PDA

View Full Version : Riots



R-F
09-08-2011, 11:01 AM
So, as riots spark across England (Nottingham, Bristol, London, Liverpool, AT THE VERY LEAST), I'm wondering how everyone else is feeling about this.

I can't blame anyone, really. If you're not middle class or above (and I'm sure a few people who ARE middle class are feeling it, too), you'll be really feeling how the government is slowly making the working classes poorer. Trust me when I say that people are down about 10-30% of their income (in a time when food prices are soaring, especially meat, time for some blind stew?) and that's pretty much ONLY because of the government.

What about you guys?

EDIT: Pretty much the feelings of the working classes up and down the country. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/tottenham-riots-not-unexpected)
EDIT2: UK 'one of worst countries for social mobility'. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1555697/UK-one-of-worst-countries-for-social-mobility.html)

westyfield
09-08-2011, 11:22 AM
Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRa0a3M3Vxg)'s a video of Nick Clegg (Deputy PM, for the non-Brits reading) in December 2010 saying that riots are possible if the spending cuts go ahead.
Here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/sep/15/theresa-may-cut-police-budget-without-violent-unrest)'s Theresa May (Home Secretary) saying that the police force's budget can be cut without increasing crime rates or risking violent unrest, because "The British public don't simply resort to violent unrest in the face of challenging economic circumstances."

Xercies
09-08-2011, 11:27 AM
Yep its people who are poor and come from broken homes, lets just continue this riot other people have made. It is opportunistic, but I think it also is a little bit of an anger backlash towards the government and the people.

Ian
09-08-2011, 11:38 AM
A succession of governments have failed a lot of people, but that doesn't excuse entirely criminal behaviour. Paramedics and firemen and the like getting attacked, local businesses getting ransacked and burned down, people getting mugged. It's horrendous. If there was any honest anger at the beginning of this, from the outside it rapidly looks to just be becoming an excuse to vandalise and steal stuff.

Althea
09-08-2011, 11:39 AM
Down with the government!
Down with the toffs!
Down with the educated-but-distant polo players in the House of "Commons"!
Down with the bourgeoisie!

Ian
09-08-2011, 11:44 AM
Down with people who don't think it's okay to just nick stuff!

Harlander
09-08-2011, 11:45 AM
A succession of governments have failed a lot of people, but that doesn't excuse entirely criminal behaviour.

To explain is not to excuse.

Bob_Bobson
09-08-2011, 11:47 AM
Down with the thin layer of civility we base our social order on!

Oh, wait, no, we were using that for not getting mugged and such. If anarchy becomes widespread enough then do conformists switch to doing things in an arachistic fashion and if so does anarchy become conformity?

Althea
09-08-2011, 11:47 AM
I don't agree with what they're doing. It's gone from a protest to wanton vandalism and pointless theft.

I won't call it "criminal activity" as protesting probably counts as a criminal activity (Disturbing the peace or something daft), plus it deserves to be called Chav Shittiness.

Ian
09-08-2011, 11:52 AM
I'd agree that protest in itself that's criminal (as you say, it probably is technically) it's the escalation into..... well, this.


To explain is not to excuse.

I agree. A lot of people are unfairly being deemed hand-wringing, bleeding hearts for not demanding that those involved be flogged to within an inch of their life.

My comment was more directed at those actually doing it rather than the people talking about why it's happening.

laneford
09-08-2011, 11:54 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SHKhvVjLIc

Ian
09-08-2011, 12:03 PM
My favourite bit is when she says "You're pissing me the fuck off."

deano2099
09-08-2011, 12:05 PM
It's opportunistic BUT people who feel they have a stake in the future don't smash up their own town.

Althea
09-08-2011, 12:07 PM
I think everyone's in a bad position with this, but some will come out of this worse than others.

The police, as someone else has noted here but perhaps in a different topic, are damned if they approach rioters, but they're damned if they don't. They apparently hit a 16 year old girl with their batons, but you know some people (i.e. Daily Mail readers) are going to say it's barbaric. What, are they supposed to go "Sorry, love, have you got some ID before we hit you?"? They can't take those risks! If she was throwing things at them, as she supposedly was, then she was using violence and they thwacked her back.

David Cameron and, shockingly, Boris Johnson look absolutely terrible, too. Both didn't want to come back from their holidays, but relented on day three. I don't think they'll do anything at all, except Boris will say it's shameful and David Cameron will go on about hugging hoodies, how he met a riot once and then make some hollow gestures and basically look like the giant cock that he is. But if they didn't come back from holiday, we'd be going "Well, where's the Tory bell end? Oh, yeah, sunbathing." or something along those lines. They're both damned if they come back, damned if they don't.

As laneford's video mentions, it's just wanton vandalism and violence. We don't know what the cause was, we don't know what they're fighting for. Maybe it's just social tension ignited, I don't know, but the people are going after the wrong businesses. Yeah, capitalism is a load of rubbish, but if you're going to attack it, then go after the people who make the money, not the people just trying to live. If you hate the police, then protest them. If you hate the lack of jobs, go shout at the mortgage people and the loan sharks, don't destroy a flipping Foot Locker. I bet hundreds of people, in three days, have lost their homes, jobs and so forth, all due to a bunch of idiotic yobs. Fairness doesn't come into it.

I've heard the family of the man who was shot say "He shouldn't be remembered as a gangster, he was a family man", which caused me to burst out laughing. I think they should remember him as a family man, but you can't gloss over things like gang warfare. They divide communities, promote crime, and do a lot of destruction. OK, yes, I'm sure there are some positive aspects to organised crime (I haven't thought of them yet, but I'm sure there's at least one. Don't they tend to keep their problems to themselves and involve the public as little as possible or something like that?), but at the end of the day, he made his choices and he likely caused others to suffer for them. Mourn the loss of his potential, but don't forget his crimes. That's just as dangerous, in my opinion.

Personally, though, I think it's one of those things that's bound to happen. I predicted riots a few years ago, and it turns out I'm half-right.

Alex Bakke
09-08-2011, 12:10 PM
Why can't the title of that video simply be 'Truly extraordinary speech by fearless woman'?

Ian
09-08-2011, 12:13 PM
I imagine because of the number of people saying "IT'S ALL THE IMMIGRANTS INNIT?", but I do agree that it seems a bit unnecessary.

Harlander
09-08-2011, 12:16 PM
OK, yes, I'm sure there are some positive aspects to organised crime (I haven't thought of them yet, but I'm sure there's at least one. Don't they tend to keep their problems to themselves and involve the public as little as possible or something like that

Organized criminals often do a lot of public philanthropy (take the Yakuza's efforts after the Fukushima disaster as an example) which raises their standing in the community - enough, it seems, for people to have a bit of a rose-tinted view of their careers.

laneford
09-08-2011, 12:16 PM
To be fair, she does identify herself and those others as "black people". But I agree in the main yes.

laneford
09-08-2011, 12:39 PM
However this is my new favourite.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkWtMNBgf48&feature=share

Ian
09-08-2011, 12:42 PM
Brilliant. :D

deano2099
09-08-2011, 12:49 PM
The police, as someone else has noted here but perhaps in a different topic, are damned if they approach rioters, but they're damned if they don't. They apparently hit a 16 year old girl with their batons, but you know some people (i.e. Daily Mail readers) are going to say it's barbaric. What, are they supposed to go "Sorry, love, have you got some ID before we hit you?"? They can't take those risks! If she was throwing things at them, as she supposedly was, then she was using violence and they thwacked her back.


I'm not so sure on that one, the fact is the police seemed to use more violent tactics when people were protesting peacefully at Westminster than they are for these riots. It seems that now they're faced with people that actually fight back they're suddenly not so keen to wade in with batons and gas.

It's the lefties, the Guardian readers that are likely to call it barbaric. The Daily Mail is more in favour of bringing back hanging these days. But even as someone on the left that got very very angry about the tactics used against peaceful protesters earlier in the year, it's now bad enough that I don't mind if someone innocent gets hurt. Which sounds awful but as long as care is taken and no permanent damage is done... I mean I'd happily volunteer to go to London and be hammered with a baton and gassed for five minutes if that'd end this shit.

Althea
09-08-2011, 12:55 PM
If they used violent tactics in peaceful protest, then I don't agree with that. I don't think anyone does. I don't agree with their kettling tactics, either. But this is a violent event, and one where police officers are getting injured.

I think some people should be made example of, but I don't know about hanging or anything like that. Let's start with the stocks and work our way up. Oh, wait... It'd violate their human rights.

Ian
09-08-2011, 01:02 PM
I can't quite get my head around it but I imagine it's an issue of policy.

I'd imagine if you break the line to try and get physical with the rioters in this case individual police are more likely to get isolated (and have the shit kicked out of them) than at something like the Westminster protests.

Am I right in saying that Theresa May/the government are saying they won't bring the army in with water cannons and the like basically because they don't suddenly want us to look like what we only normally see on the news from other countries?

Thousands more police apparently being sent out tonight but presumably if it happens to the same extent again and shows no sign of abating then it has to be accepted that the Met aren't equipped for these problems on this scale.

R-F
09-08-2011, 01:04 PM
I'm not so sure on that one, the fact is the police seemed to use more violent tactics when people were protesting peacefully at Westminster than they are for these riots. It seems that now they're faced with people that actually fight back they're suddenly not so keen to wade in with batons and gas.

To me, the issue with the girl is that they're not willing to deal with the male youths in the same way, but as soon as it's an isolated 16-year-old girl? Shit, wade in with five men and twat the shit out of her, why not?

Yargh
09-08-2011, 01:22 PM
at least now we know why they were rioting:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23976535-fear-and-a-sense-of-loss-amid-high-streets-smoking-ruins.do

relevant extract (quoting a genius copper):
"These are bad people who did this. Kids out of control. When I was young it was all Pacman and board games. Now they're playing Grand Theft Auto and want to live it for themselves."

squirrel
09-08-2011, 01:23 PM
I just dont understand you guys. If you dont like the cabinet of the government, just vote it the hell out. Why all the violence?

Althea
09-08-2011, 01:26 PM
I just dont understand you guys. If you dont like the cabinet of the government, just vote it the hell out.
Hahahahaha...

Hahahahahahaha...

Sorry, but that's unpossible. All parties tend to be the same, and the ones that get the votes are made up of people from the same schools and same backgrounds, yadda yadda yadda. It's one of the problems of a class system - it goes against democracy.

DiamondDog
09-08-2011, 01:53 PM
I realise this maybe isn't the most important aspect of all this for many of you, but the main distributor for a load of independent music labels had its warehouse burnt down. A lot of small businesses and artists could well have lost their stock. Considering the way things are this is the last thing they needed.

Lots of music lovers on this forum. Just thought I'd say it might be worth showing some support to the small guys who are going to suffer from this.

http://thequietus.com/articles/06729-help-riot-struck-pias-buy-mp3s

There's a list on that link of all the labels who are affected.

GraveyardJimmy
09-08-2011, 01:58 PM
I just dont understand you guys. If you dont like the cabinet of the government, just vote it the hell out. Why all the violence?

I'll just go to the polling booth right now then shall I?

Wolfenswan
09-08-2011, 02:27 PM
Pretending to be the intellectual i ain't, here's a quote:


http://library.nothingness.org/articles/SI/en/display/140

The revolt of youth was the first burst of anger at the persistent realities of the new world--the boredom of everyday existence, the dead life which is still the essential product of modern capitalism, in spite of all its modernizations. A small section of youth is able to refuse that society and its products, but without any idea that this society can be superseded. At the most primitive level, the "delinquents" (blousons noirs) of the world use violence to express their rejection of society and its sterile options, But their refusal is an abstract one: it gives them no chance of actually escaping the contradictions of the system. They are its products--negative, spontaneous, but none the less exploitable, All the experiments of the new social order produce them: they are the first side-effects of the new urbanism; of the disintegration of all values; of the extension of an increasingly boring consumer leisure; of the growing control of every aspect of everyday life by the psycho-humanist po- lice force; and of the economic survival of a family unit which has lost all significance. [...] The "young thug" despises work but accepts the goods. He wants what the spectacle offers him-- but now, with no down payment. This is the essential contradiction of the delinquent's existence. He may try for a real freedom in the use of his time, in an individual assertiveness, even in the construction of a kind of community. But the contradiction remains, and kills. (On the fringe of society, where poverty reigns, the gang develops its own hierarchy, which can only fulfill itself in a war with other gangs, isolating each group and each individual within the group.)

Harlander
09-08-2011, 02:34 PM
"psycho-humanist"?

Tei
09-08-2011, 03:01 PM
All parties are the same here in Spain too. But we have the luck that we don't have a strong gangsta culture ... yet. The "gangsta" culture is comming to spain too, so we have "latin bands" here, with USA aestetics.

I am leftist, but I think things come out of hard work, not luck or natural skills... just pure hard work. The gangsta culture is selfdeprecating, and love to make money quick by traficking drugs. So naturally, It don't work for the people in it, because is illegal.

