Behind England's Riots

[flintlock]

Re: Behind England's Riots

Yes, because we all know there is no inequality or bad economic conditions in other countries.

[lektrode]

Re: Behind England's Riots

dont feel bad mike, we got more than our 'fair share' of all that detroit/liverpool stuff goin on over here = the unintended consequences of the liberal/do-gooder/nanny state politix writ LARGE

ps - remember: its the liberals who bailed out the banksters, rather than letting them fail, after they gambled OUR money while they paid themselves billions and destroyed the economy in the process.

110% agree
People seems shocked when i say Liverpool is "Detriot-on-sea"

For me i watched my fellow Limey get lead down a path of eveil.....20 years ago women drank very little if any.....now we have Doctors warning that he has women whom are dyling from drink age 27!.....I watch women whom took great care of themselves turn into Fat,tatoo-ed bitches.........

The citys are worse, having been carjacked & the police failed to turn up & when i had to get a lift to the Station to give a statment they said "Yes, well.......we see what we can do".

I pay for this Sh1T, also pay:-
To House the Bastards
To pay Dole to the Bastards
To pay NHS bills because they hurt or killed someone
To pay their NHS bills
Their Legal bills

However, last night there was a small glimmer of HOPE!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...d-rioters.html

Mike

[mesyn191]

Re: Behind England's Riots

ps - remember: its the liberals who bailed out the banksters, rather than letting them fail, after they gambled OUR money while they paid themselves billions and destroyed the economy in the process.

I'm not from the UK so I don't know the details but from across the pond it seems your liberals/conservatives are both as every bit corrupt as our left/right.

Blaming one based on ideological reasons is falling for the trap: the truth is both sides are bought and paid for by FIRE. They just pay lip service to the ideology because it gets the votes from people who play the "politics as football" game.

In this game the spectator (citizen) always goes home with nothing but a perception of winning...or losing.

[renewable]

Re: Behind England's Riots

Violence this violence that... I do not see anything in the news about people being hurt.

http://www.google.co.uk/#q=injured+riots

http://www.google.co.uk/#q=killed+riots

That is what insurance is for. Let FIRE pay.

I'm intrigued. Who do you think pays the increased premiums?

[leegs]

Re: Behind England's Riots

ps - remember: its the liberals who bailed out the banksters, rather than letting them fail, after they gambled OUR money while they paid themselves billions and destroyed the economy in the process.

I've said it before - you seem too smart to be so deeply mired in the left-right / repub-dem perspective.

Anyway, the bailouts were not done by liberals, nor were they done by conservatives. Obama is not a true liberal, and Bush was not a true conservative. The bailouts were executed by the Republicrats, who are neither liberal nor conservative. Further, I believe that TARP (admittedly not the only bailout) was passed by the Bush admin. As for the other bailouts, one could hardly label Bernanke a liberal, especially considering that he was originally appointed by Bush.

So who are these liberals of which you speak?

[Chomsky]

Re: Behind England's Riots

Thanks, leegs, for this.

As I read online today, welfare buys you civilization; renege on your half of the deal, and so will your counterparty.

[renewable]

Re: Behind England's Riots

Yes, because we all know there is no inequality or bad economic conditions in other countries.

The feudal/monarchy based class structure in the UK generally means that it is more difficult to combat inequality through 'bettering' oneself than it is in a more socially egalitarian society like the US.

[Sutter Cane]

Re: Behind England's Riots

Yes, because we all know there is no inequality or bad economic conditions in other countries.

I guess you just chose to ignore the fact that one of the questions I asked in my post was "Why aren't kids in other countries doing it?"

[Sutter Cane]

Re: Behind England's Riots

It seems that some on the forum consider the premise 'these people are rioting because they don't have jobs . . .are victims . . . ' to be mutually exclusive to the premise that 'these people are lazy evil thugs and criminals'. I think that both are true. It seems to me that great huge swaths of humanity are pretty primitive in their thinking and don't self-govern (self as in the individual) very well.

