things work at the moment, if you're in social housing and you end up doing time you don't necessarily lose it. So from what I gather what they're proposing would require a change in policy. Slightly off topic, but many people who suffer from drug addiction or alcoholism only end up getting help with recovery when they become involved with criminal justice. A policy of denying benefits and housing to those who are convicted of a crime would be catastrophic.

dhope

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

There is no guarantee an employer will sack anyone caught up in the riot, so it's a two-tier justice system.

I'd be lucky to be allowed back to my desk, I imagine there'd be a box waiting at security with my stuff in it.

tailwindhome

Two Sauages short of a... wrote:

Besides, surely everyone found guilty should get a second chance

How very liberal of you.

Would that apply to a HGV driver who kills a cyclist?

The internet wrote:

Sack em' all. No, fire plastic bullets at them, make them homeless, cut their balls off, then sack them

I would presume an employer would need to have grounds on which to dismiss the employee.

If an employee doesn't get jail time and has rioted on their own time, what grounds would an employer have for sacking them.

IMRC civil servants have a 'bringing into disrepute' clause in their contracts, but how would another employee sack a looter without exposing themselves to an unfair dismissal case?

sketchley

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Iinteresting stats here:

The average rioter was young, male, and had travelled from another postcode.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14489984

Cameron came out with a load of old cobblers in the HOC about stopping benefits and evicting rioters who are council tenants.

If an employed rioter doesn't have their wages docked we have a two-tier justice system where those on benefits receive a harsher punishment. This is just tory posturing, there will be no benefit dockings or evictions.

No you miss the point. If an employer wants to continue to pay someone who has been rioting then that's up to them, they are probably perfectly withing their rights to sack them for bringing the company in to disrepute. Stopping benefits is about the state / tax payer not paying them. Either way go to prison, loose benefits, go to prison loose job.

If will be interesting to see what happens to that teaching assistant, I can't see him being allowed to continue with primary kids following conviction for looting. CRB check being what they are these days.

Not a two tier system at all really. However stopping benefits of looters may end up being counter productive, where are they going to live and what will they eat......

You've a fundamental ignorance of the justice system. Punishment is decided by the courts, entitlement to benefits is decided by the DWP. The DWP don't decide on legal sanctions, the courts don't assess benefits entitlement.

There is no guarantee an employer will sack anyone caught up in the riot, so it's a two-tier justice system. With housing, it's even dafter, the council evict a rioter from social housing, the ex-tenant is then homeless and the obligation to find them accommodation falls on...guess who.

That's why it will never happen.

Besides, surely everyone found guilty should get a second chance - or does that just apply to Andy Coulson?

Hmm. Not sure where your reply differs from mine. I never said DWP decide legal sanctions. I said you don't get benefits in jail, as you don't need housing benefit etc if you are locked up. That is a fact.

I never said there is a guarentee an employer will sack any one, simply that they probably could on grounds of bringing the company in to disrepute. However if you are in jail you cannot turn up for work so are likely to loose your job.

So not a two tier system, go to jail and you loose out.

And as I said in the last paragraph stopping benefit maybe counter productive (if not in jail) for exactly the same reason you gave. So very unlikey this will happen. In this case maybe a two tier system as those on benefit stay on benefits but those emplolyed may get fired (and then go on benfits of course).

You also managed to miss my point entirely which is the reason for this being suggested is the fact it is the tax payer who pays benefits, what a private employer chooses to do is up to them. That is why there is a petition going on. Don't you agree? Nothing to do with it being two tier. If the employed person gets fired becuase of it they also loose benefits as well. But as you said it'll never happen.

sketchley

TailWindHome wrote:

Two Sauages short of a... wrote:

Besides, surely everyone found guilty should get a second chance

How very liberal of you.

Would that apply to a HGV driver who kills a cyclist?

The internet wrote:

Sack em' all. No, fire plastic bullets at them, make them homeless, cut their balls off, then sack them

I would presume an employer would need to have grounds on which to dismiss the employee.

If an employee doesn't get jail time and has rioted on their own time, what grounds would an employer have for sacking them.

IMRC civil servants have a 'bringing into disrepute' clause in their contracts, but how would another employee sack a looter without exposing themselves to an unfair dismissal case?

In my experience it's a pretty standard clause in any empoyment contract that you must not do anything that would bring the company into disrepute. Stuff about that here http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/ ... -know.html

Also as per my company we have to do backgound CRB checks on employees to check they are trustworhty to handle sensative documents and will keep them confidential. We have to evidence this to clients and perfom regular checks. We also have employees that have clearence to work in the MOD. A criminal record might mean we have to terminate as they cannot either do the job any more or cannot be trusted with certain document due to a theft conviction for example.

As also said above an employee in jail cannot turn up for work so can be fired on those gorund for unauthorised leave.

dhope

Sketchley wrote:

loose

No. Lose, not loose. It makes me cringe.
/pedant
/spelling nazi
/cock