Wolfenswan
09-08-2011, 03:02 PM
"psycho-humanist"?

Gah, situationists dropped a lot of words without explaining them in detail.

The term "psyho-humanist" appears in several independent manifests but i don't know if it means some form of "hyper-humanism" (Situationists were declared anti-humanists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antihumanism#Structuralism.2C_post-structuralism_and_post-modernism)) or hints toward humanism/subjectivism that's fueled by psychology (or if the term spread because someone liked the term and copied it etc. and it's void of any deeper meaning)

I'm at work right now and lack the means to draw this out, sorry. (I admit that posting this quote without any comment was pretentious)

Harlander
09-08-2011, 03:47 PM
I am leftist, but I think things come out of hard work, not luck or natural skills... just pure hard work.

It's a weird one, that, but I wouldn't say I agree that there's no aspect of luck to determining one's outcome. Of course, unless you're extremely lucky, you won't get anywhere without work, so there you go. Or something.

Alex Bakke
09-08-2011, 04:08 PM
"Norway loses 92 children and suggests more democraacy. We lose 12 JB Sports and some Nandos and demand the army and rubber bullets"

Nalano
09-08-2011, 04:17 PM
A succession of governments have failed a lot of people, but that doesn't excuse entirely criminal behaviour.

True, and riots tend to be counter-productive at best.

But any election proves that the public isn't the most rational.

Ian
09-08-2011, 04:17 PM
The opinion we've all been waiting for has arrived:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00jpw7j

Wolfenswan
09-08-2011, 04:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biJgILxGK0o

Donjo
09-08-2011, 04:51 PM
Thatcherite politics destroyed any kind of working class pride, people are attacking anything and anyone... when people have nothing to lose and nothing to do and get stopped by the cops every other day this is what happens.

Sunday 31st of July 2011 - "There'll be riots."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI2fJmr7GPI

Donjo
09-08-2011, 04:54 PM
The opinion we've all been waiting for has arrived:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00jpw7j

"Not available in your area" what's the general gist? Hogans gotta have a pretty insightful take on all this... :)

Nalano
09-08-2011, 05:12 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biJgILxGK0o

Sounds like us twenty years ago.

Ian
09-08-2011, 05:18 PM
"Not available in your area" what's the general gist? Hogans gotta have a pretty insightful take on all this... :)

He's all, "ALL MAH UK HULKAMANIACS GOTTA TRY AND GET THESE KIDS GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION!"

Or something to that general effect.

Sadly he was on the phone and not actually in London, so we couldn't send him out to bust some heads.

Donjo
09-08-2011, 05:21 PM
He's all, "ALL MAH UK HULKAMANIACS GOTTA TRY AND GET THESE KIDS GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION!"

Or something to that general effect.

Sadly he was on the phone and not actually in London, so we couldn't send him out to bust some heads.

Bust some heads?! No way, the Hulkster woulda rallied the kids around him, marched to 10 Downing Street and given them the opportunity to confront the real enemy.

Xercies
09-08-2011, 05:22 PM
I just dont understand you guys. If you dont like the cabinet of the government, just vote it the hell out. Why all the violence?

Well because whoever we vote in seem to not really care for the people and more care for a certain type of people. Violence is the easiest thing to do really if you feel like you have no idea what to do and how to really change these things.

Also I have to agree with the two videos up there, we have been criminilising these young people for two long. Making sure they don't really have anywhere to go, having a crap education for them, taking away the ladder by increasing university fees and taking away all the jobs. To be honest I'm surprised its only a few fires...

Nalano
09-08-2011, 05:34 PM
Well because whoever we vote in seem to not really care for the people and more care for a certain type of people.

Voting? The votes don't matter; the vote counters do.

Likewise, protests and riots don't matter; only the media after the fact does. If Fox News says 10,000 attended a protest and their message was muddled, it doesn't matter if 100,000 showed up and were strongly anti-war. If the BBC says it was a bunch of drunken looting Chavs who burnt the place down, then it doesn't matter who came out or why they did.

Temple
09-08-2011, 05:44 PM
http://photoshoplooter.tumblr.com/

Sales of baseball bats/police batons on Amazon...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/movers-and-shakers/sports/ref=zg_bs_tab

Also, not going out tonight :)

Nalano
09-08-2011, 06:05 PM
Sales of baseball bats/police batons on Amazon...
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/movers-and-shakers/sports/ref=zg_bs_tab

What's a police baton doing under "Sports & Leisure?"

...wait. Don't answer that.

CuriousOrange
09-08-2011, 06:45 PM
We have learned that a violent revolution is absolutely fine and just if it's in a country far away we don't like. But if it actually directly effects us it's WRONG and it's nothing but criminal activity.

What they are doing is not so important, it's why.

icupnimpn2
09-08-2011, 07:05 PM
We have learned that a violent revolution is absolutely fine and just if it's in a country far away we don't like. But if it actually directly effects us it's WRONG and it's nothing but criminal activity.

What they are doing is not so important, it's why.

Is this revolution? I don't see the people rising up against the government. I see opportunism and vandalism, targeting mostly businesses, private residences, and other citizens. It's violence that leaves neighborhoods in worse shape than they were before. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Nalano
09-08-2011, 07:31 PM
We have learned that a violent revolution is absolutely fine and just if it's in a country far away we don't like. But if it actually directly effects us it's WRONG and it's nothing but criminal activity.

It's also fine and justified if it succeeds. If it fails they're all criminals.

laneford
09-08-2011, 07:35 PM
It's also fine and justified if it succeeds. If it fails they're all criminals.

To call this a revolution is laughable.

Nalano
09-08-2011, 07:48 PM
To call this a revolution is laughable.

I didn't call this a revolution.

In fact, if you read my earlier posts, I've asserted that riots tend to be counter-productive.

I'm just reiterating the point that what happens on the ground doesn't matter; only how we talk about it after the fact does.

Xercies
09-08-2011, 08:32 PM
I have to say I agree with you Nalano, especially hearing from my family around me. If the newspapers and the media and general opinion is telling people that these people are worthless scum that deserve to be shot(many people believe this!) then that is what people think. It doesn't matter what is actually happening the media will tell you one thing and you will believe that one thing.

Also sometimes the BBC lets its mask fall and that was one of those times, see also the Student Protests for a time when this happened. I'm sorry but those questions were terrible and then they started accusing him of actually rioting.

laneford
09-08-2011, 09:15 PM
I didn't call this a revolution.

Sorry, I meant to quote Curious Orange, who you yourself were quoting.

But I'm a bit rubbish at stuff.

Donjo
09-08-2011, 10:17 PM
I wonder if it'll be worse next summer.

I wouldn't call it a revolution, that implies some kind of political focus, it's more like an uprising. But that's how revolutions usually start.

Nalano
09-08-2011, 10:23 PM
I wonder if it'll be worse next summer.

Weather forecast for August: Partly cloudy with a chance of racism.

Donjo
09-08-2011, 10:51 PM
Not sure what you mean.. It's likely the police will start taking a harder line on perceived threats, there'll be more cuts, people will still be bored.. I'm not saying that societies on the brink, but there are workable solutions out there.

ColOfNature
09-08-2011, 11:01 PM
http://www.butireaditinthepaper.co.uk/2011/08/09/a-darker-side-to-the-london-riots/

Never sure how seriously to take things like this, but I tend towards the paranoid and I don't trust most of the human race farther than I could throw 'em, so I can just about believe it.

Donjo
09-08-2011, 11:25 PM
http://www.butireaditinthepaper.co.uk/2011/08/09/a-darker-side-to-the-london-riots/

Never sure how seriously to take things like this, but I tend towards the paranoid and I don't trust most of the human race farther than I could throw 'em, so I can just about believe it.

So we should all just keep quiet and keep our heads down?
Nobody is in control, we are surrounded by pure chaos, our lives are just too short to really appreciate it.. people are always going to exploit situations for their own ends, either by stealing clothes or justifying further repression.

Drake Sigar
09-08-2011, 11:25 PM
I think some people should be made example of, but I don't know about hanging or anything like that. Let's start with the stocks and work our way up.


I can't quite get my head around it
*Snigger* That had to be unintentional.

Kadayi
09-08-2011, 11:30 PM
I think the rioting is terrible and more so because as it's gone on it's become abundantly clear it's less about protesting the shooting of a man and far more about being an excuse to vandalize and loot. The tragedy being that it's these same deprived neighborhoods that are going to suffer in the long run and a lot more more people are going to end up with criminal records and thus pushed further away (Big brother has everything and everyone on CCTV and no doubt the police will arrest as many people as possible in the aftermath).

Civilization is based around the idea of people conforming to the notion of society, however that notion is a fragile thing. When (as in situations like this) the veneer is broken, swift action needs to be taken to restore the structure and in this respect the Government has failed to act decisively. Regardless of the political fallout, the police as the enforcers of the law should of been in there with the water cannons, tear gas and rubber bullets the very first night and curbed the enthusiasm of the mob to repeat the process. As it stands now we've the situation of copy cat criminality coming to the fore elsewhere and that's never a good thing. If people start to believe they can get away with something, then a whole Pandora's box of ugly acts starts to come to the fore, rioting and looting being the lesser evils.

As regards to how it is we've gotten here, fundamentally our biggest problem has been the growth of an underclass culture over the last 20 or so years, which has arisen as a result of a welfare state that moved beyond being a safety net to stop the needy from becoming homeless, destitute etc, to becoming a long term lifestyle support mechanism.

The hard reality of life is that in order to get on you need money and encouragement, especially when it comes to education. If you don't have access to books, or facilities or opportunities the chances of bettering your lot are generally stacked against you. Plain truth of the matter is, if you are born into poverty, you're most likely to remain there. Personally I don't look at Chavs as a problem (though in many ways they are), I look at them as a resultant of bad social policy decisions.

A welfare state is a great idea if its role is to act as a safety net to support low earning workers & their families, the recently unemployed, the disabled and the elderly. However what it shouldn't of ever been is a system that picks up the tab for children conceived, born and raised whilst on benefits. There's a bit of a myth that people have the right to children, but the reality is children are something most people have to work hard for in order to be able to afford to raise. When you've a welfare system that is happy to pick up the tab for any children you conceive whilst on benefits as well as give you a nice flat into the bargain, invariably you're going to get some people who take the easier route, with little regard as to how miserable the chances are their children are ever likely to escape the poverty trap. And the cycle continues. Remove the support for new children (as well as the fast tracking to a flat) and suddenly there's a motivator for people to avoid having more children than they can afford, as well as the necessity to get off benefits if they want to have more.

Now I don't say the above as some ultra right winger (I'm pretty liberal overall), but more as someone who worked in the DSS for a couple of years and was witness to the full horror show of the benefits system in all its insanity, especially dealing with single mothers with myriad children with different fathers. Children who have almost zero opportunity to better themselves in the long term.

Donjo
09-08-2011, 11:56 PM
Not sure if you should be blaming it on access to benefits.. for a lot of people the social contract that the civilisation you wrote about becomes broken and it turns into "why should I care or respect for your society when I've been maligned and dehumanised for my whole life..." A welfare state can work if it's possible to trust the people at the top. They're all fucked though.

Kadayi
10-08-2011, 12:26 AM
Not sure if you should be blaming it on access to benefits.. for a lot of people the social contract that the civilisation you wrote about becomes broken and it turns into "why should I care or respect for your society when I've been maligned and dehumanised for my whole life..." A welfare state can work if it's possible to trust the people at the top. They're all fucked though.

Well the question is why are these people 'maligned and dehumanised'? Generally it's because the vast majority of them are caught in a poverty trap the roots of which lead back to a social welfare system that is fundamentally flawed. If that system wasn't there they'd likely of never been born
or caught in the poverty trap, because their parents wouldn't of been able to afford to raise them without personal sacrifice. The poor breed more poor because the welfare state allows them, where as everyone else breeds when they can afford to.

ColOfNature
10-08-2011, 12:31 AM
Wow. That's a pretty grim world-view. I'd argue that the poor breed because it's a biological imperative, and their social and financial situations are pretty much irrelevant. But that's just me.

DAdvocate
10-08-2011, 12:46 AM
@Kadayi you've written a fine post and I fully agree with you regarding civilization being only an illusion we all subscribe to, but I have a couple of minor counter-points.

First; water cannons, tear gas and baton rounds would have been ineffective in these riots. Such tools are useful against protesters who congregate to make their voices heard andconfront the authorities, but these looters care only for what they can steal, thus they promptly scatter upon any police pursuit and reform once the police are called away.

Second; while you may be correct in regards to the welfare state encouraging some to breed their way to prosperity, it's important to remember that the child support payments/free flats are not a reward to the breeders, but a lifeline to the child that never asked to be born to such parents. With the welfare state the child will never go hungry and will receive a free education with which it is possible (if unlikely) for them to escape the poverty trap.

Ergates
10-08-2011, 12:52 AM
I'd argue that the poor breed because it's a biological imperative, and their social and financial situations are pretty much irrelevant. But that's just me.