Exactly. For a misanthrope, this whole business makes it hard to decide - who to hate more? The evil, villainous rich? The stupid, rioting poor? Or the smug, judgmental-yet-clueless middle class?

[WildspitzE]

Re: Behind England's Riots

Violence this violence that... I do not see anything in the news about people being hurt. Since when does destroying property constitute violence? That is what insurance is for. Let FIRE pay.

i don't know where to begin with this post.

of course people are being hurt, and i say that not just in the sense of a few banged up teens and/or cops. that's the least of it. just because it doesn't manifest itself in the form of bruises, it doesn't mean that people are not being hurt. for example, i would argue that they are hurting a shop keeper by taking away his/her source of income, as well as the time and capital invested in the shop. what about his / her employees? what about his / her dependents?

your comments re: let insurance pay reveals a lack of knowledge of how the insurance industry and FIRE works.

how certain are you that these policies cover this sort of thing? that they will immediately pay vs contest it? what will happen to premiums going forward based on these losses? etc.

who are the insurance company's lenders? (banks and other institutions, but who lends to/finances these banks and institutions? or better yet, who backstops them? me, you, our pensions, our savings, etc.)

who are the insurance company's shareholders? (typically me, you, our pensions, etc.)

costs and losses will ultimately be passed through to us individuals. trust me on this.

to understand the larger scale, which is the unseen or the opportunity cost to all of this, i suggest that you read up on the broken window fallacy by bastiat.

for some of us violence is the means to apply force or a form of force itself. thus, it extends beyond the actual physical act of violence ... although the threat is always there to apply said force. violence is a form of an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power that forces people into a state / condition that is against the "victim's" wishes.

quite frankly, even the threat of violence is compelling enough at times to make some folks give away their rights.

if the shop keeper was allowed to have a gun, then the [perceived] threat of violence would be mitigated.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Behind England's Riots

Why can't Britain give them GMO's to make them infertile? Breed them out. If they would be euthanized, people would complain too loudly about genocide, right?

Godwin's law anyone?

[dcarrigg]

Re: Behind England's Riots

Well said. It seems that some on the forum consider the premise 'these people are rioting because they don't have jobs . . .are victims . . . ' to be mutually exclusive to the premise that 'these people are lazy evil thugs and criminals'. I think that both are true. It seems to me that great huge swaths of humanity are pretty primitive in their thinking and don't self-govern (self as in the individual) very well. This is probably one reason that organized religion has endured, because its provides some framework for self-control and civilized behavior on the part of people that otherwise aren't inclined to either.
If one accepts that my two original premises are simultaneously correct, then the next logical step, as a purely practical matter independent of ideology, is to wonder how society can be structured so that the more base tendencies of much of humanity are not provoked. It's pretty clear to me that the current structuring of society has failed in this objective. One can point to many so-called liberal policies as being at fault, as well of course as the hollowing out of the real economy by FIRE.

Well-put, rational, and likely very close to Truth. Thanks Leegs.

[Chris]

Re: Behind England's Riots

Four people have died so far. One shot and the other three mowed down on the sidewalk by a car while trying to protect their community. This is mindless violence in the style of Anthony Burgess.

This behaviour has been transmitted to the British underclass through successive generations of liberal intellectuals. No responsibility, no repercussions, no consequences.

It will either die down now (unlikely) or get very ugly.

[Sutter Cane]

Re: Behind England's Riots

This behaviour has been transmitted to the British underclass through successive generations of liberal intellectuals. No responsibility, no repercussions, no consequences.

This behaviour has been transmitted to the British underclass through successive generations of liberal intellectuals plutocrats. No responsibility, no repercussions, no consequences.

An Open Letter to David Cameron’s Parents
by Nathaniel Tapley

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

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

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

There’s Michael Gove, whose wet-lipped rage was palpable on Newsnight last night. This is the Michael Gove who confused one of his houses with another of his houses in order to avail himself of £7,000 of the taxpayers’ money to which he was not entitled (or £13,000, depending on which house you think was which).

Or Hazel Blears, who was interviewed in full bristling peahen mode for almost all of last night. She once forgot which house she lived in, and benefited to the tune of £18,000. At the time she said it would take her reputation years to recover. Unfortunately not.

