# What's happening in London? Why?



## TxllxT

We have family living close to the sudden outbreak of vandalism, arson & looting in North London. They have no idea why it happened. Now the news is bringing shocking pictures from all parts of the metropole and from Birmingham as well. Please, does anyone have some insights what is going on and why?


----------



## elgar's ghost

When it gets to this stage it doesn't matter to me why it started as far as I'm concerned - what the hell gives anyone the right to loot stores, set vehicles on fire and risk the well-being of innocents in the vicinity when the original incident - the shooting of a man by police - involves a few people at the most? Just an excuse for loads of dead-headed wasters who had nothing to do with it to kick off on the flimsiest of pretexts and the quicker it's sorted out the better.


----------



## Couchie

Curiosity said:


> *******


**********. I don't need to _try_ to construe this as racism: it's racism.


----------



## Curiosity

No, it isn't. The facts speak for themselves - most of the hooligans were black. Which really shouldn't be surprising if you've ever lived in London because the black communities there have serious crime issues.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Curiosity said:


> No, it isn't. The facts speak for themselves - most of the hooligans were black. Which really shouldn't be surprising if you've ever lived in London because the black communities there have serious crime issues.


"I'm not racist, _but..._"


----------



## Curiosity

****** 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-reveal-violent-criminals-black--victims.html


----------



## Polednice

Curiosity said:


> *******


The statistics speak for themselves. But care to venture an explanation for why crime is a bigger issue in black communities?


----------



## Curiosity

It's a cultural issue without doubt. I know a bit about this since firstly I was partially raised in a predominantly black neighbourhood and secondly my older brother, who is mixed race (half Jamaican), was put into foster care with various black families and gave me some interesting insights into the cultural life in that environment. Kids bring knives and guns into school in these neighbourhoods. Gang culture dominates. As for the deeper causes of the violence fixation in black communities, god knows it's multi-faceted. Starting with the home life I'd imagine (black fathers abandoning and not supporting their families is a well-known epidemic for example - and it's exactly what happened to my brother)

I fully expect to called racist for pointing out the prevalence of crime in black communities, though. Somebody throws out that accusation every single time.


----------



## Yoshi

I'm not very informed about the happenings in London right now but...



Curiosity said:


> ********


This post makes absolutely no sense.

Because a bunch of people who happened to be black commited a crime, you are blaming everyone else who also happens to be black for the same thing, even if they got absolutely nothing to do with it. You basicaly said, the reason for all this violence in London are "black people". And then you say it's not racism.

I don't even... there should be a facepalm smiley on this forum. :lol:


----------



## Curiosity

Jan said:


> Because a bunch of people who happened to be black commited a crime, you are blaming everyone else who also happens to be black for the same thing, even if they got absolutely nothing to do with it. You basicaly said, the reason for all this violence in London are "black people". And then you say it's not racism.
> 
> I don't even... there should be a facepalm smiley on this forum. :lol:


When did I blame ALL black people? Did I blame the blacks in Africa? The blacks in Jamaica? No, I blamed the blacks in Tottenham. This kind of behavior in London is more common in black communities - that's not racism, it's a statistically verified fact. See my posts above.

Honestly, as far as I'm concerned anybody who throws out baseless racism accusations makes everything they say on the issue from then on completely obsolete.


----------



## Yoshi

Fine, you are blaming every single person who is black and lives in Tottenham. Still makes no sense.

And I think I explained the reason why people could make accusations, therefore it isn't "baseless".


----------



## Curiosity

Jan said:


> Fine, you are blaming every single person who is black and lives in Tottenham. Still makes no sense.
> 
> And I think I explained the reason why people could make accusations, therefore it isn't "baseless".


I didn't blame all of them, but this IS largely a black issue. Go look at the videos. Go look at the pictures. Read the statistics.

But let's pretend that this isn't largely being perpetrated by black people. Let's, for the sake of political correctness, pretend most of the rioters are white, or yellow, or purple, or green. God forbid we mention the fact that most of them are black, because that's racism, right? Lol.


----------



## Polednice

The news reporters don't seem to care about the rioters being black - they're just relentlessly focusing on them as 'youths'. Look at them all - they're all _young_. It's disgusting! All these young people comin' over 'ere and takin' our jobs...


----------



## sabrina

I have no words. I am so sorry for all those who lost everything due to some hooligans. It is true that most of them are colored people. It's a fact. That does not mean that being colored is different than being white. It's sad. 
What a shame for London, such a beautiful city!


----------



## Ukko

It's damn near a truism that youth is wasted on the young. Us old folks can't be out there rioting - we get tired too quick.


----------



## Ukko

sabrina said:


> I have no words. I am so sorry for all those who lost everything due to some hooligans. It is true that most of them are colored people. It's a fact. That does not mean that being colored is different than being white. It's sad.
> What a shame for London, such a beautiful city!


I have no significant data re blacks in Ontario, but... in the US being 'colored' is definitely different from being white.


----------



## Jupiter

Who? Disenfranchised youth, black and white. 
Why? Poverty.
How? Organising and associating quickly and efficiently. Avoiding the usual forms of social media, which the police now routinely monitor, in favour of Blackberry Messenger (whatever that is!) to spread information.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

White people happened in Norway. Not racist against whites btw. (crackers)

Oh great, here comes the PC BRIGADE


----------



## Meaghan

Curiosity said:


> It's a cultural issue without doubt. I know a bit about this since firstly I was partially raised in a predominantly black neighbourhood and secondly my older brother, who is mixed race (half Jamaican), was put into foster care with various black families and gave me some interesting insights into the cultural life in that environment. Kids bring knives and guns into school in these neighbourhoods. Gang culture dominates. As for the deeper causes of the violence fixation in black communities, god knows it's multi-faceted. Starting with the home life I'd imagine (black fathers abandoning and not supporting their families is a well-known epidemic for example - and it's exactly what happened to my brother)
> 
> I fully expect to called racist for pointing out the prevalence of crime in black communities, though. Somebody throws out that accusation every single time.


I always find "culture" arguments, particularly when attached to race, problematic. They are rather shallow because they ignore structural factors and do not address the question of what creates "culture." Crime, gangs, deadbeat fathers, and single mothers are prevalent phenomena in impoverished communities. Poverty is prevalent in black communities (at least in large urban areas of the United States, and, it seems, Britain). Why? A few reasons that I have observed in my own city and read research about in other cities:

*Redlining* - Perpetrated by banks and governmental agencies, the practice of withholding mortgage capital/ denying home loans based on the race of the person trying to buy a home or the racial composition of a neighborhood, making it nearly impossible for black people to buy homes in particular areas of a city and driving the creation of racially segregated neighborhoods. This is illegal now, but the damage has already been done. In Portland, redlining was how most of the black residents ended up in North Portland, an area with major infrastructure problems the city has consistently ignored, sometimes leading to dangerous conditions (like the Vanport Flood, which drowned a carelessly constructed housing development too close to the river).

*White flight and inner city decay* - In America, this began in the mid-20th century. As black mostly middle-class families began moving into predominantly white urban neighborhoods, white families and businesses fled these neighborhoods for the suburbs. Because there was no longer business in the areas they abandoned, property values fell in these neighborhoods, many poor families moved in, and they became areas of concentrated poverty where it was (/is) difficult to find work, or decent schools.

*Uneven allocation of resources* - Schools in segregated neighborhoods, at least in urban America, suck. That's all there is to it. They get inexperienced teachers and they do not get new textbooks, computers, or basic building repairs. Part of this is that school funding is determined in part by the property tax rates in the school's area. Poor neighborhood --> low property values --> underfunded schools. In Portland right now there is an interesting (disturbing) correlation between the quality of a school's facilities and the percentage of white children attending the school. Kids, who are more observant than people generally give them credit for, realize that they are getting shorted ("Why does my school have rats?" etc.) and they get pissed off and sullen. Understandably so, I'd argue.

*The tendency of children, without intervention, to reproduce their parents' education level* - Most people do. My parents both have Master's degrees; I'm in college. Many kids from my neighborhood have parents who did not go to college; most of them are not in college. And then they get minimum-wage jobs like their parents. Poverty is passed down from generation from generation. I knew kids in high school who desperately wanted to go to college, but they did not get good enough grades in high school, or could not find the money. (Often they were not aware of scholarships that might be available to them because nobody counseled them about college and how to fund it.) They could not dedicate sufficient time to homework in high school because they had to work in the evenings so their families could get by. Many became frustrated and angry and hopeless as a result. Upward mobility, while it is the American dream, is often terribly difficult. But where there is funding for special programs to help low-income and high-risk kids finish high school, and where there are passionate teachers, there are first generation college students.