So either the poor are biologically different from the affluent, or are less able to control their biological urges? I don't think that's what you meant (I hope not anyway!) but it's the only conclusion if your argument were true.

Poor people have more children than affluent people. This is unarguably true, and is observable just about everyone on earth and in every period in history. The only real difference between poor people and affluent people is their social and financial situation. Ergo, their social and financial situations must play a factor in how many children they have.

ColOfNature
10-08-2011, 12:57 AM
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply it was the only drive involved, or even that the poor, any more than any other sentient being, are simply slaves to their biological urges.

And correlation does not imply causation.

Ergates
10-08-2011, 01:05 AM
No. There are many reasons why poor people tend to have more children. Some are well understood, some are not, and not all of them apply in all situations (e.g. poor people in the UK don't tend to have lots of children to work in the fields).

It's a complex relationship, however what it essentially boils down to is: poor people have more children.

Edit: No = agreeing with your final sentence

Donjo
10-08-2011, 03:34 AM
Well the question is why are these people 'maligned and dehumanised'? Generally it's because the vast majority of them are caught in a poverty trap the roots of which lead back to a social welfare system that is fundamentally flawed. If that system wasn't there they'd likely of never been born
or caught in the poverty trap, because their parents wouldn't of been able to afford to raise them without personal sacrifice. The poor breed more poor because the welfare state allows them, where as everyone else breeds when they can afford to.

I don't think the fundamentals of this are the amount of children poor people have in comparison to wealthy people. The roots of poverty don't lead back to the creation of the welfare state, I'm not sure where you got this idea from... the things that make people poor tend to create situations that keep them poor, the poverty trap you wrote about- isn't exclusive to countries which provide welfare but it is massively worse in countries which lack basic social support mechanisms... Not all people have the same opportunities, even with the benefit of welfare though.
I'll take a quote from an Irish forum I post on-
"If the education system had not failed these people so thoroughly and they were able to verbalise their discontent, if they were not so disengaged that they could tell the difference between the bankers that shafted their country and the guy that owns the corner shop would the narrative still be chavs gone wild?

I see their total mindlessness as indication of how completely they have been abandoned by society, not as indication that the protest is completely apolitical"

Well, it's a complex thing and the varying opinions here have made me want to try to understand what's going on a bit more clearly...

Nalano
10-08-2011, 05:35 AM
I... am ending my association with this discussion.

R-F
10-08-2011, 06:16 AM
ITT: People fail to realise there are a lot of working class families with only one or two kids.


Well, it's a complex thing and the varying opinions here have made me want to try to understand what's going on a bit more clearly...

Roughly, consider it thus: My working class generation, on the whole, has been abandoned by British politicians. It's hard to get university placements as a member of the working classes, and then you're going to have to pay for it yourself and get the money to pay off your student debts (which are going to rapidly increase, good job on that you Tory pricks). The closing of grammar schools is the most retarded thing in the world (although we can only attribute this moronic behaviour to Labour), as it means, again, the working classes are stuck being working class when they get stuck with the stupid kids.

We have no money, there's no way to get money. My mother would be BETTER OFF on the dole instead of working (by about £8, if we count all the benefits she'd receive on the dole) and she works as an auxilliary nurse (which is a working class profession nowadays). She cannot improve her situation since she can't get any sort of an education. Imagine you're a 21-year-old (or younger) guy with a kid or two to feed. You're better off on the dole for the benefits than you are working. On the dole, you have a chance to get an trade, too (although, only after 6 months without work and being on the dole).

And then these people see bankers getting massive paychecks for fucking up. They see politicians helping out the already high up and shitting on the disadvantaged (hi mansion tax cuts / inheritance tax cuts and then subsequent tax increases for the poor "We're all in this together" my arse). They see people from across the country revoting in the Tories for no reason other than... Is there any reason the Tories got revoted in?

The social contract is there to be upheld with all sides. When the working classes see that another side is letting it down, is letting it's true face show behind the false mask, is giving the rich and the powerful advantages they do not need let alone deserve... Why not fuck up the country? Who cares? What does it matter if a few shops burn? Fuck it all up, it's not like YOU are going to gain something from it, so you might as well spoil it for the rest of them.

Kadayi
10-08-2011, 07:35 AM
Wow. That's a pretty grim world-view. I'd argue that the poor breed because it's a biological imperative, and their social and financial situations are pretty much irrelevant. But that's just me.

I'm not denying biological imperative plays a part, but that's true for all people. Why is it though that the professional classes aren't drowning in children Vs the poor?


First; water cannons, tear gas and baton rounds would have been ineffective in these riots. Such tools are useful against protesters who congregate to make their voices heard andconfront the authorities, but these looters care only for what they can steal, thus they promptly scatter upon any police pursuit and reform once the police are called away.


The proof would be in the pudding tbh. We've not seen this approach employed so far so it's impossible to say whether they would or wouldn't be effective. Saying that though I've seen many things, but I've yet to see anyone outrun a bullet, rubber or otherwise.


Second; while you may be correct in regards to the welfare state encouraging some to breed their way to prosperity, it's important to remember that the child support payments/free flats are not a reward to the breeders, but a lifeline to the child that never asked to be born to such parents. With the welfare state the child will never go hungry and will receive a free education with which it is possible (if unlikely) for them to escape the poverty trap.

It's not so much a case of breeding to prosperity, more a case of being able to achieve a degree of limited freedom (getting your own flat/house for a start) with little or no incentive to work your way out of it, Vs abusing the system. I feel like the worst kind of Daily mail writer here, but plain truth of the matter is unfortunately there is a section of our society that do use the welfare state as a means to an end, rather than as the stepping stone/safety net it was supposed to be.


I don't think the fundamentals of this are the amount of children poor people have in comparison to wealthy people. The roots of poverty don't lead back to the creation of the welfare state, I'm not sure where you got this idea from... the things that make people poor tend to create situations that keep them poor, the poverty trap you wrote about- isn't exclusive to countries which provide welfare but it is massively worse in countries which lack basic social support mechanisms... Not all people have the same opportunities, even with the benefit of welfare though.

I'm not saying it's the totality of the problem, but it is a significant factor. Education is a hugely important, but without money, motivation, parental direction and social encouragement it's very hard to get children raised in the poverty trap out of it. Certainly I don't think the whole university fees thing is a positive move in the long term, however I think that's a bit of a smoke screen Vs the 3rd of school leavers who depart education without any form of qualification: -

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/838350-school-leavers-without-qualifications-ending-up-on-scrapheap-says-study

For them university was never remotely on the cards.

@R-F

No ones denying that there aren't plenty of people who are at the low end, but are socially responsible, but it's also likely it's not their kids who are presently vandalizing and looting.

The bigger question is should we have a social welfare system in place that supports the socially irresponsible.

R-F
10-08-2011, 09:01 AM
I'm not saying it's the totality of the problem, but it is a significant factor. Education is a hugely important, but without money, motivation, parental direction and social encouragement it's very hard to get children raised in the poverty trap out of it. Certainly I don't think the whole university fees thing is a positive move in the long term, however I think that's a bit of a smoke screen Vs the 3rd of school leavers who depart education without any form of qualification: -

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/838350-school-leavers-without-qualifications-ending-up-on-scrapheap-says-study

For them university was never remotely on the cards.

The comments on that article made me feel ill. "Lazy bastards" etc. Despite the fact it's almost impossible for ME to get a job, and I have 11 GCSEs and a few A-levels.


@R-F

No ones denying that there aren't plenty of people who are at the low end, but are socially responsible, but it's also likely it's not their kids who are presently vandalizing and looting.

The bigger question is should we have a social welfare system in place that supports the socially irresponsible.

We should have a system in place that stops people becoming socially irresponsible. But we don't, because the government doesn't give a shit about education reforms.

Kadayi
10-08-2011, 10:51 AM
The comments on that article made me feel ill. "Lazy bastards" etc. Despite the fact it's almost impossible for ME to get a job, and I have 11 GCSEs and a few A-levels.

I'm not interested in the comments, more the fact that such a large % of people leave with zero qualifications. Albeit you might be finding it hard right now to find a job, you've a far better chance given you have qualifications than a lot of others.


We should have a system in place that stops people becoming socially irresponsible. But we don't, because the government doesn't give a shit about education reforms.

You're not born a member of society, you're taught to be one. However education will only go so far, and it's success really depends on a personal motivation. If there isn't a social incentive to make short term sacrifices in order to achieve a long term goal (such as studying for exams/doing homework etc, etc) then all the education reforms in the world aren't going to matter. In life it's all to easy to lay the blame at external forces and subscribe to victim culture, but by on large if you put effort in, you will achieve results.

Ian
10-08-2011, 10:55 AM
Next summer will be fine provided the England football team makes it to Euro 2012. Our drab play will so depress any football fans who've been looting/rioting they'll have lost their passion even for breaking the law in the name of senseless violence and free stuff.

Xercies
10-08-2011, 11:08 AM
I have to say schools are actually really terrible at the moment especially because of a combination of school target tables, and the national curriculum basically trying to make people get as many grades as possible and not actually learn anything. Education I think is very important, have a good teacher and the kids who aren't enthused because of whatever reason will become enthused. Unfortunatly a lot of these areas also have terrible schools, which really make the kids feel like they shouldn't bother.

I do have to agree with you that education is only so much and sometimes its home as well, but really education and schooling can be a lot more powerfuler then that. I remember there was loads of stories of giving these younger people like music or film they could do and it worked for some of them.

The Mechanical Aggressor
10-08-2011, 12:15 PM
I agree with R-F's analysis of the situation. This problem stems from the development of an underclass who perceive themselves as having no future in the current social and economic system. I was amused by David Cameron’s speech yesterday when he said that the rioters are “wrecking their own lives”. He’s wrong because their lives are already wrecked by a system which offers no hope of improvement for them. They don’t fear the “full force of the law” because criminal records are meaningless to them. No one was going to give them a job anyway.

Daily Mail readers will say that it’s because they are lazy and don’t want to work to achieve anything, but this is bullshit. I live in an area of Birmingham that is among the 10% most deprived areas in the UK. I went to a secondary school which had a 13% GCSE pass rate. It was hardly fit to be called a school as it was merely a dumping ground for the kids of the poor local residents who were never expected amount to anything. I suppose I was lucky due to a combination of parenting and being a naturally quiet person, I didn’t get into much trouble and got good GCSEs, A-levels and a degree from a good university.

I graduated in 2008. I was unemployed for about 18 months, despite volunteering and taking unpaid internships and now I’m in a job that is only slightly better than being on the dole. It’s difficult to get a job because of a recession that was caused by the banking sector. Funnily enough, the very people who caused the financial crisis are completely unaffected by it. The only difference between the rioters who are destroying livelihoods and the investment bankers who caused the financial crisis is one of perception. Society legitimises one group while demonising the other, but the effect they have on people’s livelihoods is similar.

The education system is an utter disgrace. Young people from deprived areas are sent to schools which are not fit for purpose. They are basically thrown on the rubbish heap and given no opportunity to better themselves or advance up the ladder of social class. To me, it seems ridiculous that a school where only one-in –ten pupils get 5 A-C GCSEs can be allowed to continue to run. For the majority of people, where you’re born and your parents’ situation determines the rest of your life. Education is advertised as being the great machine of social mobility, but it’s a big lie that the current generation of young people have fallen for.

The bottom line is that the status quo has no benefits for the young people who are rioting and therefore they have nothing to lose. Why should they care if the world burns? Everybody else has something to lose, be it their jobs, wealth or their way of life and therefore their defence mechanism is to label the rioters as mindless vandals who just need to be locked up, as if that somehow means we don’t need to consider why this is happening. Most of them are mindless vandals, but people happy with their lives and those who feel like part of society do not vandalise their cities. The writing has been on the wall for years and even when the police finally get this under control, riots will probably be an annual occurrence until the underlying issues are addressed.

Stormbane
10-08-2011, 12:24 PM
Reading some well formed sentences are a relief. I glanced through some of the hate filled, racist, illegible youTube comments and it saddened me.

I'm proud of you RPS community.

CuervoJoe
10-08-2011, 12:24 PM
Excellently put, Mech. I agree with everything you say.


Reading some well formed sentences are a relief. I glanced through some of the hate filled, racist, illegible youTube comments and it saddened me.

I'm proud of you RPS community.

Also, gotta agree with this.

GraveyardJimmy
10-08-2011, 12:29 PM
Reading some well formed sentences are a relief. I glanced through some of the hate filled, racist, illegible youTube comments and it saddened me.

I'm proud of you RPS community.

I would like to echo this. I am glad that debate here (unlike another PC game website) is mature and relatively understanding. This is one of the reasons why I come here (and left the other place).

Nalano
10-08-2011, 01:00 PM
I agree with R-F's analysis of the situation. This problem stems from the development of an underclass who perceive themselves as having no future in the current social and economic system. I was amused by David Cameron’s speech yesterday when he said that the rioters are “wrecking their own lives”. He’s wrong because their lives are already wrecked by a system which offers no hope of improvement for them. They don’t fear the “full force of the law” because criminal records are meaningless to them. No one was going to give them a job anyway.

