UK on fire!!

[sweetlad2010]

* has there ever been in history ( of the world ) such a large scale of organised looting ? pure looting ? ( according to the image portrayed by most media and politicians )

* why does the initial issues ( shooting of Mark Daggan and police response ) seem to have been completely ignored both by rioters and the opposite side ?

* if the shooting accident was just a trigger to an already built up dissatisfaction and anger in some sectors of the society , why this anger is directed against small business the owners of which are probably closer to the side of rioters socio-economically than to the establishment ?

* why does the circumstances of the current event seem very similar to the event in 1981 in Brixton ? Police , conservative government, tough economic policies ....

* if you were a police or government official would you feel relieved that the focus of public attention has moved from phone hacking and economy to the riots ?

Back in 1981 the uk really wasnt far off a civil war, Ive read a few accounts of unions looking into buying weapons and training. Scary stuff really!

But if you look further back to the mid 19th century there was civil unrest in the form of the chartist movement.

[sweetlad2010]

lmao I see how much this site likes to know whats going on atm lol!

[Cardiganwearer]

Back in 1981 the uk really wasnt far off a civil war, Ive read a few accounts of unions looking into buying weapons and training. Scary stuff really!

But if you look further back to the mid 19th century there was civil unrest in the form of the chartist movement.

In 1981 the uk was a very long way from civil war, there were a few riots. It subsided and the world didn't end.

The unions weren't involved in any way, I don't know if you're familiar with them but unions are a way employees organise to negotiate with management. These negotiations take place by talking around a table.

Perhaps you'd care to give us a cite for your claim of weapons and training, since you claim to have read a few accounts? When I see nonsense like that I call bullshit. Put up or shut up.

[marshlander]

Sweetlad, he's not being pedantic ... He's just being a bully, demanding that you answer a question who's answer is obvious to us all ...

Not all of us, as it happens. I thought it was a fair question and an interesting point in the debate. Decades ago I researched for and wrote a paper on youth sub-cultures and the effects of youth club attendance on identity and behaviours in Stevenage. My research was fairly superficial at the time and is now decades out of date, so I would be fascinated to see how Sweetlad justifies some of his apparent assertions with more recent data. Not unreasonable given some of the points he has raised.

However, I do concur with some of his concerns that our government could well be tempted to step up security. As a "frequent flyer" I can tell you all about security up-stepping, not all of which seems to be useful or justified. During the 2005/6 civil unrest across France, the French government declared a state of emergency http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_civil_..._in_France and given how useful such diversionary tactics can be I would not be surprised to see some people in favour of something similar here.

1981/civil war (nearly)? No, I don't think so, although I think we were more docile than we could (and perhaps should?) have been about some of the actions of Thatcher's government. There were certain interests who would have welcomed a civil war, and perhaps even a few who agitated for it, but I don't remember feeling threatened particularly at the time (except by the police and the games they played on those of us attending political demos and rallies). I was far more scared for my children a few years later when we supported the US bombing of Libya. Strange how some things don't change much.

[marshlander]

Contrary to belief, Australia wasn't founded on convict settlement...infact a mojority of poms are 'Ten Pound Poms' who emigrated willingly in the 1950-60s

The convict settlement as a punishment was largely a failure because Australia was a reward rather than punishment with resources abound and fantastic weather to boot.

IE Australia wasn't a deserted island :-P

I assume you are filling in a little of the detail to my quip. Of course the experiment was a failure, but not before 165,00 convicts had been transported and that influx on a relatively small population was bound to have had an effect of some kind? The last transportation occurred during the mid-nineteenth century, but, as you point out, larger groups of people arrived in Australia to seek their fortunes in, for example, the gold rushes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convicts_in_Australia

Apologies for being completely off-topic, but of course Australia wasn't deserted when the first white settlers arrived, although I don't suppose this is the time to start discussing ethnic cleansing.

[marshlander]

I rarely trust simple answers. Her are a few theories. This week's events are surely not going to be down to a single cause.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14483149

[Paul1]

I think the reason is more simple, and not that numerous. My opinion is that the simpler theories are more likely to be correct than something complicated. In AI, one theory says that quite complex behaviour can arise from relatively simple behaviours, and I tend to agree with this idea.

As humans we are socially opportunistic beings. If you see a 10 GBP on the floor are you not tempted? We look at others' behaviour for examples. If there are many 10 GBP notes on the floor and everyone else is scrabbling around, then the message sent out is that it's OK to steal the money.

Crime has been worsening for a while. My thought is that a lack of consequences both in society and in schools has set a bad example for people. If we remove the bulk, the message delivered is that theft has little or no real consequences of concern. This is compounded by years of these people thieving and abusing the system, to the point of over confidence in their ability to loot.

In Britain we tend not to challenge bad behaviour, and that is because there's been incidences of the victim getting prosecuted for standing up. We are repeatedly told not to take matters into our own hands, as the state does nothing either. And so we don't support each other, as we don't want to be involved. Again, we're sending the wrong message, that it's OK to steal because we won't stop them.

The riots were merely a matter of time, when they realised that in large groups, the situation would be beyond the police's control. Actually it was well within society's control, but inactivity to protect our neighbourhoods is the reason these thugs succeed.

Who here hasn't dropped a piece of litter? I bet you if I tasered you just once for dropping litter, you'd never do it again. Bad behaviour must have negative consequences. Society must stand socially against people who do bad behaviour and must not be punished for standing up.

The other way, more effective, you can promote good behaviour, is to give good citizens a reward, perhaps a tax cut. Things like volunteering, as well as having no arrests or fines, and doing above the normal should result in a reward.

The result of continuing along our current path IMO, is unlikely, but could one day result in a revolution. Not of the looters though, of the people who grow tired of state inactivity and start policing society themselves. An example of how opportunism can be constructive.

[fredv3b]

Sweetlad, he's not being pedantic. He knows full well the answer to that question, as do we all.

He's just being a bully, demanding that you answer a question who's answer is obvious to us all; hearing you answer it will make him feel superior.

Just in case there's any doubt, NO.

I do apologise if pointing out the lack of evidence for a statement is considered bullying. I suggest that you start a campaign against Atheists for bullying believers in religions.

[fredv3b]

Why are you being so pedantic?

I neglected to answer your question, I apologise. If I expect an answer to mine, I should do you the same courtesy.

You state that the cause of the riots is the government's cuts to youth clubs and the like, and they should be reversed. That costs money, that means higher taxes, at least, in the future. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask what evidence there is that those higher taxes will prevent riots, or point out the absence of such evidence.

You repeated your belief that the cuts should be reversed, I repeated my question. I am sorry if you regard that as pedantry.