What "culture" arguments do is center all blame exclusively on desperate individuals and ignore the society in which they live. Of course people who commit crimes need to be held personally responsible for their actions. But the problem of crime cannot be addressed without looking at structural factors and seeing what can be done to help people change their lives and behavior. Saying "well, it's their fault!" and doing a police crackdown is not a long-term solution.


----------



## beethovenian

Where is the dislike button when you need it...


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Curiosity said:


> ***********
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-reveal-violent-criminals-black--victims.html


Anyone who thinks the Daily Mail reports unbiased facts quite frankly ********.


----------



## Couchie

Curiosity said:


> It's a cultural issue without doubt. I know a bit about this since firstly I was partially raised in a predominantly black neighbourhood and secondly my older brother, who is mixed race (half Jamaican), was put into foster care with various black families and gave me some interesting insights into the cultural life in that environment. Kids bring knives and guns into school in these neighbourhoods. Gang culture dominates. As for the deeper causes of the violence fixation in black communities, god knows it's multi-faceted. Starting with the home life I'd imagine (black fathers abandoning and not supporting their families is a well-known epidemic for example - and it's exactly what happened to my brother)
> 
> I fully expect to called racist for pointing out the prevalence of crime in black communities, though. Somebody throws out that accusation every single time.


Some advice - take it or leave it - to avoid being called a racist in the future, lead with something like this, not a provocative and insensitive one-liner like "**********".


----------



## Sid James

Well this kind of thing - "ethnic crime" - is often talked about here in Australia on talk-back radio, etc. This is a touchy issue to say the least. It's not as bad over here as has been described by the OP in London. I'm not dismissing these things, but racism goes both ways. A few years ago, a couple of Indian students here got bashed, pretty badly, & this may have been due to their ethnicity. It's been debated a lot here in the media, I can't get head nor tail of it - eg. some say it was racially motivated, others say it was just "normal" crime, eg. bashing them & stealing their iphones/valuables or whatever. Then there was also the Cronulla riots in about 2005, which became a very ugly conflict on Cronulla Beach in Sydney between "Anglos" and those of "Middle Eastern appearance." This was, as some say, compounded by people texting eachother to go there on their mobiles, "come here, there's a fight" kind of stuff. Even one of our prominent talk-back personalities said (but not literally, of course) that the Anglos should get to Cronulla & defend the faith. Pretty murky stuff. But I'm sure there was plenty of crime back like 100 years ago (or less) when it was mainly "Anglo," in both London and in Australian cities. In the 1930's, the Depression years, we had the "razor gangs" who were literally slicing eachother up. They were all Anglos, not blacks or anything like that. So basically, looking at these things, (as I said) racism goes both ways. It's a gordian knot...


----------



## regressivetransphobe

> Some advice - take it or leave it - to avoid being called a racist in the future, lead with something like this, not a provocative and insensitive one-liner like ********.


I bet *******(tm).


----------



## Almaviva

Oh my! Why didn't I see this thread before? Gee! Closed for repairs.


----------



## Almaviva

After extensive repairs, this thread is tentatively reopened. Please remember these lines in our Terms of Service:

"Members may not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, *hateful*, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws."

"»Trolling« is not welcome. A »troll« is someone who intentionally posts derogatory or *inflammatory *messages with the deliberate intent to bait users into responding, ranging from subtle jibes to outright personal attacks."

"*Do not post comments about other members person or »posting style« on the forum* (unless said comments are unmistakably positive). Argue opinions all you like but do not get personal and never resort to »ad homs«."

Some (not all - otherwise the thread would be mutilated to an extent that wouldn't justify its existence) of the posts and contents that represent violations of the Terms of Service have been removed.

The thread is being tentatively reopened given some legitimate discussion of current events, but will be closely watched. Any further deviation will result in permanent closure or may result in penalties (or both).

I think I will regret the fact that I have temporarily reopened the thread (maybe I'm being too lenient and other members of the staff will end up closing it for good, which is fine) but I'm willing to give the discussion one last chance, given my trust in our members' ability to refrain from inflammatory remarks - at least once they've been warned - and the usual generally civilized behavior of our esteemed members.

But like I said, the leash here will be very short, so members beware.


----------



## Guest

Meaghan said:


> I always find "culture" arguments, particularly when attached to race, problematic. They are rather shallow because they ignore structural factors and do not address the question of what creates "culture." Crime, gangs, deadbeat fathers, and single mothers are prevalent phenomena in impoverished communities. Poverty is prevalent in black communities (at least in large urban areas of the United States, and, it seems, Britain). Why? A few reasons that I have observed in my own city and read research about in other cities:
> 
> *Redlining* - Perpetrated by banks and governmental agencies, the practice of withholding mortgage capital/ denying home loans based on the race of the person trying to buy a home or the racial composition of a neighborhood, making it nearly impossible for black people to buy homes in particular areas of a city and driving the creation of racially segregated neighborhoods. This is illegal now, but the damage has already been done. In Portland, redlining was how most of the black residents ended up in North Portland, an area with major infrastructure problems the city has consistently ignored, sometimes leading to dangerous conditions (like the Vanport Flood, which drowned a carelessly constructed housing development too close to the river).
> 
> *White flight and inner city decay* - In America, this began in the mid-20th century. As black mostly middle-class families began moving into predominantly white urban neighborhoods, white families and businesses fled these neighborhoods for the suburbs. Because there was no longer business in the areas they abandoned, property values fell in these neighborhoods, many poor families moved in, and they became areas of concentrated poverty where it was (/is) difficult to find work, or decent schools.
> 
> *Uneven allocation of resources* - Schools in segregated neighborhoods, at least in urban America, suck. That's all there is to it. They get inexperienced teachers and they do not get new textbooks, computers, or basic building repairs. Part of this is that school funding is determined in part by the property tax rates in the school's area. Poor neighborhood --> low property values --> underfunded schools. In Portland right now there is an interesting (disturbing) correlation between the quality of a school's facilities and the percentage of white children attending the school. Kids, who are more observant than people generally give them credit for, realize that they are getting shorted ("Why does my school have rats?" etc.) and they get pissed off and sullen. Understandably so, I'd argue.
> 
> *The tendency of children, without intervention, to reproduce their parents' education level* - Most people do. My parents both have Master's degrees; I'm in college. Many kids from my neighborhood have parents who did not go to college; most of them are not in college. And then they get minimum-wage jobs like their parents. Poverty is passed down from generation from generation. I knew kids in high school who desperately wanted to go to college, but they did not get good enough grades in high school, or could not find the money. (Often they were not aware of scholarships that might be available to them because nobody counseled them about college and how to fund it.) They could not dedicate sufficient time to homework in high school because they had to work in the evenings so their families could get by. Many became frustrated and angry and hopeless as a result. Upward mobility, while it is the American dream, is often terribly difficult. But where there is funding for special programs to help low-income and high-risk kids finish high school, and where there are passionate teachers, there are first generation college students.
> 
> What "culture" arguments do is center all blame exclusively on desperate individuals and ignore the society in which they live. Of course people who commit crimes need to be held personally responsible for their actions. But the problem of crime cannot be addressed without looking at structural factors and seeing what can be done to help people change their lives and behavior. Saying "well, it's their fault!" and doing a police crackdown is not a long-term solution.


I have read these hypotheses as well - but it seems to me that these are more symptoms of the problem, rather than the underlying causes themselves. I think that the welfare state and the unintended consequences of it have had a lot to do with the problems. Single-parent families have had a huge impact on the problems of poverty and all the other ills that accompany it. In the early part of the 20th century, at least outside of the US South, blacks had a much higher standard of living than they do now. Back then, fathers were more likely to remain with the family. The welfare system has encouraged single-parent families. More money can be had if a father is not present, if you have more children.

Government programs, like rent control, seeking to bring more low income families and disadvantaged families, did a lot to drive down the standards of living in urban centers. So those who could, left. When it all boils down, it is about children. Parents want what is best for their children, and their children are not to be used as pawns for social engineering. Why else does Obama send his children to an expensive private school when they could go to the nearest public school? Because regardless of what he feels about supporting public education, he wants the best for his children. And I don't blame him one bit. Rahm Emmanuel in Chicago has said the same thing. As has Chris Christie in New Jersey. When I shopped around for housing in Alabama, I could have picked a very nice house in a nice neighborhood downtown that was really close to work. But I chose a long commute into work every day because the schools in the suburbs were better.