This this this thank god somebody said it.

DAdvocate
10-08-2011, 01:33 PM
The most depressing element of these riots is how matters are only getting worse. The damage to local businesses is just going to increase the unemployment level, and arresting a few thousand rioters is hardly going to help their employment prospects upon their eventual release. We're condemning entire swathes of society to a future dependent on either welfare or crime.

Donjo
10-08-2011, 01:34 PM
R-F, your summary is how I would understand it, I think I've been saying something similar.
Or alternatively, why can't you just get a job, rise through the ranks and become head of a
giant multinational, it's not that bloody difficult??

Ian
10-08-2011, 01:47 PM
One of the people getting done in court today is a primary school teacher. *groan*

Nalano
10-08-2011, 02:09 PM
R-F, your summary is how I would understand it, I think I've been saying something similar.
Or alternatively, why can't you just get a job, rise through the ranks and become head of a
giant multinational, it's not that bloody difficult??

I'll get on that right after I build my giant death ray.

Kadayi
10-08-2011, 02:45 PM
Society legitimises one group while demonising the other, but the effect they have on people’s livelihoods is similar.

Are you somehow attempting to legitimise this?

With the banks, people overborrowed, sure the banks made the offer attractive and took risks, but people borrowed. There's a huge difference between you taking a risk and some group of teenage opportunists burning your business down for the lulz.

As regards what could be done is the introduction of (deep breathe as delves into Daily mail writer territory again), some form of paid national service (not necessarily military, there's plenty of infrastructure projects the government could set people to) is probably not a terrible idea, as it's an opportunity to take people out of their usual social group and have them mix with a variety of cultures & backgrounds, as well as refocus attention on personal development and achievement individually & collectively, as well as offer up opportunities to learn trade skills at the same time.

Nalano
10-08-2011, 02:53 PM
Are you somehow attempting to legitimise this?

With the banks, people overborrowed, sure the banks made the offer attractive and took risks, but people borrowed. There's a huge difference between you taking a risk and some group of teenage opportunists burning your business down for the lulz.

As regards what could be done is the introduction of (deep breathe as delves into Daily mail writer territory again), some form of paid national service (not necessarily military, there's plenty of infrastructure projects the government could set people to) is probably not a terrible idea, as it's an opportunity to take people out of their usual social group and have them mix with a variety of cultures & backgrounds, as well as refocus attention on personal development and achievement individually & collectively, as well as offer up opportunities to learn trade skills at the same time.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzSU0d5vG6k

Harlander
10-08-2011, 02:57 PM
Are you somehow attempting to legitimise this?

To explain is still not to excuse.




As regards what could be done is the introduction of some form of paid national service (not necessarily military, there's plenty of infrastructure projects the government could set people to)

A German-born acquaintance of mine undertook this (he called it social service) growing up in that country. I can't speak for its effectiveness in the aims you've described (it sounds like a reasonable idea, especially since I'm too old to be eligible :p), though I will say that just this year the practice became discontinued

Kadayi
10-08-2011, 03:24 PM
@Nalano

How about instead of playing the naysayer why not come up with something constructive to say?

The Mechanical Aggressor
10-08-2011, 03:33 PM
Are you somehow attempting to legitimise this?



This is getting tiresome. Each time someone tries to explain the reason behind these riots, people jump down their throat accusing them of condoning violence. I did not say violent rioting is a good thing, just that it's an inevitable side effect of a society where the distribution of wealth and opportunities are as skewed as they are in the UK.



With the banks, people overborrowed, sure the banks made the offer attractive and took risks, but people borrowed. There's a huge difference between you taking a risk and some group of teenage opportunists burning your business down for the lulz.

The end result is the same. People who were not involved in irresponsible risk taking losing their jobs and livelihoods.

Xercies
10-08-2011, 03:36 PM
If I remember rightly some of the countries like Austria actually give you a choice between one year of army national service or two years of social service. The ones that do the social service do speak very positively about it and it does help them I think. So yeah it wouldn't be a terrible idea.

In fact wasn't The Conservatives talking about something like that before they got elected? That went quiet very quickly

Nalano
10-08-2011, 03:39 PM
@Nalano

How about instead of playing the naysayer why not come up with something constructive to say?

Because I've no desire to talk with somebody who honestly offered the "welfare queen" argument, nor do I think it was in particularly good taste to discuss a premise of whether "poor people have more babies" as if it was a goddamn anthropological study.

Donjo
10-08-2011, 03:43 PM
Are you somehow attempting to legitimise this?

With the banks, people overborrowed, sure the banks made the offer attractive and took risks, but people borrowed. There's a huge difference between you taking a risk and some group of teenage opportunists burning your business down for the lulz.


I think the question people have to ask themselves is why weren't the banks and their top executives allowed to fall apart like the families who had borrowed from them? This is a clear example of one section of society totally failing and creating chaos but still being supported and even, perversely, rewarded... while other sections are scapegoated and demonised.

DAdvocate
10-08-2011, 04:07 PM
Because I've no desire to talk with somebody who honestly offered the "welfare queen" argument, nor do I think it was in particularly good taste to discuss a premise of whether "poor people have more babies" as if it was a goddamn anthropological study.

It's always rather sad when someone closes their eyes to a situation when it contradicts their preferred world view. You would fit in quite well with the Tea Party.

While the Daily Mail et al do whip up sensationalist nonsense about welfare queens, such individuals do exist (although in _very_ small numbers and normally not for the reasons depicted). The vast majority who find themselves in such a dependent situation do not reach that state by choice.

As for the national service proposal, it could certainly be beneficial on a limited basis, but a universal system would be damaging to the economy as highly skilled individuals must postpone their education and be put to tasks which do not fully utilise their skills. For example I knew a fellow from Greece who had to delay going to university to study Physics in order to scrub pots.

Nalano
10-08-2011, 04:10 PM
I think the question people have to ask themselves is why weren't the banks and their top executives allowed to fall apart like the families who had borrowed from them? This is a clear example of one section of society totally failing and creating chaos but still being supported and even, perversely, rewarded... while other sections are scapegoated and demonised.

Or, to put it another way, Trump's beaten bankruptcy eleven times. At one point he was in personal debt to the tune of 900 million. Yet people still loan him money. Why?


It's always rather sad when someone closes their eyes to a situation when it contradicts their preferred world view. You would fit in quite well with the Tea Party.

On the contrary, the "welfare queen" meme was itself a closed-minded and already debunked theme. But apparently it's never out of fashion to blame poverty on the poor.

GraveyardJimmy
10-08-2011, 04:12 PM
As for the national service proposal, it could certainly be beneficial on a limited basis, but a universal system would be damaging to the economy as highly skilled individuals must postpone their education and be put to tasks which do not fully utilise their skills. For example I knew a fellow from Greece who had to delay going to university to study Physics in order to scrub pots.

So the kids who succeed at school (and usually more well off kids due to the correlation between poverty and poor education) and those who can afford to pay the huge university fees can effectively buy their way out of service?

Kadayi
10-08-2011, 04:12 PM
Because I've no desire to talk with somebody who honestly offered the "welfare queen" argument, nor do I think it was in particularly good taste to discuss a premise of whether "poor people have more babies" as if it was a goddamn anthropological study.

Spare me your claims of 'mock offence'. If you're not prepared to engage don't be sniping from the sidelines.


On the contrary, the "welfare queen" meme was itself a closed-minded and already debunked theme. But apparently it's never out of fashion to blame poverty on the poor.

And exactly how much have you studied the UK welfare state Mr New York? If you'd bothered paying attention to my original post you'd of noted that I mentioned having worked in the DSS. That's the department of Social security (though you naturally know that), basically dealing with single mothers on income support. Welfare queen might be a meme to you, but it's very much a real thing over here.

DAdvocate
10-08-2011, 04:21 PM
On the contrary, the "welfare queen" meme was itself a closed-minded and already debunked theme. But apparently it's never out of fashion to blame poverty on the poor.

Again with the blinkers, you see what you want to see. Kadayi describes a detrimental incentive as an unfortunate side effect of a worthy state program, but it's easier not to listen.

DAdvocate
10-08-2011, 04:27 PM
So the kids who succeed at school (and usually more well off kids due to the correlation between poverty and poor education) and those who can afford to pay the huge university fees can effectively buy their way out of service?

Apologies for being unclear, by "limited" I meant either voluntary or as a substitute for youth detention centres. I certainly wouldn't support any form of conscription.

BobsLawnService
10-08-2011, 05:21 PM
We can try to justify the looting, destruction and theft by going on about social ills but no matter what gets said there is no justification for what is happening.

I disagree with the talk about poverty traps and all that nonsense. There are plenty of opportunities for somneone who wants to get ahead. Sure not all of us are born with a silver spoon up our arses and a guaranteed Eaton schooling but hey, that issue is not unique to the UK. Nobody is being dehumanized, things for the youth of the UK are much better than they are for most of the planet.

If the social ills are eating away at these Chavs then why don't they organize a quiet peaceful sit in protest in front of Parliment. A million people sitting on their front door and refusing to leave would be much more effective than rampaging through the city torching and destroying everything in their path.

Finally is people don't want to be called criminals in the media then they should stop being criminals.

GraveyardJimmy
10-08-2011, 05:25 PM
I disagree with the talk about poverty traps and all that nonsense. There are plenty of opportunities for somneone who wants to get ahead. Sure not all of us are born with a silver spoon up our arses and a guaranteed Eaton schooling but hey, that issue is not unique to the UK. Nobody is being dehumanized, things for the youth of the UK are much better than they are for most of the planet.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility

We have worse social mobility than many other developed nations. When 1 in 2 people in the area grow up in poverty, there aren't "plenty of opportunities", especially not at the moment.

Donjo
10-08-2011, 05:31 PM
I suppose people do see what they want to see, but it's difficult to assess welfare demographics- it's totally different for different areas of a city and different areas of a country. In some areas I've lived it's been loads of students, old alcoholics and people looking for jobs, in other areas it's loads of lads in tracksuits, single mothers and people looking for jobs (these stereotypes also come with interchangeable outfits). One guy in one of the health boards who I used to talk to a good bit (when I was sorting out my own welfare) used to give out about lazy fuckers who didn't want to work but didn't seem to mind that I was a lazy fucker who didn't want to work because I came from a similar background to him....

Edit:
Nobody is being dehumanized, things for the youth of the UK are much better than they are for most of the planet.

If the social ills are eating away at these Chavs

Terms like chav are part of a process of dehumanisation, wether you want to believe it or not...

Kadayi
10-08-2011, 08:53 PM
I think the question people have to ask themselves is why weren't the banks and their top executives allowed to fall apart like the families who had borrowed from them? This is a clear example of one section of society totally failing and creating chaos but still being supported and even, perversely, rewarded... while other sections are scapegoated and demonised.

TBH Don it's an utter irrelevance to the issue of these riots, and the potential causes and solutions behind them. Yes the banking system needs reform (and is being reformed), but that really has zero bearing on people rioting in the streets and looting shops, save for the fact that the country is in a recession.


Again with the blinkers, you see what you want to see. Kadayi describes a detrimental incentive as an unfortunate side effect of a worthy state program, but it's easier not to listen.

Nalano is quick with the snarky Youtubes and the throwaway memes, but not so good at judging whether they weigh up to what's actually being said. National service/National youth service are a policy of a number of European countries (Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Norway, Switzerland, Russia, Turkey). Wide scale implementation might be hard thing initially, but a pilot program might not be a bad idea. I'm certainly not advocating sending those involved to fight in Afganistan or anything, more that it's a viable platform for getting young people involved in learning real world skills that they can then trade on, as well as meeting people from different spectrums of society they might not ordinarily encounter. The benefits for participating might be financial inventives (Vs staying on the dole), but they might also be things like college credits etc, etc. The point is to give people an opportunity to excel in a different space away from the peer groups they might be used to.

I don't think there's much point crying over split milk as to how we've ended up where we have, but I think it's important to recognize that it's something that needs to be addressed as it's unsustainable in the long term, not only in terms of financial cost, but also in terms of social cost. This might well be an ugly truth for some of you, but the UK is grossly overpopulated. We have a 6th of the population of the US and a 50th of the landmass. We're the 53rd most densely populated country in the world. The vast bulk of those above us on the table being principalities and small islands. Only the Netherlands & Belgium are more densely populated as far are European countries go.