But, of course, this is different. This is just understandable confusion over the rules of how many houses you are meant to have as an MP. This doesn’t show the naked greed of people stealing plasma tellies.

Unless you’re Gerald Kaufman, who broke parliamentary rules to get £8,000 worth of 40-inch, flat screen, Bang and Olufsen TV out of the taxpayer.

Or Ed Vaizey, who got £2,000 in antique furniture ‘delivered to the wrong address’. Which is fortunate, because had that been the address they were intended for, that would have been fraud.

Or Jeremy Hunt, who broke the rules to the tune of almost £20,000 on one property and £2,000 on another. But it’s all right, because he agreed to pay half of the money back. Not the full amount, it would be absurd to expect him to pay back the entire sum that he took and to which he was not entitled. No, we’ll settle for half. And, as in any other field, what might have been considered embezzlement of £22,000 is overlooked. We know, after all, that David Cameron likes to give people second chances.

Fortunately, we have the Met Police to look after us. We’ll ignore the fact that two of its senior officers have had to resign in the last six weeks amid suspicions of widespread corruption within the force.

We’ll ignore Andy Hayman, who went for champagne dinners with those he was meant to be investigating, and then joined the company on leaving the Met.
Of course, Mr and Mrs Cameron, your son is right. There are parts of society that are not just broken, they are sick. Riddled with disease from top to bottom.

Just let me be clear about this (It’s a good phrase, Mr and Mrs Cameron, and one I looted from every sentence your son utters, just as he looted it from Tony Blair), I am not justifying or minimising in any way what has been done by the looters over the last few nights. What I am doing, however, is expressing shock and dismay that your son and his friends feel themselves in any way to be guardians of morality in this country.

Can they really, as 650 people who have shown themselves to be venal pygmies, moral dwarves at every opportunity over the last 20 years, bleat at others about ‘criminality’. Those who decided that when they broke the rules (the rules they themselves set) they, on the whole wouldn’t face the consequences of their actions?

Are they really surprised that this country’s culture is swamped in greed, in the acquisition of material things, in a lust for consumer goods of the most base kind? Really?

Let’s have a think back: cash-for-questions; Bernie Ecclestone; cash-for-access; Mandelson’s mortgage; the Hinduja passports; Blunkett’s alleged insider trading (and, by the way, when someone has had to resign in disgrace twice can we stop having them on television as a commentator, please?); the meetings on the yachts of oligarchs; the drafting of the Digital Economy Act with Lucian Grange; Byers’, Hewitt’s & Hoon’s desperation to prostitute themselves and their positions; the fact that Andrew Lansley (in charge of NHS reforms) has a wife who gives lobbying advice to the very companies hoping to benefit from the NHS reforms. And that list didn’t even take me very long to think of.

Our politicians are for sale and they do not care who knows it.

Oh yes, and then there’s the expenses thing. Widescale abuse of the very systems they designed, almost all of them grasping what they could while they remained MPs, to build their nest egg for the future at the public’s expense. They even now whine on Twitter about having their expenses claims for getting back to Parliament while much of the country is on fire subject to any examination. True public servants.

The last few days have revealed some truths, and some heartening truths. The fact that the #riotcleanup crews had organised themselves before David Cameron even made time for a public statement is heartening. The fact that local communities came together to keep their neighbourhoods safe when the police failed is heartening. The fact that there were peace vigils being organised (even as the police tried to dissuade people) is heartening.

There is hope for this country. But we must stop looking upwards for it. The politicians are the ones leading the charge into the gutter.

David Cameron was entirely right when he said: “It is a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society, people allowed to think that the world owes them something, that their rights outweigh their responsibilities, and that their actions do not have consequences.”

He was more right than he knew.

And I blame the parents.

[cmalbatros]

Re: Behind England's Riots

FIRE wont be paying out much, UK tax payers will through police because of this - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...50/38/contents

1886 Riot Damages Act

And companies like Lloyds of London have individual "Names" putting their money where the profits are.