----------



## kg4fxg

*London*

Ok

I'll bite, enough bad said and now for the good. Maybe in favor of London I will listen to some of Haydn's London Symphonies (93-104).

I had the chance to visit London and wished I could have visited Wigmore Hall. So do you all have any favorite memories of London? Wonderful place. Saw many old churches and would love to hear Stile Antico or Tallis Scholars sing in them.


----------



## Polednice

The most insightful article I've read on the issue so far is here. These people, while obviously completely responsible for their entirely reprehensible actions, commit these crimes - notably against _anyone_, not just authority figures - because they are excluded from the 'community'. So much for Cameron's idiotic 'big society'.


----------



## Curiosity

Lol @ my posts being removed. Nothing I posted was "hateful". I stated the reality of the situation and *****************************************. That's not my problem. The facts speak for themselves.



regressivetransphobe said:


> White people happened in Norway. Not racist against whites btw. (crackers)
> 
> Oh great, here comes the PC BRIGADE


You're comparing the actions of an individual to an epidemic that plagues an entire subculture and it's community. Lol. :lol:


----------



## regressivetransphobe

> Lol @ my posts being removed. Nothing I posted was "hateful". I stated the reality of the situation and ***********************************. That's not my problem. The facts speak for themselves.


I am also sad your posts were removed, because in a different way, I would also like the "facts [to] speak for themselves".

Also, haha, I always get called a liberal or conservative depending on which terrible idea I call out. I never knew I could be both!


----------



## sospiro

I'm at a loss to explain what's happening.

This story is exceptionally sad. Injured boy gets robbed.


----------



## Polednice

sospiro said:


> I'm at a loss to explain what's happening.
> 
> This story is exceptionally sad. Injured boy gets robbed.


I saw that earlier this afternoon and it just sickened me. Some people may be able to explain the complicated social catalysts that led to the first one or two days of a mob lashing out, but I don't think I could ever comprehend the continued blatant opportunism and disregard for _anyone_ - friend, foe, or unknown innocent.


----------



## Argus

elgars ghost said:


> When it gets to this stage it doesn't matter to me why it started as far as I'm concerned - what the hell gives anyone the right to loot stores, set vehicles on fire and risk the well-being of innocents in the vicinity when the original incident - the shooting of a man by police - involves a few people at the most? Just an excuse for loads of dead-headed wasters who had nothing to do with it to kick off on the flimsiest of pretexts and the quicker it's sorted out the better.


Yep, this has nothing to do with political unrest/protest against the government, the police or any authority. It's just knobheads seeing an opportunity to do some robbing and smash stuff up.


----------



## Timotheus

I think that a community of people who are all friendly and not at all dysfunctional, where you can ask your neighbors to dogsit for you and be sure they won't steal anything, i.e. the kind of community we like to portray as standard in movies and such, is highly unnatural. It has only come into being as the result of centuries of civilization.

So it's not a question of what it is that the government or society is doing to make these people act this way...putting it in terms of a failed responsibility isn't right. It's a difficult transformation and it's not clear what the government can do to aid it. You can't really ensure that people will become educated for example. The notion that with good enough teaching all students in poverty will become inspired is ludicrous.

One theory that is being put forth in the newspapers is that the london police are just not willing to be tough enough:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/tottenham-metropolitan-police-london

And that people are looting because they realize they aren't going to get caught. Some businesses have had to defend themselves:



> When the rioters came to attack the premises of Kurdish and Turkish businesses in Hackney's Stoke Newington High Street and Kingsland Road on Monday night, the owners were waiting for them.
> 
> "It was between about nine and 10 at night," said Yilmaz Karagoz, sitting in his coffee shop next to a jeweller's shop that has been shuttered since Sunday when the rioting began and a pharmacy that closed a day after.
> 
> "There were a lot of them. We came out of our shops but the police asked us to do nothing. But the police did not do anything so as more came we chased them off ourselves." The staff from a local kebab restaurant ran at the attackers, doner knives in their hands.
> 
> "I don't think they will be coming back," Karagoz said.


Interesting/disgusting interview with some of the rioters or looters:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14458424


----------



## TxllxT

Looking & listening to these people who say to have (some) understanding for the looting and damaging of other people's properties I notice that they all use their being angry (very very angry) at the police, government etc. as a selfjustification for their aggression. Nowadays it has become quite common for the outgoing youth not only to get drunk, but to swallow a handful of pills as well in order to reach that blissful state of absolute mindlessness. All of a sudden they will get angry.... Afterwards, they do not remember anything of the aggressiveness and inhumaneness of their acts. Their minds were blank all the time. This being mind-blank is a selfjustification.
I think it is necessary for our democratic state to teach every young citizen a physical lesson in dealing with his or her own aggression. I think it is necessary to give every citizen a physical wake-up of his or her mind: yes, you have a mind, mind it!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I wonder what type of music many of these people destroying London listen to. Just a random thought.

Black Sabbath?


----------



## Amfibius

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I wonder what type of music many of these people destroying London listen to. Just a random thought.


I blame atonal music


----------



## Almaviva

I hope all members here who live in London or in other areas affected by the events are OK.


----------



## Almaviva

regressivetransphobe said:


> I am also sad your posts were removed, because in a different way, I would also like the "facts [to] speak for themselves".


Regressivetransphobe, sometimes inflammatory remarks are posted *in order to obtain a reaction* from others. One of the "treatments" to cure these behaviors is to remove the inflammatory remarks so that the intended effect is not obtained. Soon enough the person posting the remarks will realize that TC is not the place for this kind of thing, that it won't be tolerated here, that it won't have any intended effect other than resulting in penalties for the poster, so that the behavior is likely to go extinct.

Rest assured that the moderation team does keep a record of what has been said.

Like I've explained sometimes, people often don't see the reason for some of the moderation actions because objectionable content gets removed, but *we* do keep tabs.

Piece of advice for all members here:

When this kind of thing happens, please don't fight back but rather report the post to one of us, by clicking on the little triangle with the exclamation mark.

Often when members get upset at this kind of objectionable content they take upon themselves to fight back, thus also incurring in violations of terms of service (remember, we're not supposed to make comments about the posting style of others or the person of other members). We do weigh differently stimulus and response, but the best action is to click on the small triangle, and we'll take it from there and implement the appropriate measures.


----------



## science

All the moral outrage is fine, but I want to know the socio-economic conditions of the rioters. I'm not familiar with their situation.

I know that Britain has had a huge underclass for years, who just kind of accepted their hopelessness and got drunk often.


----------



## Argus

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I wonder what type of music many of these people destroying London listen to. Just a random thought.
> 
> Black Sabbath?


No chance, this isn't the 1970's. It'll be grime and dubstep most likely, or more generally hip hop and modern r'n'b.



science said:


> All the moral outrage is fine, but I want to know the socio-economic conditions of the rioters. I'm not familiar with their situation.
> 
> I know that Britain has had a huge underclass for years, who just kind of accepted their hopelessness and got drunk often.


There are various names for them. Round here they have been called 'scrotes' and 'scallies' for years but now the most used term is 'chavs'. A 21st century British lumpenproletariat. I don't know if they are exclusive to British culture but they are in essence the non-working working class.

I don't think they have accepted the hopelessness of their situation as much as they aren't even conscious of the situation to begin with. These rioters are not thinking anything beyond trying to nick a new pair of Nike Shox or some gold chains, and 'have a good time'..

As for what has caused the rise in this culture, I don't know. There must have always been oiks and yobbos but I think the threat of punishment is less than it was in previous years. That's a reason for the police apathy too. After that man was killed at the G8 protest in London and the officer responsible was tried, the police are not taking any chances. I believe the police are sending more of a message to the government, that their regulations and the law in general is not how it should be.

And the riotting is not only in London now. Lots of copycat rioting in towns and cities across Britain now the yobs have seen they can get away with a lot of stuff.


----------



## TresPicos

TxllxT said:


> Looking & listening to these people who say to have (some) understanding for the looting and damaging of other people's properties I notice that they all use their being angry at the police, government etc. as a selfjustification for their aggression.


Sadly, too many people believe that just because the rioters are angry, society has wronged those rioters in some way, causing them to be so angry. Well, a lot of people are frustrated with their lives and their everyday situation (which might be even worse than that of the rioters) but most of them keep acting responsibly and refrain from letting their frustration harm innocent people. I feel it would be an insult to that well-behaved but not-so-well-off majority to regard those in the looting mob as some kind of victims when they are, in fact, a bunch of perpetrators.