Now I'm not saying this as someone who rallies against immigration (that like tuition fees is a bit of a smoke screen issue). I say from the perspective of being aware of the facts regarding long term population sustainability. Plain truth of the matter is the UK is presently incapable of feeding it's current population without food imports (left to our own devices we'd probably fall into cannibalism within a year or so). With fossil fuel becoming an ever more pressing issue, and no real viable alternatives (we don't have the land mass necessary to grow enough biofuels, let alone feed ourselves), there are serious issues to contend with regard to food supply and demand in the long term: -

http://populationmatters.org/documents/sustainable_populations.pdf

Using modern farming methods we'd be looking at a maximum population of 17 million as long term sustainable (not a distant figure from the population levels/density of our Scandinavian cousins), that's 43 million less people than we presently have (think of all the people you know and lose
75% of them). Now long term population rates might be dropping (most European countries are below the 2.4 children requirement to maintain present population levels), however that coupled with increased longevity means that the drop off will be slow, and likely not before we hit some significant food supply crisis. When you get down to the pure maths of things, there's really not much room for sentiment when it comes to the continued support of a welfare state that allows the socially irresponsible to thrive. Now that might sound fascist as hell, but it's the base ugly truth to things. The UK as a society in the long terms needs people to be productive and contribute, and the government and future UK governments need to tackle that issue sooner rather than later in terms of reducing social irresponsible behaviour as well as rehabilitate the socially irresponsible. Prison sentences aren't going to do it however. If anything they will make things worse.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility

We have worse social mobility than many other developed nations. When 1 in 2 people in the area grow up in poverty, there aren't "plenty of opportunities", especially not at the moment.

Well right now with the recession isn't great for a lot of people, but the government should really be freeing up some cash to put into large scale infrastructure projects (in a similar way to The New Deal)and start getting people off the dole and working on them. It might be a form of false economy, but it would keep people occupied as well as put money into circulation, etc, etc, as well as give people a sense of pride in achieving things.

Ergates
11-08-2011, 12:34 AM
Because I've no desire to talk with somebody who honestly offered the "welfare queen" argument, nor do I think it was in particularly good taste to discuss a premise of whether "poor people have more babies" as if it was a goddamn anthropological study.

"Poor people have more children therefore it's their fault they're poor" is a [Daily Mail-esqu] judgement and could be argued to be in poor taste. (and, more importantly, is provably wrong too)

"Poor people have more babies" on the other hand is simply an observation, like "Rich people have more money" or "rain is wet".

As a statement it is an anthropological study. Do you suggest that anthropology is itself in poor taste? Or that it's only in poor taste if you direct it towards certain sectors of society?

Nalano
11-08-2011, 12:54 AM
"Poor people have more babies" on the other hand is simply an observation, like "Rich people have more money" or "rain is wet".

As a statement it is an anthropological study. Do you suggest that anthropology is itself in poor taste?

As for the first question, poor countries have much higher birth rates. Within the same countries rates related to income aren't as cut-and-dry (http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p20-558.pdf).

Annual Family Income / Children ever born per 1000 women
Under $20,000 / 2,038
$20,000 to $29,999 / 1,988
$35,000 to $49,999 / 2,052
$50,000 to $74,999 / 1,734
$75,000 to $99,999 / 1,752
$100,000 and over / 1,832
Not ascertained / 1,763

A correlation, but not a terribly strong one.

As for the second, it's because the assumption largely boils down to "it's the choice of poor people to have more children," - which then implies that poor people are not like you or me - when most non-"Daily Mail-esque" sources tend to attribute a very strong correlation to the availability of contraceptives. So it's more "everybody chooses to have sex," but not everybody can get a prescription for the pill.

Ergates
11-08-2011, 01:02 AM
I think the question people have to ask themselves is why weren't the banks and their top executives allowed to fall apart like the families who had borrowed from them? This is a clear example of one section of society totally failing and creating chaos but still being supported and even, perversely, rewarded... while other sections are scapegoated and demonised.

For a number of reasons we, as a society, couldn't have afforded to let the banks go under. The effect on our economy would have been utterly devastating - far worse than the current shitheap we're in.

The real question is why the top level management of the banks have been allowed to get away with it scot-free. They made massive (personal) profits from playing their games on the stock market, but when it all blows up in their (and our) faces it's us who foot the bills, and the worse they have to suffer is a stern talking to.

"Privatise the profits, socialise the risks" as they say.




There are plenty of opportunities for somneone who wants to get ahead
Over a million unemployed says otherwise. At the moment, there are more people than jobs. This is not the fault of people without jobs. It wasn't them who flushed the economy down the toilet.

Ergates
11-08-2011, 01:31 AM
A correlation, but not a terribly strong one.

Accepted - but few population trends are strong.



As for the second, it's because the assumption largely boils down to "it's the choice of poor people to have more children," - which then implies that poor people are not like you or me
This comes down to the whole correlation/causation thing though. One doesn't imply the other, but neither should observing one imply you're assuming the other.


So it's more "everybody chooses to have sex," but not everybody can get a prescription for the pill.
Except this is almost as much an oversimplification of a complex issue as "it's the choice of poor people to have more children,". A less judgemental oversimplification, but one none the less (let's call it Indipendant/Guardian-esque)

It's be truer (but more vague) to say "There are a multitude of social and economic reasons why people end up in poverty. Some/Many of these factors will also have an effect on the number of children they have, and the age at which they start having them".

DAdvocate
11-08-2011, 03:22 AM
Except this is almost as much an oversimplification of a complex issue as "it's the choice of poor people to have more children,". A less judgemental oversimplification, but one none the less (let's call it Indipendant/Guardian-esque)
Woah, hold off on associating Nalanos rather patronising explanation for population growth with the Guardian/Independent who are generally far better than that.

In the developing world, larger familities are a perfectly rational response to a society without a welfare safety net. Even those few that earn enough to save a little money run the risk of hyperinflation or a bank collapse, therefore a large family is your best investment. Of course access to birth control among other factors will play a part but these populations are not passive recipients awaiting Nalanos handouts, which is frankly rather offensive.

The more Nalanos rails against the Daily Mail, the more he sounds like he would fit in with his leaps of supposition in trying to pin nefarious motivations to anyone he disapproves of.

Nalano
11-08-2011, 03:56 AM
The more Nalanos rails against the Daily Mail, the more he sounds like he would fit in with his leaps of supposition in trying to pin nefarious motivations to anyone he disapproves of.

And, yet, that is exactly what you're doing.

And this "it's complicated," in the form of this silly little tit-for-tat, is itself a cop-out. You're still rather clearly ascribing a motive that is pretty much based on something I can only describe as "common knowledge" - a generally accepted assumption - which is the soul of what I'm railing against.

Ergates, you'll notice the bracket with the average family income has largely the same rate of child birth as the lowest bracket.

outoffeelinsobad
11-08-2011, 05:08 AM
Someone should tell these kids that the only thing worth rioting for is football. Or American football.

Harlander
11-08-2011, 09:09 AM
We can try to justify the looting, destruction and theft by going on about social ills but no matter what gets said there is no justification for what is happening.

I'm going to keep saying this until people get it: To explain is not to excuse.


TBH Don [the escape of bankers from the consequences of their failure is] an utter irrelevance to the issue of these riots, and the potential causes and solutions behind them. [...] that really has zero bearing on people rioting in the streets and looting shops

I don't agree entirely - it could well be a subconscious contributor to the general disrespect for social institutions that allows these behaviours to manifest. I'll grant you that it's unlikely to be a major component of the malaise.


Well right now with the recession isn't great for a lot of people, but the government should really be freeing up some cash to put into large scale infrastructure projects (in a similar way to The New Deal)and start getting people off the dole and working on them.

Now you're talking. The Works Progress Administration in America seems widely regarded to have helped ease the country out of the Great Depression (as well as building stuff some of which remains in use today).

Ian
11-08-2011, 09:28 AM
One of the people charged (or arrested, certainly) lives in mummy and daddy's million-pound farmhouse in Kent, apparently.

For fuck's sake.

*blood boils*

Kadayi
11-08-2011, 01:06 PM
Ergates, you'll notice the bracket with the average family income has largely the same rate of child birth as the lowest bracket.

You do realise that the report your quoting from is one from the US and not the UK. Bizarre as this may seem the UK is not the 51st state of the good old US of A, We might share a common tongue but we are an entirely different Country/Culture with an entirely different welfare system which includes free healthcare for all. Sex education is taught in schools, contraceptives/the pill are freely available for those living on state benefits and abortions are not illegal.

Ergates
11-08-2011, 01:56 PM
You do realise that the report your quoting from is one from the US and not the UK. Bizarre as this may seem the UK is not the 51st state of the good old US of A, We might share a common tongue but we are an entirely different Country/Culture with an entirely different welfare system which includes free healthcare for all. Sex education is taught in schools, contraceptives/the pill are freely available for those living on state benefits and abortions are not illegal.

Whilst I agree that the stats in the UK may be different (in fact they're quite likely to be different in some way) I'm struggling to find the actual figures. Seems our census figures on birth rate aren't collected/published by income bracket. So, whilst you can make that assertion, you can't prove it.

Also, I'm fairly sure (Correct me if I'm wrong Nalano) that contraceptives are freely available to all in the US too - though whether they're as easy to get hold of I can't say. Abortions are legal in most (all?) states - though again, I can't say how easy the process is. (or in this country for that matter - not something I've ever had to get involved with).

As for sex education in school: a) it's not always that good b) it only appliese to those who actually attend school c) is priobably widely taught in the US too.

However all of this is a smokescreen really. Poor people* aren't poor because they have too many children. They were poor to start with, the number of children they may or may not have doesn't really have that large an effect (if they didn't have any children, they wouldn't suddenly become affluent). The fundamental causes of poverty are totally out out of the hands of those who suffer from it - unforunately they're in the hands of the people who most benefit from keeping the system as it is, the rich.


*We're talking generalisations here - obviously there will be individual cases that differ. But you can find individual cases of pretty much anything you want to look for - see rule 34

DAdvocate
11-08-2011, 03:28 PM
You're still rather clearly ascribing a motive that is pretty much based on something I can only describe as "common knowledge" - a generally accepted assumption - which is the soul of what I'm railing against.
What a classic case of confirmation bias, anyone's propositions but your own are based merely on assumptions and common knowledge which can be dismissed without analysis. Clearly you do not wish to discuss the matter in good faith, so good say sir, I am done with you.

Kadayi
11-08-2011, 04:20 PM
Poor people* aren't poor because they have too many children.

Please point out where I remotely asserted that idea.

Ergates
11-08-2011, 04:51 PM
That wasn't in response to a something specific you said. (that response was above it, below the quoted bit).

The "All this" I was referring to wasn't your post, it was the whole topic of baby counting. I'm just suggesting that if you want to look at the whole "Why are people trapped in poverty and what can we do about it" thing, then number_of_children isn't a particularly important statistic.

Kadayi
11-08-2011, 05:17 PM
That wasn't in response to a something specific you said. (that response was above it, below the quoted bit).

It's not remotely in response to anything I said in any way shape or form whatsoever. I also find your assertion that: -


The fundamental causes of poverty are totally out out of the hands of those who suffer from it - unfortunately they're in the hands of the people who most benefit from keeping the system as it is, the rich.

Flimsy shit as well. Sure there's a recession on and times are hard for a lot of people right now, however even when times were good there was a still a large number of people who were unemployed and unemployable. The proposition that they are somehow all the victims of a conspiracy by the Rich is fairly hilarious (it's not that johnny didn't study at school and goofed off instead, it's that the rich made him do it...WTF....). How exactly does having a whole sector of society living off social security benefit the Rich? Less people on benefits = less taxation = more money for other things.

archonsod
11-08-2011, 05:57 PM
How exactly does having a whole sector of society living off social security benefit the Rich? Less people on benefits = less taxation = more money for other things.

The rich as a rule don't need the services paid for by taxation, nor in general do they tend to pay them. You won't find many CEO's who still use NHS hospitals.

Xercies
11-08-2011, 07:51 PM
The whole rich Versus poor debate never gets anywhere and people do kind of think its to simple.

What do you think would happen if we really actually took down these owners of these banks, they probably would move to a country which didn't have the "stupid regulations" which means a lot of money would go. What would happen if we taxed these rich people to the nines, they would go with there companies to somewhere else meaning all the jobs would go. Like it or not we need the "rich" to be there and we need to have them on our good side, otherwise no one would have any jobs.

Lukasz
11-08-2011, 09:13 PM
banks didn't break laws did they? So how can you punish anyone if he or she did not break a law?
or are we proposing a change to the law so the mistakes done by banks never happen again? and make that law retroactive?
If anyone is suggesting that i wish you bodily harm.


Those rioters are criminals nothing more. I can understand attacking government buildings, police stations and plain old fighting with police. i might even approve depending on the situation.

attacking shops, innocent people' places of work and residence? That is nothing more than a criminal act.

Donjo
11-08-2011, 11:08 PM
TBH Don it's an utter irrelevance to the issue of these riots, and the potential causes and solutions behind them. Yes the banking system needs reform (and is being reformed), but that really has zero bearing on people rioting in the streets and looting shops, save for the fact that the country is in a recession.


That maybe so but you brought them up in the first place? I was quoting someone who was answering something you wrote about banks....