----------



## presto

I just feel totally embarrassed and ashamed with what’s going on in my country at the moment.
We seemed to have created ghettos of deprived people with no sense of community or respect and they seemed to have been tipped over the edge with all these government cutbacks, growing unemployment and inequality.
It’s a sad time for the UK.


----------



## Bix

Well I've just got back from work, started at 6am, didn't sleep at all last night. We both were fully dressed in our 2nd floor flat lounge deciding wether to make an escape - we live on the main route out of our city, quite close to the city itself and the hooliganism hit last night. I wont post the pictures taken of the scene outside my window but there were huge dumpsters on fire a plenty, a gang of 100ish people and just as many riot police (even police horses). These people decided to set fire to a number of buildings in the city and smash shop windows all over the place. My Dad works alongside the police and he said they are expecting another night of it tonight - Luckily the company I work for have offered me, my partner and cats a place to stay until its over so we can get out of the area.

tis just mad


----------



## Timotheus

presto said:


> I just feel totally embarrassed and ashamed with what's going on in my country at the moment.
> We seemed to have created ghettos of deprived people with no sense of community or respect and they seemed to have been tipped over the edge with all these government cutbacks, growing unemployment and inequality.
> It's a sad time for the UK.


Why do you say you created them? Why would it be that society creates criminals, rather than that society sometimes doesn't make people into not-criminals?

Do people become civilized or is it just institutions and culture that become civilized, with people having the same nature they had in ancient times? I think it's the latter. See the "homeopathic medicine" movement. We can create good medicine, but we can't make people see the light. Society hasn't created superstitious people.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

TresPicos said:


> Sadly, too many people believe that just because the rioters are angry, society has wronged those rioters in some way, causing them to be so angry. Well, a lot of people are frustrated with their lives and their everyday situation (which might be even worse than that of the rioters) but most of them keep acting responsibly and refrain from letting their frustration harm innocent people. I feel it would be an insult to that well-behaved but not-so-well-off majority to regard those in the looting mob as some kind of victims when they are, in fact, a bunch of perpetrators.


The difference between a mob and attempted revolution is some letters in a history book. There's no doubt this is just an excuse for a lot of people to wreak havoc, but let's also not pretend some senseless, unfocused destruction legitimizes their ****** government.


----------



## Polednice

Timotheus said:


> Do people become civilized or is it just institutions and culture that become civilized, with people having the same nature they had in ancient times? I think it's the latter. See the "homeopathic medicine" movement. We can create good medicine, but we can't make people see the light. Society hasn't created superstitious people.


I think you're right, though society could clearly do a lot more to elevate people from savagery and stupidity. Taking your homeopathic analogy, while people are naturally superstitious, society fails a great deal by not instilling a good foundation of critical thinking in our young people to raise them above that damaging kind of naivete. In the same way, as you said of these riots, it's not that society creates criminals, but that it hasn't lifted them above their potential criminality, and that is still a failing.


----------



## Timotheus

Polednice said:


> I think you're right, though society could clearly do a lot more to elevate people from savagery and stupidity. Taking your homeopathic analogy, while people are naturally superstitious, society fails a great deal by not instilling a good foundation of critical thinking in our young people to raise them above that damaging kind of naivete. In the same way, as you said of these riots, it's not that society creates criminals, but that it hasn't lifted them above their potential criminality, and that is still a failing.


I want to say "it's only a failing if the task is achievable". But I think that's a bit glib seeing as this is possibly the premier political question of our time. Progressive people believe that society can make these changes fairly easily, and conservative people are less optimistic and tend to treat it as amazing that some things work as well as they do.

I'm at least skeptical. Heck, I take a vitamin pill sometimes without really having any good reason to believe it does anything beyond some wishy washy nonsense like "I don't eat many vegetables/no harm in it". It feels like it ought to magically do something though...


----------



## Polednice

Timotheus said:


> I want to say "it's only a failing if the task is achievable". But I think that's a bit glib seeing as this is possibly the premier political question of our time. Progressive people believe that society can make these changes fairly easily, and conservative people are less optimistic and tend to treat it as amazing that some things work as well as they do.


I don't think that it's at all achievable in full - it's certainly just an ideal - but in the case of these riots spreading from an initial protest to undeniable opportunism and disregard for the law around the country, I think it's safe to say that we could be achieving a hell of a lot more.


----------



## Almaviva

Bix said:


> Well I've just got back from work, started at 6am, didn't sleep at all last night. We both were fully dressed in our 2nd floor flat lounge deciding wether to make an escape - we live on the main route out of our city, quite close to the city itself and the hooliganism hit last night. I wont post the pictures taken of the scene outside my window but there were huge dumpsters on fire a plenty, a gang of 100ish people and just as many riot police (even police horses). These people decided to set fire to a number of buildings in the city and smash shop windows all over the place. My Dad works alongside the police and he said they are expecting another night of it tonight - Luckily the company I work for have offered me, my partner and cats a place to stay until its over so we can get out of the area.
> 
> tis just mad


Gee! Be safe! Don't wait till the last minute to seek shelter, maybe you should preventively leave very early before the trouble starts and stay away for a while.


----------



## Guest

Have the police decided yet to use the plastic bullits? I heard yesterday there was some consideration for using them, but thus far they have only been used to quell riots in Ireland, where the mobs are much larger (or at least that is what the interviewee said - some assistant mayor of London, or something like that).

I was surprised to hear that England doesn't have some kind of national guard, like the U.S. does, that can be called out by local political leaders, but not the national government, to help in these situations.

I know there is the scrambling to find some logic to this, to have some nice, tidy explanation to point to in this case. But honestly, in the best of societies, there will always be this kind of element. Maybe in this particular case it happens to be more black than white, but that is, at best, circumstantial. I don't believe that any particular race is more prone to violence than another. I think in this case, one finds itself moreso in the conditions that seem to breed such violent behavior. But riots have happened in the past, and they will happen in the future. There were some particularly nasty riots in New York City over the draft back during the Civil War - to my best knowledge, they were mostly white.

I don't like looking for rationalizations in these cases because then it tends to temper the response to these criminals, and my thought is that would only encourage further bad behavior. In a completely unrelated scenario that nevertheless may be somewhat pertinent, not too long ago in the U.S., youths would go to fast food restaurants, go through the drive through, order food and a drink, then when they would get the drink, they would throw it in the face of the worker - filming all of this so that they could post their activities on the internet. I believe one group that was caught was given a particularly stiff sentence by an unsympathetic judge, and the activity seems to have dried up.

I wish everyone caught in the middle of this well, and hope that it is controlled sooner rather than later. I don't find anything even remotely related to revolution here, at least in the noble sense of the term. To my knowledge, true revolutionaries don't interrupt their revolts to go snag the newest pair of Nikes from the storefront they pass by.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> I was surprised to hear that England doesn't have some kind of national guard, like the U.S. does, that can be called out by local political leaders, but not the national government, to help in these situations.
> 
> I know there is the scrambling to find some logic to this, to have some nice, tidy explanation to point to in this case. But honestly, in the best of societies, there will always be this kind of element. Maybe in this particular case it happens to be more black than white, but that is, at best, circumstantial. I don't believe that any particular race is more prone to violence than another. I think in this case, one finds itself moreso in the conditions that seem to breed such violent behavior. But riots have happened in the past, and they will happen in the future. There were some particularly nasty riots in New York City over the draft back during the Civil War - to my best knowledge, they were mostly white.
> 
> I don't like looking for rationalizations in these cases because then it tends to temper the response to these criminals, and my thought is that would only encourage further bad behavior. In a completely unrelated scenario that nevertheless may be somewhat pertinent, not too long ago in the U.S., youths would go to fast food restaurants, go through the drive through, order food and a drink, then when they would get the drink, they would throw it in the face of the worker - filming all of this so that they could post their activities on the internet. I believe one group that was caught was given a particularly stiff sentence by an unsympathetic judge, and the activity seems to have dried up.
> 
> I wish everyone caught in the middle of this well, and hope that it is controlled sooner rather than later. I don't find anything even remotely related to revolution here, at least in the noble sense of the term. To my knowledge, true revolutionaries don't interrupt their revolts to go snag the newest pair of Nikes from the storefront they pass by.


I find myself in unusual agreement with you on that post, DrMike. 