Anyway, I'm just going to quote a friend because I don't have the language for this stuff and he wrote something that I agree with-
"these events exist in a context and that the context is social, economic, political, familial, cultural, institutional, temporal etc. etc. - the participants, both direct and indirect, willing and unwilling have a part to play. This demands thought and a lot of it. The rioters are not one big uniform mass. Things happened in the lead up to these events, over many years that contributed to them and I think we agree that it's important to understand them."
People trying to understand these events aren't excusing them... and labelling rioters as mindless thugs won't get us anywhere, but it might make things worse.
Sorry, this is a bit vague and doesn't really address the fine points these arguments are getting into... well, this and another forum I use are at least discussing things, an Irish metal forum I use has a thread that degenerated pretty quickly into quasi racism, nonsense and fear mongering...

Kadayi
11-08-2011, 11:48 PM
Anyway, I'm just going to quote a friend because I don't have the language for this stuff and he wrote something interesting that I agree with-

"these events exist in a context and that the context is social, economic, political, familial, cultural, institutional, temporal etc. etc. - the participants, both direct and indirect, willing and unwilling have a part to play. This demands thought and a lot of it. The rioters are not one big uniform mass. Things happened in the lead up to these events, over many years that contributed to them and I think we agree that it's important to understand them."

People trying to understand these events aren't excusing them... and labelling rioters as mindless thugs won't get us anywhere, but it might make things worse.

Oh I think it's fundamental to recognize that the riots are a resultant of a number of things (and people have put across their thoughts on the issue, myself included), however it's also important to acknowledge that ultimately the individual is responsible for his or her actions. Just as much as there are people eager to throw the book at the rioters there seem to be a number of bleeding hearts willing to overlook their transgressions. Personally in my view penalizing any individual any more than the law allows will only lead to further problems down the line.

The onus is on the government to look at ways to course correct people to become productive members of society. I think that that requires some bold thinking as well as some controversial actions.

Our present approach to incarceration for example is not an effective one given the high rates of re-offending. The threat of prison alone isn't a suitable deterrent. Putting first time offenders into strict solitary confinement for a week or two though, with the promise of a month minimum for a second offence is a much more powerful deterrent for most minor criminal acts, given the psychological trauma long term social deprivation causes. Plus you remove the whole prison culture aspect, which in itself can be a bad thing.

archonsod
12-08-2011, 02:15 AM
What do you think would happen if we really actually took down these owners of these banks, they probably would move to a country which didn't have the "stupid regulations" which means a lot of money would go. What would happen if we taxed these rich people to the nines, they would go with there companies to somewhere else meaning all the jobs would go. Like it or not we need the "rich" to be there and we need to have them on our good side, otherwise no one would have any jobs.

Sweden does it, to the point if you're earning enough your tax rate actually exceeds 100%. Co-incidentally, they seem to be far better off economically than us.

Donjo
12-08-2011, 02:29 AM
Oh I think it's fundamental to recognize that the riots are a resultant of a number of things (and people have put across their thoughts on the issue, myself included), however it's also important to acknowledge that ultimately the individual is responsible for his or her actions. Just as much as there are people eager to throw the book at the rioters there seem to be a number of bleeding hearts willing to overlook their transgressions. Personally in my view penalizing any individual any more than the law allows will only lead to further problems down the line.

The onus is on the government to look at ways to course correct people to become productive members of society. I think that that requires some bold thinking as well as some controversial actions.

Our present approach to incarceration for example is not an effective one given the high rates of re-offending. The threat of prison alone isn't a suitable deterrent. Putting first time offenders into strict solitary confinement for a week or two though, with the promise of a month minimum for a second offence is a much more powerful deterrent for most minor criminal acts, given the psychological trauma long term social deprivation causes. Plus you remove the whole prison culture aspect, which in itself can be a bad thing.

People are responsible for their actions but the society that they grow up in is responsible, to an extent, for shaping that person. It's a two way thing. People have to account for their actions alright but we don't live in vacuums, nothing exists outside it's context.

I don't agree with the way most prison systems work, and they're only gonna get worse.. I'm not sure what the answer is but putting people into solitary confinement for a week (or two!) is not an answer to anything unless you want to dramatically raise mental illness among prisoners.
Edit: The Irish prison system for the most part is completely fucked, massive overcrowding, hardcore nutcases in with the petty crime, pissing and shitting in a bucket in your room... the only hope of reforming people and reintroducing to society is to treat them humanely. People turn into animals when they're treated like them.

GraveyardJimmy
12-08-2011, 10:14 AM
I don't agree with the way most prison systems work, and they're only gonna get worse.. I'm not sure what the answer is but putting people into solitary confinement for a week (or two!) is not an answer to anything unless you want to dramatically raise mental illness among prisoners.
Edit: The Irish prison system for the most part is completely fucked, massive overcrowding, hardcore nutcases in with the petty crime, pissing and shitting in a bucket in your room... the only hope of reforming people and reintroducing to society is to treat them humanely. People turn into animals when they're treated like them.

Its also very important to note that 90% [of people in prison] are addicted to drugsand/or addicted to alcohol and/or suffering from at least two diagnosable mental disorders." (as I have mentioned on this forum before iirc, see Nick Davies work Flat Earth News). You cant treat people with problems like this by putting them in solitary confinement.

Xercies
12-08-2011, 11:25 AM
The problem with Prisons is that its basically a form of sweeping these people under the carpet and not doing anything with them. There will be some people that are two criminal to help but I do think there should be more emphasis on rehabilitation and actually trying to I don't know change these peoples behaviours. Try to actually get them out there and be a better person in society. Also we need to take away the stigma of being in a prison somehow, a lot of times these people can't get jobs because they have been in prison, so its not surprising that they turn to crime again.

Kadayi
12-08-2011, 11:45 AM
People are responsible for their actions but the society that they grow up in is responsible, to an extent, for shaping that person. It's a two way thing. People have to account for their actions alright but we don't live in vacuums, nothing exists outside it's context.

Society didn't set fire to those shops, nor did the majority of London's poor go on the rampage during the riots. To attempt to hold 'society' as somehow equally accountable for the deliberate actions of an individual is utterly farcical.


I don't agree with the way most prison systems work, and they're only gonna get worse.. I'm not sure what the answer is but putting people into solitary confinement for a week (or two!) is not an answer to anything unless you want to dramatically raise mental illness among prisoners.

Edit: The Irish prison system for the most part is completely fucked, massive overcrowding, hardcore nutcases in with the petty crime, pissing and shitting in a bucket in your room... the only hope of reforming people and reintroducing to society is to treat them humanely. People turn into animals when they're treated like them.

The whole reason you have massive overcrowding is because people aren't incentivized not to recommit/reform. If present prision conditions aren't enough of a disincentive to curb re-offending (and with an 80% recommittal rate for first time offenders it sure as hell isn't working) then making prison life easier isn't going to do the trick. The whole point about solitary confinement is it's an actual form of punishment that once experienced very few first time offenders are ever likely to want to put themselves through again because it is so psychologically traumatic. You follow up with rehabilitation afterwards. You're not born a human being in the societal sense, you're taught to be one. In order to make people compliant you need to break them firstly. The existing system doesn't do that.


Its also very important to note that 90% [of people in prison] are addicted to drugsand/or addicted to alcohol and/or suffering from at least two diagnosable mental disorders." (as I have mentioned on this forum before iirc, see Nick Davies work Flat Earth News). You cant treat people with problems like this by putting them in solitary confinement.

It's called going cold turkey.

GraveyardJimmy
12-08-2011, 11:54 AM
The whole reason you have massive overcrowding is because people aren't incentivized not to recommit/reform. If present prision conditions aren't enough of a disincentive to curb re-offending (and with an 80% recommittal rate for first time offenders it sure as hell isn't working) then making prison life easier isn't going to do the trick. The whole point about solitary confinement is it's an actual form of punishment that once experienced very few first time offenders are ever likely to want to put themselves through again because it is so psychologically traumatic. You follow up with rehabilitation afterwards. You're not born a human being in the societal sense, you're taught to be one. In order to make people compliant you need to break them firstly. The existing system doesn't do that.


Except the problem lies at the root of crime, as the SEU report showed. Especially when you consider (http://www.nickdavies.net/2005/05/01/dying-for-a-break/): (http://www.nickdavies.net/2005/05/01/dying-for-a-break/%29:)

" Prisoners are 13 times as likely as anybody else to have been in care. They are also 13 times as likely to be jobless, ten times as likely to have played truant at school, six times as likely to be very young parents. Eighty per cent of them cannot write with the skills of an eleven-year-old. More than 60% of them have drug problems. More than 70% of them suffer at least two mental disorders."

There are problems in society. Victimising people in order to "break them" is clearly not the answer. The SEU report time and time again showed that "heavy handed" prison system is bad:

"Homelessness was a cause of crime – but 30% of prisoners lost their homes as a direct result of being jailed. Unemployment was a cause of crime – but two thirds of prisoners who were in work, lost their jobs as a result of being jailed. Debt was a cause of crime – but a third of all prisoners saw their debts get worse as a result of being jailed. Broken family links were a cause of crime – but 43% of prisoners lost these links as a result of being jailed. "

The prison system, and prison sentences are clealy not working, but to make conditions harsher is not a simple fix and can in fact make things a lot worse. this is what government reports show, but politicians still like to claim to be tough on crime, as that is what many of the public want to hear.


Edit: solitary confinement is clearly not going to help, especially with a 70% rate of two mental illnesses:
http://solitarywatch.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/fact-sheet-psychological-effects-of-solitary-confinement2.pdf

Im not sure you can go "cold turkey" from having psychological problems.

Kadayi
12-08-2011, 12:31 PM
The prison system, and prison sentences are clearly not working, but to make conditions harsher is not a simple fix and can in fact make things a lot worse. this is what government reports show, but politicians still like to claim to be tough on crime, as that is what many of the public want to hear.

I'm not on about making them harsher. I'm on about changing approach and incentivizing offenders to change, as well as offering them the support mechanisms to change afterwards.

The present system clearly isn't working (it has an 80% failure rate. That's unacceptable by any measure), so you try a different approach and find out whether that delivers better results (it's called testing). We need as a society to try something different. Simply naysaying achieves nothing I'm afraid.

GraveyardJimmy
12-08-2011, 12:37 PM
I'm not on about making them harsher. I'm on about changing approach and incentivizing offenders to change, as well as offering them the support mechanisms to change afterwards.

No you aren't. Your point was to put first time offenders, many who have mental problems, into solitary confinement. THis is clearly making prisons harsher. I posted a document showing that solitary confinement actually has negative mental effects, I cant see how that is going to help bring people support in society.

Of course support afterwards is needed, but prison sentences actually remove the few support structures they have, as in my previous post. I already stated that prisons aren't working. The SEU report showed that focussing on the root causes of crime is far more valuable than making people server tougher prison sentences.

Donjo
12-08-2011, 01:19 PM
I'm not on about making them harsher. I'm on about changing approach and incentivizing offenders to change, as well as offering them the support mechanisms to change afterwards.

The present system clearly isn't working (it has an 80% failure rate. That's unacceptable by any measure), so you try a different approach and find out whether that delivers better results (it's called testing). We need as a society to try something different. Simply naysaying achieves nothing I'm afraid.

Well, at least we agree that these things need to be changed, probably have totally different ideas about how it could be accomplished. GraveyardJimmy's making some good points and has quoted test data to back it up aswell.
Maybe get Valve to run a few prisons and use their extensive testing process to figure out what works.

Kadayi
12-08-2011, 01:59 PM
No you aren't. Your point was to put first time offenders, many who have mental problems, into solitary confinement. THis is clearly making prisons harsher. I posted a document showing that solitary confinement actually has negative mental effects, I cant see how that is going to help bring people support in society.

No I'm making a proposal to reduce re-offending. Whether people have psychological problems or not is is relatively unimportant to when you're looking at the bigger picture if it actively reduces the likelihood of them re-offending (existing psychological problems can be addressed through rehabilitation). The proof lies in actual testing on scale. Where as what you are doing is simply naysaying.

I'll repeat. The present system isn't working. An 80% failure rate is unacceptable and unsustainable. We as a society need to do something. How about you come up with some concrete suggestions.

GraveyardJimmy
12-08-2011, 02:13 PM
No I'm making a proposal to reduce re-offending. Whether people have psychological problems or not is is relatively unimportant to when you're looking at the bigger picture if it actively reduces the likelihood of them re-offending (existing psychological problems can be addressed through rehabilitation). The proof lies in actual testing on scale. Where as what you are doing is simply naysaying.

Why are psychological problems not important? Its obviously a huge issue, since it affects such a large portion of the prison population.



I'll repeat. The present system isn't working. An 80% failure rate is unacceptable and unsustainable. We as a society need to do something. How about you come up with some concrete suggestions.

You said this three times now, I agreed each time. Your proposals are simply put people in solitary confinement. I havent been "naysaying", I have put forward evidence which shows this would be counter productive. As the SEU report shows (and as I already mentioned) there are far greater results if you focus on the root of crime and of rehabilitation. The focus should be less on punishment (as it is at the moment, which you suggest doesnt work) but instead on helping these people who need it. Its conclusion was this:

"the real key to reducing offending was to attack its causes . Homelessness, unemployment, drug and alcohol problems, mental health problems, physical health problems, educational problems – these were the seeds from which crime grew, seeds which were fertilised by the impact of imprisonment."