The only difference I'd voice is that, although I don't like the word 'rationalisation' in this case because it makes it sound as though the behaviour is being excused or explained away, I _do_ think that we have an obligation to at least consider a wider societal cause for these behaviours rather than just accepting that bad humans will be bad humans. Admittedly, there is a fine line to be trodden - at one extreme, you can end up feeling sympathy for these vile people who deserve every punishment coming to them, but at the other you end up shirking social responsibility in a kind of defeatism.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I find myself in unusual agreement with you on that post, DrMike.
> 
> The only difference I'd voice is that, although I don't like the word 'rationalisation' in this case because it makes it sound as though the behaviour is being excused or explained away, I _do_ think that we have an obligation to at least consider a wider societal cause for these behaviours rather than just accepting that bad humans will be bad humans. Admittedly, there is a fine line to be trodden - at one extreme, you can end up feeling sympathy for these vile people who deserve every punishment coming to them, but at the other you end up shirking social responsibility in a kind of defeatism.


No, I think they do need to try to get at the underlying causes - but save that until after the guilty parties have been apprehended and prosecuted. Then go about understanding what happened and preventing future occurrences.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> No, I think they do need to try to get at the underlying causes - but save that until after the guilty parties have been apprehended and prosecuted. Then go about understanding what happened and preventing future occurrences.


Ah, I see. Understandable then!


----------



## TxllxT

I heard mr. Cameron speaking about responsibility and so on. I guess a lot of this trouble in the UK has to do with individualism getting so extreme, that these yougsters are boiling in their soup of selfishness until the lid suddenly blows off. It is wrong to let unemployed young people hang around doing nothing, nothing but smouldering & getting 'angry' in pure selfishness. Responsibility is not in our genes, it needs to be taught. A national guard with the enlistment of unemployed youngsters in its ranks, who learn in this way to act & think responsibly, is IMO one way to get the mess cleared up, both inside the heads of these hooligans and on the streets.


----------



## jurianbai

this remind me of Jakarta riot in 1998 , I was in other city in Java at the time but it was still a scarry and terrible time.

I am void to all discussions here and just want to say sorry for all Londoners , I hope they find the best way in this difficult time.


----------



## samurai

@ Bix, I hope you and your partner and your cats are safe. I'm just now reading your account of last night and I am very upset for and worried about you.
PLease take advantage of your company's offer and let us know that you are alright!


----------



## Sid James

Agreed with jurianbai & samurai's sentiments above. 

As I wrote earlier, these kinds of things have happened here as well, but not to this scale/detriment. I'm talking of the Cronulla riots of about 2005, images of which were beamed around the world. I think a few years before that, there was also a big riot in the inner city suburb of Redfern in Sydney, which was related to an incident of police chasing an Aboriginal youth who died during that incident. I think that, unfortunately even the most "moderate" of societies, sometimes have these situations occur. I don't envy the police in this situation, theirs is a difficult job. Australians - being a former penal colony - are traditionally anti-cops, but I think that theirs is basically a thankless task. They are the ones, among others (even the politicians we b*tch about) stopping us from going into anarchy...


----------



## graaf

We all like to think that we are solely responsible for our success, and that colonialism is the thing of the past and that neocolonialism is some product of extreme leftist spite. But even countries like mine (ex-Yugoslavia) would go to Middle east and make money off Arabs rich in oil by doing work they can not do themselves, while being credited by USA in order not to ("be forced to") go to the "Dark Side" (Soviet bloc). If even small country like that does exploit others, what can be said about UK/USA? And even if we have our backlash for what we did, how big of a backlash can UK/USA expect? Please note: I am not talking about some retribution - it is a cause and effect thing: we were financially irresponsible, we pay the price, UK didn't care about immigrants from ex-colonies, now the paycheck came, USA printed money like crazy (and empty financial papers were treated as real assets) while their people went on shopping spree for cheap cr*p made in sweat shops around the world (Everybody knows the deal is rotten, Old black Joe's still pickin' cotton, For your ribbons and bows). And now new countries are taking leadership (at last economic one, if not the military one), and the centuries old party for West Europe and North America is coming to an end - the question is: with or without a bang? With or without, act one seems to be going on in UK...


----------



## Bix

samurai said:


> @ Bix, I hope you and your partner and your cats are safe. I'm just now reading your account of last night and I am very upset for and worried about you.
> PLease take advantage of your company's offer and let us know that you are alright!


Thank you so much, we are all safe. It was quiet last night - the police have been doing two things, 1: promising the use of rubber bullets and 2: taking photos of perpotrators and posting their pictures online so people can identify them for arrests. Obviously they are arresting people on scene, but for those who run off from large crowds.

Let's hope tonIght is just as quiet, the company offer stands for as long as we need it though


----------



## Argus

These kids have serious problems. Firstly, why loot basmati rice? Then if you're going to nick some, why go for Tesco Value over the Finest stuff, and then get a bragging photo taken with your £4 worth of loot?


----------



## sospiro

Bix said:


> Thank you so much, we are all safe. It was quiet last night - the police have been doing two things, 1: promising the use of rubber bullets and 2: taking photos of perpetrators and posting their pictures online so people can identify them for arrests. Obviously they are arresting people on scene, but for those who run off from large crowds.
> 
> Let's hope tonight is just as quiet, the company offer stands for as long as we need it though


So pleased you're OK.

What we need is an evening of torrential rain. Stay away from Edinburgh though ..


----------



## Bix

sospiro said:


> So pleased you're OK.
> 
> What we need is an evening of torrential rain. Stay away from Edinburgh though ..


I think a few nights of torrential rain will stop it actually, people won't come out in the rain and after a few days they won't remember why they thought they were doing it.


----------



## Artemis

DrMike said:


> I was surprised to hear that England doesn't have some kind of national guard, like the U.S. does, that can be called out by local political leaders, but not the national government, to help in these situations.


It's not the British way to have a range of police forces, each under different control, to deal with situations like this. There would utter mayhem if there was. We have a common police force which operates in fundamentally the same way across the whole UK, and which is segmented only by geographical boundaries for management purposes. To have a separate type of police force of the type you refer to, under a different control, on standby just in case there's a mob riot is hardly the way we organise things.

Ghastly though all this rioting has been, it's highly unusual and I'm pretty sure that the police/Courts/politicians and all have a grip on the situation now. It will be history in a couple of weeks time.

None of this should have happened in the first place, but looking at several of the newspaper articles where this has been discussed and analysed in some detail it is pretty clear that it has been a time-bomb just waiting to go off. The trouble is that nobody knew when it was likely to do so, and complacency ruled.

It's almost a truism that the reason it all happened is because the perpetrators do not have anything like a sense of right and wrong, and they obviously thought they could get away with it due to lax policing and lenient Court action. The latter can be more easily changed than the former.


----------



## Guest

Argus said:


> These kids have serious problems. Firstly, why loot basmati rice? Then if you're going to nick some, why go for Tesco Value over the Finest stuff, and then get a bragging photo taken with your £4 worth of loot?


Yeah, but didn't you see how big the bag was?!?!

Besides, maybe looting the rice was only incidental - maybe his old lady told him to pick some up on his way home:

Mom: Reggie, where are you going?
Reggie: Out to riot, loot, and generally cause mayhem.
Mom: Well could you nick me a bag of rice while you're at it?
Reggie: Mum, what are the blokes going to think if, in the middle of burning cars and harassing police, I have to steal into the (insert name of typical British grocery store) for some rice?
Mom: We're out of rice, and I wanted to try to make this lovely pilaf dish I saw Gordon Ramsay make on that show of his.
Reggie: Fine, whatever.
Mom: And make sure you get a bag of Basmati, none of that bloody Arborio or Japanese Akebono rice. Last time I sent your father to bust into the store for a bag of rice, he brought back some bleedin' Mansooli rice from Nepal. And you might as well snag the economy pack while you're at it.
Reggie: Anything else, mum? Maybe a pint of Guinness?
Mom: Oi, don't you get smart with me, you dozy sod. Now off with you, and be quick about it . . . Oh, why don't you snap a picture of it so's I can make sure you got the right one!

(My apologies for my pathetic attempt to mimic how Londoners might talk, and for any seeming insensitivity in this post - purely meant for humorous intent. At times like these, you have to still be able to laugh).


----------



## Guest

Artemis said:


> It's not the British way to have a range of police forces, each under different control, to deal with situations like this. There would utter mayhem if there was. We have a common police force which operates in fundamentally the same way across the whole UK, and which is segmented only by geographical boundaries for management purposes. To have a separate type of police force of the type you refer to, under a different control, on standby just in case there's a mob riot is hardly the way we organise things.
> 
> Ghastly though all this rioting has been, it's highly unusual and I'm pretty sure that the police/Courts/politicians and all have a grip on the situation now. It will be history in a couple of weeks time.
> 
> None of this should have happened in the first place, but looking at several of the newspaper articles where this has been discussed and analysed in some detail it is pretty clear that it has been a time-bomb just waiting to go off. The trouble is that nobody knew when it was likely to do so, and complacency ruled.
> 
> It's almost a truism that the reason it all happened is because the perpetrators do not have anything like a sense of right and wrong, and they obviously thought they could get away with it due to lax policing and lenient Court action. The latter can be more easily changed than the former.


No, the U.S. National Guard is not some standing police force. It is only called into active duty as needed. Those who volunteer have to go periodically for continued training and drilling, but for most of the year, they hold down normal jobs. They can then be called up in need - in some cases they can actually be sent overseas for military conflicts, or they can help in situations, like riots, where more force than the standard police is needed. They can also be called in to help in the case of disasters.

There is a level of control over them to prevent bad situations. For one, the president cannot call up the National Guard for domestic issues - it has to be requested at the local level, to prevent the President of the United States from being able to unleash a military force within the United States.


----------



## Artemis

DrMike said:


> No, the U.S. National Guard is not some standing police force. It is only called into active duty as needed. Those who volunteer have to go periodically for continued training and drilling, but for most of the year, they hold down normal jobs. They can then be called up in need - in some cases they can actually be sent overseas for military conflicts, or they can help in situations, like riots, where more force than the standard police is needed. They can also be called in to help in the case of disasters.


There appears to be sufficient flexibility in the UK police system to cater for more of the same resources if required, at least on a temporary basis. For example, on the first night of riots London there were some 6000 police on duty in the Metropolitan Police Force area, which I gather is about normal. By the third day the number had been increased to 16,000, just by cancelling leave etc.



> There is a level of control over them to prevent bad situations. For one, the president cannot call up the National Guard for domestic issues - it has to be requested at the local level, to prevent the President of the United States from being able to unleash a military force within the United States.


A funny kind of control if I may say so, to prevent the President of the USA from causing harm to the USA by unleashing a military force against it?

We don't need anything like that. This is Britain. It's damned embarrassing what these hooligans have done to discredit us, but we have more than enough political and military and legal history to know what's best for us in terms of maintaining (generally good) public order. After all, our system was exported all round the world.


----------



## Almaviva

Artemis said:


> This is Britain. It's damned embarrassing what these hooligans have done to discredit us, but we have more than enough political and military and legal history to know what's best for us in terms of maintaining (generally good) public order. After all, our system was exported all round the world.


 Please don't export the situation that has resulted in these events.


----------



## Guest

Artemis said:


> We don't need anything like that. This is Britain. It's damned embarrassing what these hooligans have done to discredit us, but we have more than enough political and military and legal history to know what's best for us in terms of maintaining (generally good) public order. *After all, our system was exported all round the world.*


Yes, but as I recall, with only a few exceptions, most of those places threw you right back out.


----------



## Sid James

DrMike said:


> Yes, but as I recall, with only a few exceptions, most of those places threw you right back out.


At least the Brits did their brand of "colonialism" openly, not covertly, like some superpowers have had a tendency to do (USA, USSR). To defend "mother England," they also tended to do "colonialism" better than the others involved at the time, eg. France, Belgium, the Dutch. The Brits set up solid legal/parliamentary systems in many countries that have survived with local modifications until today (not without complications, of course, eg. a number of African countries). Of course, the Irish situation is nothing to brag about. Anyway, I'm no fan of the monarchy or the Brits, but I think that they're a kind of a "soft target." I'm basically over these things, if we "bash" the Brits for what they did in their colonies, then we should bash the others as well (who, I think, were far worse - ever read Joseph Conrad's _Heart of Darkness _re the former Belgian Congo? - horrible stuff went down there)...


----------



## beethovenian

Geez, Sospiro you beat me to it but anyway....


----------



## Guest

Sid James said:


> At least the Brits did their brand of "colonialism" openly, not covertly, like some superpowers have had a tendency to do (USA, USSR). To defend "mother England," they also tended to do "colonialism" better than the others involved at the time, eg. France, Belgium, the Dutch. The Brits set up solid legal/parliamentary systems in many countries that have survived with local modifications until today (not without complications, of course, eg. a number of African countries). Of course, the Irish situation is nothing to brag about. Anyway, I'm no fan of the monarchy or the Brits, but I think that they're a kind of a "soft target." I'm basically over these things, if we "bash" the Brits for what they did in their colonies, then we should bash the others as well (who, I think, were far worse - ever read Joseph Conrad's _Heart of Darkness _re the former Belgian Congo? - horrible stuff went down there)...


Please don't take my comment as a mean-spirited attack on Britain. It was meant more to be a tongue-in-cheek response to what came off as a fairly arrogant comment from Artemis. I think that the British empire, while certainly not without flaws, had a huge positive impact throughout the world with a lot of the values and systems exported. That's not to say mistakes weren't made.

But I was just commenting on how the US has a system in place for taking care of situations like the riots in England when the problem seems to be overwhelming local law enforcement, and my surprise that Britain did not have some similar program, something like a home guard. It wasn't meant to be a critique of the British system - more really a comparison. Artemis took the opportunity to get her feathers ruffled (I think Artemis is a she, but forgive me if I am wrong), and so I responded with what was meant to be merely a comical retort (if you look at the bulk of my postings yesterday, you will see that was a common theme for me - and I racked up more "likes" yesterday than I think I had combined since the like feature was added!!!! ).


----------



## Andy Loochazee

DrMike said:


> [snipped]
> 
> ... But I was just commenting on how the US has a system in place for taking care of situations like the riots in England when the problem seems to be overwhelming local law enforcement, and my surprise that Britain did not have some similar program, something like a home guard. It wasn't meant to be a critique of the British system - more really a comparison....


I thought that the main purpose of the National Guard in the USA is to help respond to emergencies such as hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.

Because it's part of the USA military, not a part of the nation's police force, I would have thought that the National Guard is not there to deal with riotous behaviour by ordinary civilians. For that I would have thought that a police response, with the attendant power of arrest if necessary, would be the normal means of remedy.

I'm no expert on the intricacies of USA national defence systems but if my understanding of the situation, as set out above, is incorrect can you say when that last occasion was that the National Guard was called out to deal with a major riot on the USA mainland by ordinary civilians?

I was also puzzled by your earlier comment that the President of the USA is not empowered to call out the National Guard. Are you sure about that?


----------



## sospiro

DrMike said:


> Please don't take my comment as a mean-spirited attack on Britain. It was meant more to be a tongue-in-cheek response to what came off as a fairly arrogant comment from Artemis. I think that the British empire, while certainly not without flaws, had a huge positive impact throughout the world with a lot of the values and systems exported. That's not to say mistakes weren't made.
> 
> But I was just commenting on how the US has a system in place for taking care of situations like the riots in England when the problem seems to be overwhelming local law enforcement, and my surprise that Britain did not have some similar program, something like a home guard. It wasn't meant to be a critique of the British system - more really a comparison. Artemis took the opportunity to get her feathers ruffled (I think Artemis is a she, but forgive me if I am wrong), and so I responded with what was meant to be merely a comical retort (if you look at the bulk of my postings yesterday, you will see that was a common theme for me - and I racked up more "likes" yesterday than I think I had combined since the like feature was added!!!! ).


I am British, have lived in a country (Uganda) under Colonial rule & certainly don't take offence at your comments.

Yes the British did lots of good things but plenty to be ashamed of as well. At least we had the grace to yield our powers to the emerging independent countries without too much of a struggle.


----------



## Guest

Andy Loochazee said:


> I thought that the main purpose of the National Guard in the USA is to help respond to emergencies such as hurricanes, floods, and earthquakes.
> 
> Because it's part of the USA military, not a part of the nation's police force, I would have thought that the National Guard is not there to deal with riotous behaviour by ordinary civilians. For that I would have thought that a police response, with the attendant power of arrest if necessary, would be the normal means of remedy.
> 
> I'm no expert on the intricacies of USA national defence systems but if my understanding of the situation, as set out above, is incorrect can you say when that last occasion was that the National Guard was called out to deal with a major riot on the USA mainland by ordinary civilians?
> 
> I was also puzzled by your earlier comment that the President of the USA is not empowered to call out the National Guard. Are you sure about that?


I don't know all of the intricacies of the laws, but there are several that govern the National Guard, including the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act.