All of these problems are exacerbated by the prison system, as I stated in earlier posts. Clearly these are the issues to focus on, not just putting people in isolation. I have said this repeatedly, you are trying to misrepresent my position by suggesting I am just "naysaying".

Ansob
12-08-2011, 02:19 PM
Simply naysaying achieves nothing I'm afraid.

Could you please stop dismissing other people's arguments and actually start responding to them with sources as GraveyardJimmy has done with yours? Your intellectual disingenuity isn't doing you any favours.

Kadayi
12-08-2011, 08:01 PM
Why are psychological problems not important? Its
obviously a huge issue, since it affects such a large portion of the prison population.

Your sources conflict on the relative value. Nick Davies states 70% but the solitarywatch report says 20% (hardly a large proportion). Even taking account of transatlantic differentials, that a huge gulf in terms of statistical accuracy. So I went to the source: -

SEU report is here: -

http://www.thelearningjourney.co.uk/file.2007-10-01.1714894439/file_view

but the report it references is this: -

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_health/Prisoners_PsycMorb.pdf

The biggest psychological disorder? Anti-social behaviour (what a surprise), next up was paranoia (a likely resultant of the prison condition). Schizophrenia and manic depression (the serious psychosis's that require genuine treatment) are actually a much much smaller percentage.

I'm certainly not proposing that people be thrown blindly into Solitary, or for long periods of time (there needs to be a risk assessment). Or that it's a suitable approach to take with all crimes (I'm thinking petty, rather than violent) But that it is used as a tool to instigate compliance (unpleasant as they may sound) when it comes to offender rehabilitation.


As the SEU report shows (and as I already mentioned) there are far greater results if you focus on the root of crime and of rehabilitation. The focus should be less on punishment (as it is at the moment, which you suggest doesnt work) but instead on helping these people who need it. Its conclusion was this:

I'd rather a person spent a week in solitary confinement and then 2 - 3 months working with a team dedicated to rehabilitating individuals (including dealing with psychological issues) before being released back into society with further support, than have them sitting in a cramped prison cell for 6 - 18 months and 80% likely to re-offend afterwards.


"the real key to reducing offending was to attack its causes . Homelessness, unemployment, drug and alcohol problems, mental health problems, physical health problems, educational problems – these were the seeds from which crime grew, seeds which were fertilised by the impact of imprisonment."

The money saved by not keeping petty criminals in long term could be redirected towards outreach programs after release.

GraveyardJimmy
12-08-2011, 08:20 PM
Your sources conflict on the relative value. Nick Davies states 70% but the solitarywatch report says 20% (hardly a large proportion). Even taking account of transatlantic differentials, that a huge gulf in terms of statistical accuracy. So I went to the source: - They dont conflict. One is from the USA, the other is from a report from the UK made my the government. They aren't looking at the same populations.




The biggest psychological disorder? Anti-social behaviour (what a surprise), next up was paranoia (a likely resultant of the prison condition). Schizophrenia and manic depression (the serious psychosis's that require genuine treatment) are actually a much much smaller percentage.

I like how earlier you accuse me of naysaying, and now you just suggest that despite these people having recognised disorders, they aren't of the right kind for you to be interested in. These are medically recognised psychological disorders.



I'm certainly not proposing that people be thrown blindly into Solitary, or for long periods of time (there needs to be a risk assessment). Or that it's a suitable approach to take with all crimes (I'm thinking petty, rather than violent) But that it is used as a tool to instigate compliance (unpleasant as they may sound) when it comes to offender rehabilitation.

Despite the fact that solitary confinement will do more harm than good, leading to rises in suicides and mental problems (as seen in America), the problem isnt with a need for harsher sentencing, but instead a need to look at the causes of crime, which was the largest finding of the report.




I'd rather a person spent a week in solitary confinement and then 2 - 3 months working with a team dedicated to rehabilitating individuals (including dealing with psychological issues) before being released back into society with further support, than have them sitting in a cramped prison cell for 6 - 18 months and 80% likely to re-offend afterwards.

A better solution would be to offer support and help fix the problems before they begin. Prison sentences only prove to make people more likely to re-offend due to the loss of jobs, increase in debts and unemployment. The idea that criminals are somehow fundamentally flawed and need to be broken to be remoulded is quite abhorrent. Solitary confinement is a bad enough experience to make people want to kill themselves and makes people hear voices, amongst other things. This is not a form humane punishment or attempt to help people engage with society, its a form of attempting to give someone mental illness.



The money saved by not keeping petty criminals in long term could be redirected towards outreach programs after release.

Not a bad idea.

Kadayi
12-08-2011, 09:19 PM
They dont conflict. One is from the USA, the other is from a report from the UK made by the government. They aren't looking at the same populations.

One says 70% and the other 20%. If you are arguing that the populations used feeds into the calculation then it has to be fair to say that the US figure is more accurate no? Or are you claiming that somehow there's some seismic 50% shift between the psychological well being of the average UK Prisoner Vs that of a US one?


I like how earlier you accuse me of naysaying, and now you just suggest that despite these people having recognised disorders, they aren't of the right kind for you to be interested in. These are medically recognised psychological disorders.

Not all medical disorders carry the same weight (which is what you are seem to be arguing). That a large number of prisoners suffer from anti-social behavior is not a surprise, because their anti-social behaviour is what's landed them in prison (the SEU report is by an external body regarding mental health, not by the prison service itself) Arguing that suffering from anti-social behaviour somehow precludes the treatment of it is absurd though. The whole point of Prison is to address anti-social behaviour in prisoners and rehabilitate them. The present system clearly isn't working in that regard (80% reoffender rate) and that is why a new approach is required. One that puts emphasis on achieving prisoner compliance when it comes to addressing their behaviour and rehabilitation.


Despite the fact that solitary confinement will do more harm than good, leading to rises in suicides and mental problems (as seen in America), the problem isnt with a need for harsher sentencing, but instead a need to look at the causes of crime, which was the largest finding of the report.

But the report your referring to relates only to Solitary confinement of those already institutionalized. Again I'm not talking about long term incarceration.


The idea that criminals are somehow fundamentally flawed and need to be broken to be remoulded is quite abhorrent.

Why? If someone is being anti-social and their behaviour is disruptive to society as a whole, what is so terrible about breaking them (like you would a wild stalliion for example) and course correcting them, so that they are brought under control and can go on to lead productive lives? Why exactly is that abhorrent?

Xercies
12-08-2011, 09:31 PM
Because why do you think you need to break them? Do you not think that they might course correct on there own giving enough time? Giving enough rehabilitation? You don't need to break them before you do that

Kadayi
12-08-2011, 09:44 PM
Because why do you think you need to break them? Do you not think that they might course correct on there own giving enough time? Giving enough rehabilitation? You don't need to break them before you do that

Because 80% of first time offenders do re-offend. 20% do course correct after Prison, but 1 in 5 is not a great success rate.

GraveyardJimmy
12-08-2011, 10:31 PM
Because 80% of first time offenders do re-offend. 20% do course correct after Prison, but 1 in 5 is not a great success rate.

Which shows that prison is not a good solution. The answer lies in preventing people ending up in prison and if they do, helping them to avoid the situations that lead them there, not putting them through psychological torture in order to somehow break their spirit so you can rebuild them into a model citizen (who will then go back to the same situation they were in before).

Even if you give them rehabilitation, they've probably ended up in a worse situation after prison than before (as the statistics show). Harsh treatment by the prison systems isnt going to help this. Look at the swedish system who's re-offending rate is far lower (under 40%). The prisons in sweden are generally humanitarian and focus on rehabilitation, rather than unusual punishments.

Edit: Something else I have found (on wikipedia, source here) (http://www.prisoncommission.org/pdfs/Confronting_Confinement.pdf): "In 2006, the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America, chaired by John Joseph Gibbons and Nicholas Katzenbach found that: "The increasing use of high-security segregation is counter-productive, often causing violence inside facilities and contributing to recidivism after release." This is in reference to solitary confinement, and as I am sure you know, recidivism is re-offending. Therefore the idea that you put forward to reduce re-offending has been found in practice to do the opposite.

Kadayi
12-08-2011, 11:27 PM
Edit: Something else I have found (on wikipedia, source here) (http://www.prisoncommission.org/pdfs/Confronting_Confinement.pdf): "In 2006, the Commission on Safety and Abuse in America, chaired by John Joseph Gibbons and Nicholas Katzenbach found that: "The increasing use of high-security segregation is counter-productive, often causing violence inside facilities and contributing to recidivism after release." This is in reference to solitary confinement, and as I am sure you know, recidivism is re-offending. Therefore the idea that you put forward to reduce re-offending has been found in practice to do the opposite.

I've already highlighted the flaws in your earlier arguments (which you have failed to address or acknowledge). I've also already pointed out that the approach I'm promoting is a distinct from the present usage of solitary confinement within the penal system. It is meant to instigate a state change within the individual to open them up to course correction. All the rehabilitation in the world isn't going to matter at all unless the person your offering it to is compliant.

Yeah sure ideally you don't want anyone ending up in prison, but the reality is people do commit crimes and when they do affirmative action needs to take place. From a societal perspective victims of crime also need to feel that offenders are brought to account for their actions also. I don't think it's enough to say that an offender should simply be offered rehabilitation alone. They need to appreciate the gravity of their offence as well.

GraveyardJimmy
12-08-2011, 11:50 PM
One says 70% and the other 20%. If you are arguing that the populations used feeds into the calculation then it has to be fair to say that the US figure is more accurate no? Or are you claiming that somehow there's some seismic 50% shift between the psychological well being of the average UK Prisoner Vs that of a US one?

The two sources talk of different mental illnesses. One talks of being "seriously mentally ill" one is talking about psychological disorders.




Not all medical disorders carry the same weight (which is what you are seem to be arguing). That a large number of prisoners suffer from anti-social behavior is not a surprise, because their anti-social behaviour is what's landed them in prison (the SEU report is by an external body regarding mental health, not by the prison service itself) Arguing that suffering from anti-social behaviour somehow precludes the treatment of it is absurd though. The whole point of Prison is to address anti-social behaviour in prisoners and rehabilitate them. The present system clearly isn't working in that regard (80% reoffender rate) and that is why a new approach is required. One that puts emphasis on achieving prisoner compliance when it comes to addressing their behaviour and rehabilitation.

I'm not arguing that all disorders carry the same weight. But you cannot just ignore certain disorders and suggest that means these peoples minds are perfectly healthy.




But the report your referring to relates only to Solitary confinement of those already institutionalized. Again I'm not talking about long term incarceration.
So you plan to mentally torture someone for just a short amount of time? Oh that makes it fine then right? You are less "breaking" someone, than opening them up to more mental illnesses. Drs and psychiatrists agree: http://articles.cnn.com/1998-01-09/us/9801_09_solitary.confinement_1_solitary-confinement-prison-cell-supermax?_s=PM:US



Why? If someone is being anti-social and their behaviour is disruptive to society as a whole, what is so terrible about breaking them (like you would a wild stalliion for example) and course correcting them, so that they are brought under control and can go on to lead productive lives? Why exactly is that abhorrent?

People have free will. To manipulate them in a way that conforms to a set of standards by undergoing mental attack is like something out of dystopian fiction. This opens up a whole new can of worms- what is a "productive" life? Why do they have to undergo a "reforming" treatment if society itself has made them this way? As I said before- focus on the causes, not unusual punishments which have had terrible results in other countries such as the USA.



I've already highlighted the flaws in your earlier arguments (which you have failed to address or acknowledge). I've also already pointed out that the approach I'm promoting is a distinct from the present usage of solitary confinement within the penal system. It is meant to instigate a state change within the individual to open them up to course correction. All the rehabilitation in the world isn't going to matter at all unless the person your offering it to is compliant.

So in order to make people more compliant you have to make them undergo psychological trauma which often creates mental illness? As I have said before, take a leaf out of the countries that have the most success- countries that do not attempt traumatic experiences for prisoners, but instead treat them like humans, focus on the root cause of the problem (since clearly people do not automatically become criminals, it is a result of social and economic factors) and rehabilitation. Rather than trying to break people like they are broken, treat them with the respect that they have not had from society and show them that there is a place for them.

I'd like to see a few studies that back up what you are suggesting. I have shown many sources that contradict you, the only evidence you have shown so far is to try to suggest that my sources aren't consistent, when you don't seem to have looked at the wording of them at all.

Andkon
13-08-2011, 12:02 AM
my distant relative got his car taken over by the rioters while going to work.
I hope this end soon to evade more damages.

Tei
13-08-2011, 12:43 AM
Some countries love his geeks and others hate then. Chavs don't like geeks. The lumpenproletariat don't want geeks to live, and are very reactionary. This is a antirevolution of the lumpenproletariat. Since the lumpen has not political ideas, his "politic" is destruction.