The President can call up the National Guard in military operations abroad. But within the U.S., the aim was to limit the ability of the federal government to move military into the states - part of a compromise that ended Reconstruction following the Civil War. In exchange for the Southern politicians to go along with the election of Rutherford B. Hayes, it was agreed that a law would be passed to remove federal troops then occupying the Southern states.

National Guard can be called out by governors to help in insurrection. That is a constitutional issue, relating to state militias. The California National Guard was called out to stop the Los Angeles riots in 1992 around the Rodney King Trial. In addition, in the 1960's, when there were riots in Watts, California, the National Guard was also called out - my stepfather was in the California National Guard then and was called up.


----------



## elgar's ghost

sospiro said:


> I am British, have lived in a country (Uganda) under Colonial rule & certainly don't take offence at your comments.
> 
> Yes the British did lots of good things but plenty to be ashamed of as well. At least we had the grace to yield our powers to the emerging independent countries without too much of a struggle.


Judging by the civil wars/tribalism that have blighted the development of certain countries once they were free of our (British) rule one of the legacies we didn't seem to be able to bequeath was the infrastructure of stable and non-corrupt government!


----------



## Guest

sospiro said:


> I am British, have lived in a country (Uganda) under Colonial rule & certainly don't take offence at your comments.
> 
> Yes the British did lots of good things but plenty to be ashamed of as well. At least we had the grace to yield our powers to the emerging independent countries without too much of a struggle.


Apart from that little skirmish back around 1776.


----------



## sospiro

elgars ghost said:


> Judging by the civil wars/tribalism that have blighted the development of certain countries once they were free of our (British) rule one of the legacies we didn't seem to be able to bequeath was the infrastructure of stable and non-corrupt government!


"You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment."


----------



## Andy Loochazee

DrMike said:


> I don't know all of the intricacies of the laws, but there are several that govern the National Guard, including the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act.
> 
> The President can call up the National Guard in military operations abroad. But within the U.S., the aim was to limit the ability of the federal government to move military into the states - part of a compromise that ended Reconstruction following the Civil War. In exchange for the Southern politicians to go along with the election of Rutherford B. Hayes, it was agreed that a law would be passed to remove federal troops then occupying the Southern states.
> 
> National Guard can be called out by governors to help in insurrection. That is a constitutional issue, relating to state militias. The California National Guard was called out to stop the Los Angeles riots in 1992 around the Rodney King Trial. In addition, in the 1960's, when there were riots in Watts, California, the National Guard was also called out - my stepfather was in the California National Guard then and was called up.


You are talking about the law as it stood a long while ago. I thought that the law was changed in 2007 to allow the President to order action by the National Guard within the USA mainland during emergencies. Is that not the case?

Also, is it not the case that the National Guard is strictly part of the USA army? In that case, why wasn't your initial question/comment about the possible use of Britain's military to deal with the situation?

The obvious answer is that we don't use the military to deal with civil commotion, when we have a perfectly satisfactory police force to deal with that kind of situation. Yes indeed the UK's police forces were slow to act initially on this occasion, but the same delay would no doubt have occurred if (against all precedent) the armed forces had been called out, in view of the usual information/action lags in the system.


----------



## Guest

Andy Loochazee said:


> You are talking about the law as it stood a long while ago. I thought that the law was changed in 2007 to allow the President to order action by the National Guard within the USA mainland during emergencies. Is that not the case?
> 
> Also, is it not the case that the National Guard is strictly part of the USA army? In that case, why wasn't your initial question/comment about the possible use of Britain's military to deal with the situation?
> 
> The obvious answer is that we don't use the military to deal with civil commotion, when we have a perfectly satisfactory police force to deal with that kind of situation. Yes indeed the UK's police forces were slow to act initially on this occasion, but the same delay would no doubt have occurred if (against all precedent) the armed forces had been called out, in view of the usual information/action lags in the system.


The law was changed in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, but then in 2008 those changes were eliminated, reverting back to the previous law.

The National Guard is technically part of the US Army, but it is actually more like a militia, and one of its constitutionally authorized functions is to put down insurrections.

I'm not saying that your police force is unsatisfactory - but think about it. Didn't they have to bring in thousands of police from other areas to help quell the violence? Would you say, then, that those areas that were drawn upon were then fully staffed should similar riots break out there?

I don't really see why this is generating as much heat as it is. It was an innocent enough question initially on my part, as to whether or not Britain had something similar to the National Guard like we have in the U.S. - not some commentary on the capabilities of the British police force. I'm not telling you to set up such a force. If your police force is sufficient, then fine. The National Guard, while technically part of the military, is still a different entity, and can be called upon by governors in cases of emergency and insurrection. The regular military cannot. Seal Team 6 can't be sent in by Barrack Obama should there erupt a riot in New York City. The 10th Mountain Division can't go rumbling in on Humvees into Madison, Wisconsin, on Barrack Obama's orders should there be riots in the streets. But the governors of New York and Wisconsin, respectively, can call up the National Guard in those circumstances. The states are sovereign, so I don't think you can just order in New Jersey police to go into New York, should they have that need - New Jersey police would have no jurisdiction. Clearly jurisdiction issues are not at play in Britain if you can just call up police forces from other cities.

Where is the inflammatory comment I have made that has riled up so many of you? My one comment has turned into some British pride pissing contest. All you had to say was, "No, we don't have a national guard system like you do in the United States - we are able to call in police from different jurisdictions to provide the necessary manpower to quell the riots." That would have answered my question. No British pride chest-thumping was meant to be elicited.


----------



## sospiro

DrMike said:


> Apart from that little skirmish back around 1776.


:lol:

I was thinking of more recent times


----------



## Guest

sospiro said:


> So pleased you're OK.
> 
> What we need is an evening of torrential rain. Stay away from Edinburgh though ..


Proof of my last point - clearly this brutality witnessed in Edinburgh is most likely due to a shortage of police, as they were all down in London! That innocent trash bin might still be standing today were the local constabulary not down in London chasing down Reggie and his pilfered jumbo bag of Basmati.


----------



## Guest

sospiro said:


> :lol:
> 
> I was thinking of more recent times


Ah, you must be referring to the War of 1812.  (or whatever you Limeys refer to it as :devil


----------



## elgar's ghost

DrMike said:


> Ah, you must be referring to the War of 1812.  (or whatever you Limeys refer to it as :devil


We don't really mention THAT '1812' over here - we were too busy giving Boney a good thrashing in the Peninsula War. :devil:


----------



## sospiro

DrMike said:


> Ah, you must be referring to the War of 1812.  (or whatever you Limeys refer to it as :devil


Bit later actually


----------



## Almaviva

Strange. This forum so far was fairly free of the usual US-UK animosity we often see in other Internet venues. Then some exchanges here (and I include myself as one of the culprits) were a little edgy.

From my side of the pond I see the Brits as our most reliable allies, and I believe we have many common interests, not to forget a common language (I believe that language is the most important component of a culture).

Certainly we have different strengths and weaknesses. We're better than the Brits in some aspects, and they're better than us in some others.

The whole bilateral criticism thing probably doesn't amount to much more than sibling rivalry. It's a love-hate relationship. In everything that matters we walk side by side and support each other.

So, here is to the Brits::cheers:


----------



## Sid James

To talk to these issues, I think one of the reasons for the Brits (or us in Australia, if I understand it correctly) not having a "national guard" is because we haven't had the USA's kind of "revolutionary" history. Of course, there are exceptions (the Cromwell thing in the UK & also the Eureka Stockade here in Oz). But generally speaking, the kinds of things that are happening now in the UK have been few & far between. In Australia, I think that the last time the army was called out due to an event like this (other than natural disasters, that's different) was after the bombings at the Hilton in Sydney in the mid-1970's. The then Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser called out the army, to establish order (?), but even then some people said it was overkill. I think it's difficult for leaders to do this, esp. with how it has the potential to be abused, they can as easily be blamed for doing it as not doing it...


----------



## Guest

One thing to keep in mind is the difference in the political makeup of the U.S. vs. England and possibly Australia. The U.S. is a federation of sovereign states that are united under a federal government. Each state is its own sovereign entity. Where federal law is not a factor, states are allowed to create their own laws. 

With that distinction, law enforcement is handled within the states. There is federal law enforcement, but only where federal law has been violated. There you get groups like the FBI and the Secret Service involved. For example, kidnapping is a federal crime - a situation that arose from the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, where the child was taken across state lines. Since then, kidnapping has been considered a federal crime, allowing law enforcement to pursue kidnappers across state lines. But setting aside the exception of federal crimes, most law enforcement is handled at the state and local level. Law enforcement from one state has no jurisdiction in another state. If a criminal from one state is apprehended in another, extradition is necessary to make the person stand trial.

Getting back to how this all relates: In the UK, apparently, in the case of riots, there is a national police force that can be called upon to quell it. This is not the case in the U.S. While the FBI and Secret Service sort of serve that function, they are not the right resources for handling something like a riot. They are more like detectives than standard policemen. The UK is also a considerably smaller country than the U.S. - a national police force is more feasible. With as large as the U.S. is, can you imagine the size of a national police force needed? Instead, we have local law enforcement that can handle the normal level of law enforcement. However, in the case of disasters, or insurrection (e.g. riots), where more manpower is needed, in the United States the system of a National Guard is there - essentially state by state militias - to be called up by the governor of a state if there is a need. The National Guard can also be called up by the president to assist in military operations, as they are also a part of the military. But with the exception of the short period where the president was granted power to call out the National Guard domestically in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (since revoked in 2008), the president cannot call out the National Guard domestically. It was a result of a compromise that ended Reconstruction and removed military from the Southern states following the Civil War.

So in the United States, if there are large enough riots - as we had in 1992 in Los Angeles resulting from the Rodney King trial, or the civil rights riots in Watts (also the Los Angeles area) back in the 1960's - governors can call upon the National Guard to come in and assist local law enforcement. Often they are armed simply with tear gas and rubber bullits.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

DrMike said:


> One thing to keep in mind is the difference in the political makeup of the U.S. vs. England and possibly Australia. The U.S. is a federation of sovereign states that are united under a federal government. Each state is its own sovereign entity. Where federal law is not a factor, states are allowed to create their own laws.
> 
> With that distinction, law enforcement is handled within the states. There is federal law enforcement, but only where federal law has been violated. There you get groups like the FBI and the Secret Service involved. For example, kidnapping is a federal crime - a situation that arose from the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, where the child was taken across state lines. Since then, kidnapping has been considered a federal crime, allowing law enforcement to pursue kidnappers across state lines. But setting aside the exception of federal crimes, most law enforcement is handled at the state and local level. Law enforcement from one state has no jurisdiction in another state. If a criminal from one state is apprehended in another, extradition is necessary to make the person stand trial.
> 
> Getting back to how this all relates: In the UK, apparently, in the case of riots, there is a national police force that can be called upon to quell it. This is not the case in the U.S. While the FBI and Secret Service sort of serve that function, they are not the right resources for handling something like a riot. They are more like detectives than standard policemen. The UK is also a considerably smaller country than the U.S. - a national police force is more feasible. With as large as the U.S. is, can you imagine the size of a national police force needed? Instead, we have local law enforcement that can handle the normal level of law enforcement. However, in the case of disasters, or insurrection (e.g. riots), where more manpower is needed, in the United States the system of a National Guard is there - essentially state by state militias - to be called up by the governor of a state if there is a need. The National Guard can also be called up by the president to assist in military operations, as they are also a part of the military. But with the exception of the short period where the president was granted power to call out the National Guard domestically in the wake of Hurricane Katrina (since revoked in 2008), the president cannot call out the National Guard domestically. It was a result of a compromise that ended Reconstruction and removed military from the Southern states following the Civil War.
> 
> So in the United States, if there are large enough riots - as we had in 1992 in Los Angeles resulting from the Rodney King trial, or the civil rights riots in Watts (also the Los Angeles area) back in the 1960's - governors can call upon the National Guard to come in and assist local law enforcement. Often they are armed simply with tear gas and rubber bullits.


Interesting, but I knew all this. I can only wonder why, if you knew all this too, you bothered asking why Britain doesn't have a National Guard to deal with riots of the sort we have experienced lately. You have answered your own question.

Not that it matters very much but I'm still not sure that you have got it fully right about the President's lack of ability to call in the National Guard. From my further reading (from the Wiki article), it would appear that the 2008 amendment doesn't apply if Congress has given its approval for its deployment at the President's request.

I've been reading up on the involvement of the National Guard in the 1992 Los Angeles Riots. It would appear that the National Guard wasn't called out until some 24 hours after the trouble started, but they couldn't get there until a further 24 hours had passed because of a lack of proper equipment, training, and available ammunition. Is that the kind of "rapid response" you consider acceptable?


----------



## Guest

Andy Loochazee said:


> Interesting, but I knew all this. I can only wonder why, if you knew all this too, you bothered asking why Britain doesn't have a National Guard to deal with riots of the sort we have experienced lately. You have answered your own question.
> 
> Not that it matters very much but I'm still not sure that you have got it fully right about the President's lack of ability to call in the National Guard. From my further reading (from the Wiki article), it would appear that the 2008 amendment doesn't apply if Congress has given its approval for its deployment at the President's request.
> 
> I've been reading up on the involvement of the National Guard in the 1992 Los Angeles Riots. It would appear that the National Guard wasn't called out until some 24 hours after the trouble started, but they couldn't get there until a further 24 hours had passed because of a lack of proper equipment, training, and available ammunition. Is that the kind of "rapid response" you consider acceptable?


So I am giving up on you here, because clearly you seem hell-bent on creating some argument here where none is warranted. I gave a nice, reasoned explanation of the National Guard, and then pieced together what I had learned about the situation in the UK. I've bent over backwards to try and explain my situation in a respectable way, and you insist on creating this tempest in a teapot - so you can continue this conversation without me.


----------



## science

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/18/england-rioters-young-poor-unemployed?CMP=twt_fd



> England rioters: young, poor and unemployed


So what is to be done?

I say we just bombard the population with stories about how bad they are, so that we can quietly imprison many more of them, and let the state find ways to use their forced labor in ways that benefit the well-connected.

If you disagree with this, you're a communist and ought to have your phone tapped without a warrant as a preliminary to imprisoning you indefinitely without a warrant.

Of course it is complicated.


----------



## TxllxT

science said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/18/england-rioters-young-poor-unemployed?CMP=twt_fd
> 
> So what is to be done?
> 
> I say we just bombard the population with stories about how bad they are, so that we can quietly imprison many more of them, and let the state find ways to use their forced labor in ways that benefit the well-connected.
> 
> If you disagree with this, you're a communist and ought to have your phone tapped without a warrant as a preliminary to imprisoning you indefinitely without a warrant.
> 
> Of course it is complicated.


One thing the communists understood well is to provide work for all and to allow no idling. Many people in the 'East bloc' have happy memories from those times. Stifling creativity, yes, but also sharing social security. What do people share nowadays?


----------



## Guest

TxllxT said:


> One thing the communists understood well is to provide work for all and to allow no idling. Many people in the 'East bloc' have happy memories from those times. Stifling creativity, yes, but also sharing social security. What do people share nowadays?


I'm not sure if you are serious here or are speaking tongue-in-cheek.

The Germans also had a wonderful philosophy of putting idlers to work - worked 'em to death, as I recall - back during WWII. Not so sure there are the happy memories.

In the 'East bloc' countries, there certainly was sharing - for example, the Ukranians certainly all shared the devastating famine under Stalin. And, of course, let's not forget how happy the Russians were for their social security in the USSR - at least, they all seemed so happy while the KGB was watching.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

TxllxT said:


> One thing the communists understood well is to provide work for all and to allow no idling. Many people in the 'East bloc' have happy memories from those times. Stifling creativity, yes, but also sharing social security. What do people share nowadays?


If you're not being sarcastic, you have a very romanticized view of the past.


----------



## TxllxT

regressivetransphobe said:


> If you're not being sarcastic, you have a very romanticized view of the past.


I refer to many talks with Czech people (not that I agree with them; just try to understand their point of view). In communist Czechoslovakia there used to be work opportunities in *all* the cities and villages, because the communist government ordered it to be so. Nowadays only Prague and Brno are doing well and whole regions in the NorthEast & North of the Czech Republic have unemployment figures of +20%. Coal&Steel towns like Ostrava look quite like the carmaking city of Detroit. You may use the word 'communist' as an easy dimissal & brainless vote winner, but I would like to have a more balanced view: some things they did right, other things they did wrong. Perhaps, you just don't mind about decay à la Detroit and it is just the same like a natural disaster? OK, you have one, two and all of a sudden many more of such economically dead regions. The economic policy of the communists spearheaded *against* such rustbelts (with all the human misery in it). What's wrong with that?


----------