I think this is a sistemic problem of the capitalism. The irony is that socialist ideas probably give people a direction, ask for rights, and follow some objetives of enhancements, fight for a more balanced distribution of wealth. People withouth a political direction is gullible and don't understand that in a capitalist system what you are paid, is as low you able it. You are a product in a market, and you have to fight for a salary as high as you can. People withouth socialist ideas have no fucking idea how to work in a capitalist work, and "ask for salaries to be good" withouth fighting for salaries to be good.

Since works are getting destroyed or moved to "slavery-like" conditions in asia, more and more people will lose his job and will be not needed on our civilization. If your only skill is something a chinese can do, odds are your job is in china now. Manual unskilled labor get killed very fast, then some office jobs will be killed and replaced by programs and servers. Capitalism ask people to change and learn new skills... some of these skills are not natural and most people don't seems to have then. Probably capitalism is another utopy, like comunism.

Kadayi
13-08-2011, 10:57 AM
The two sources talk of different mental illnesses. One talks of being "seriously mentally ill" one is talking about psychological disorders.

Because one recognizes that there are people who end up in prison who suffer from mental illnesses like Schizophrenia, but understands as a given that people end up in prison due to anti-social behaviour (the very thing that Prisons are attempting to deal with, that's why they are also known as correctional facilities), and the other is a report on psychological disorders of prisoners without regard to why they are in prison. Your entire attempt to pass off the 70% statement as an indication as to the overall fragility of the mental health of prisoners, without getting into the specifics is laughable. People goto prison because they are anti-social, prison is an attempt to address that. Right now prison is failing in that regard.


I'm not arguing that all disorders carry the same weight. But you cannot just ignore certain disorders and suggest that means these peoples minds are perfectly healthy.

I'm not ignoring them, I'm simply recognising the purpose of the report and what the role of a prison is, namely a correctional facility aimed at curbing and addressing anti-social behaviour.


So you plan to mentally torture someone for just a short amount of time? Oh that makes it fine then right? You are less "breaking" someone, than opening them up to more mental illnesses. Drs and psychiatrists agree: http://articles.cnn.com/1998-01-09/us/9801_09_solitary.confinement_1_solitary-confinement-prison-cell-supermax?_s=PM:US

There's a big difference in terms of effect from a life sentence in solitary Vs a week. Your references are all from long term cases. I don't deny that the long term effects of Solitary confinement are dangerous, but at the same time I'm not actually proposing that. I'm talking about a brief period in comparison, to instigate a state change within the individual.


People have free will. To manipulate them in a way that conforms to a set of standards by undergoing mental attack is like something out of dystopian fiction. This opens up a whole new can of worms- what is a "productive" life? Why do they have to undergo a "reforming" treatment if society itself has made them this way? As I said before- focus on the causes, not unusual punishments which have had terrible results in other countries such as the USA.

I guess not committing crimes and ruining other peoples would be a start. What exactly is so objectionable about that? It seems to me that the heart of your problem is you simply find the notion of a persons spirit being broken (like that of a wild horse) objectionable, but what you're not prepared to acknowledge is that society operates on the basis of compliance. People are compliant every day. They go to school, they go to work, they pay taxes, they don't rob, rape of murder other people and they get on with their lives and society as a whole moves forward. Do you think that these people magically were born compliant and automatically understood right and wrong? Or do you think they were shaped that way? How terrible, how dare those teachers & those parents course correct the children. You're already tame, you just don't realize it my friend.


So in order to make people more compliant you have to make them undergo psychological trauma which often creates mental illness? As I have said before, take a leaf out of the countries that have the most success- countries that do not attempt traumatic experiences for prisoners, but instead treat them like humans, focus on the root cause of the problem (since clearly people do not automatically become criminals, it is a result of social and economic factors) and rehabilitation. Rather than trying to break people like they are broken, treat them with the respect that they have not had from society and show them that there is a place for them.

Find me the report that demonstrates that a week of SC will result in substantive mental illness please. No more of this citing sources talking about years of SC, as that is not something I've remotely proposed. As previously stated I'm all for rehabilitation, I see no point in locking people up for petty crimes for months or years on end. However the point of a correctional facility is to correct people, and right now that's not happening. Sure rehabilitation is good thing and yes more needs to be done with regard to that, but at the same time when people do something anti-social especially were there are victims involved, you don't automatically give them the candy store. You seem to view Criminals as the victims of Society, but there are plenty of poor people living in difficult circumstances who aren't Criminals. Criminality is always a choice, never a necessity, esp in a country with a welfare state like ours.


I'd like to see a few studies that back up what you are suggesting. I have shown many sources that contradict you, the only evidence you have shown so far is to try to suggest that my sources aren't consistent, when you don't seem to have looked at the wording of them at all.

You didn't even read the SEU report yourself, or the one it based its figures on. Instead you just quoted Nick Davies as if he was the very word of god (hero worship is a dangerous habit). If you had, you have had a clue as to what the SEU was as well as the nature of the report, and you wouldn't of been trying to palm off anti-social behaviour as a reason not to try and address anti-social behaviour (duh). Anyway better things to do than argue the toss with further (like get on tackling my games back catalogue). Feel free to go hug some convicted rioters and tell them that you understand society made them steal those Armani suits, Iphones and trainers, because those are the important things in life after all.

GraveyardJimmy
13-08-2011, 11:16 AM
Because one recognizes that there are people who end up in prison who suffer from mental illnesses like Schizophrenia, but understands as a given that people end up in prison due to anti-social behaviour (the very thing that Prisons are attempting to deal with, that's why they are also known as correctional facilities), and the other is a report on psychological disorders of prisoners without regard to why they are in prison. Your entire attempt to pass off the 70% statement as an indication as to the overall fragility of the mental health of prisoners, without getting into the specifics is laughable. People goto prison because they are anti-social, prison is an attempt to address that. Right now prison is failing in that regard.

Prison is an attempt to punish people at the moment. Which clearly isnt working. There is a difference between anti-social behaviour and mental disorders. You still havent responded to the fact that many people are addicted to drugs and alcohol, part of the root problems that I have continually said need to be addressed.




There's a big difference in terms of effect from a life sentence in solitary Vs a week. Your references are all from long term cases. I don't deny that the long term effects of Solitary confinement are dangerous, but at the same time I'm not actually proposing that. I'm talking about a brief period in comparison, to instigate a state change within the individual.

You havent presented any evidence that show it will do any good, other than your assumptions that putting people a mental attack will cause a "state change". You havent shown this will make people compliant, but just claim it will.




I guess not committing crimes and ruining other peoples would be a start. What exactly is so objectionable about that? It seems to me that the heart of your problem is you simply find the notion of a persons spirit being broken (like that of a wild horse) objectionable, but what you're not prepared to acknowledge is that society operates on the basis of compliance. People are compliant every day. They go to school, they go to work, they pay taxes, they don't rob, rape of murder other people and they get on with their lives and society as a whole moves forward. Do you think that these people magically were born compliant and automatically understood right and wrong? Or do you think they were shaped that way? How terrible, how dare those teachers & those parents course correct the children. You're already tame, you just don't realize it my friend.

Of course society requires cooperation, but there is a difference between people realising this through their upbringing and being sent into institutions where they will be mentally deprived and caused to be "broken" in order to come out a functioning member of society (a little like Alex in a clockwork orange perhaps). People dont just commit crime. As I have said time and time again, focussing on why people commit crime and preventing them from doing so is the answer, not techniques which when they have been tried, have proven to be dangerous.




Find me the report that demonstrates that a week of SC will result in substantive mental illness please. No more of this citing sources talking about years of SC, as that is not something I've remotely proposed. As previously stated I'm all for rehabilitation, I see no point in locking people up for petty crimes for months or years on end. However the point of a correctional facility is to correct people, and right now that's not happening.
I think you'll find that the onus is on you to provide details showing that it will work, after I have shown information proving the process itself to be dangerous and details showing that my proposals end in a lower re-offending rate (such as in Sweden).



Sure rehabilitation is good thing and yes more needs to be done with regard to that, but at the same time when people do something anti-social especially were there are victims involved, you don't automatically give them the candy store. You seem to view Criminals as the victims of Society, but there are plenty of poor people living in difficult circumstances who aren't Criminals. Criminality is always a choice, never a necessity, esp in a country with a welfare state like ours.
Of course, but there is a strong correlation between poverty and crime. Cutting one has been shown to cut the other. You have to make an effort to cut the causes of crime, rather than decide to take quite radical steps of untested mental therapy.



You didn't even read the SEU report yourself, or the one it based its figures on. Instead you just quoted Nick Davies as if he was the very word of god (hero worship is a dangerous habit). If you had, you have had a clue as to what the SEU was as well as the nature of the report, and you wouldn't of been trying to palm off anti-social behaviour as a reason not to try and address anti-social behaviour (duh).
You clearly havent read my arguments. My whole point is that anti-social behaviour can be tackled, by helping remove the things that create this behaviour. Also, I have yet to see you present a single source. if linking to websites that provide evidence to support an argument is "hero worship" then perhaps you should do more of it, since the whole time you have made unsupported assertions.




Anyway better things to do than argue the toss with further (like get on tackling my games back catalogue). Feel free to go hug some convicted rioters and tell them that you understand society made them steal those Armani suits, Iphones and trainers, because those are the important things in life after all.

How petty. I'd rather not argue with someone who uses such immature rhetoric. I haven't once said that material possessions are the key to life, nor that the rioters did not act of their own volition.

Tei
13-08-2011, 12:39 PM
Prison is an attempt to punish people at the moment. Which clearly isnt working. There is a difference between anti-social behaviour and mental disorders. You still havent responded to the fact that many people are addicted to drugs and alcohol, part of the root problems that I have continually said need to be addressed.

Medieval Age:
- Pig eat children. Pig is put in prison / sentenced to dead.
Prison is a punish system.

Modern age:
- Pig eat children. Pig is neutered. Owner of pig taken to judge.
Prison is something more complex than a punish system. Theres a attemp to correct people, and the jail segregate that person, from these that can live pacifically. Prisons are guetos and "correctionals".

Future age:
????????????
We know that guetos don't work. But people can't be completelly isolated. The correctional part of the prison system don't really work well :-/

Kadayi
13-08-2011, 12:51 PM
Prison is an attempt to punish people at the moment. Which clearly isnt working.

No prison is an attempt to reform criminals, which clearly isn't operating at a suitable level of efficiency at present.


You still havent responded to the fact that many people are addicted to drugs and alcohol, part of the root problems that I have continually said need to be addressed

Given the vast majority of drugs are psychologically addictive rather than physically addictive I don't see it as a huge problem. There are plenty of outreach programs that will deal with such issues during lengthy rehabilitation.


You havent presented any evidence that show it will do any good, other than your assumptions that putting people a mental attack will cause a "state change". You havent shown this will make people compliant, but just claim it will.

I'm fairly sure at no point in the entire thread have I said the words 'mental attack'. The point of a short period of SC would be to make the individual more compliant (due to social deprivation) to vigorous neuro-linguistic programming. Yes, certainly not an approach that could be used with all cases, but with testing might prove to be more effective than current methods (or lack of) if employed with a robust rehabilitation problem in place as well. Principally I'd propose trying it with low level non violent criminal offenders. The problem with putting criminals together is that it puts people in the position of 'them and us' and takes the onus off the individual to face up to their own actions, and at the same time acknowledge their ability to change.



Of course society requires cooperation, but there is a difference between people realising this through their upbringing and being sent into institutions where they will be mentally deprived and caused to be "broken" in order to come out a functioning member of society (a little like Alex in a clockwork orange perhaps). People dont just commit crime. As I have said time and time again, focussing on why people commit crime and preventing them from doing so is the answer, not techniques which when they have been tried, have proven to be dangerous.

OK and what do you do with people who don't realise? How long do you give someone to come to realise? What if they realize but just don't give a shit anyway? When does it become acceptable for the state to step in an make them realise for the good of society as a whole?

Sure you can tout all the pipe dreams of an ideal world in which people don't commit crime and are fully cognizant of their situation, but that is not the reality of the world. You have to work with reality, not pipe dreams. The present system is broken, it needs addressing. Your proposals are unrealistic, because they are wholly dependent upon a seismic shift in society (which is not going to happen overnight, or tackle the problems of re-offending at the moment). Mine might be a radical suggestion, but it is grounded in an approach. Also again I'll repeat show me the report that shows that a weeks worth of SC is dangerous.


You clearly havent read my arguments. My whole point is that anti-social behaviour can be tackled, by helping remove the things that create this behaviour. Also, I have yet to see you present a single source. if linking to websites that provide evidence to support an argument is "hero worship" then perhaps you should do more of it, since the whole time you have made unsupported assertions.

Your argument is society needs to change (nothing original there). All very admirable but where do we start and how? And more importantly how do we fund it realistically? (Show me the Money Lebowski, show me the money!! ) Again I'm working with what is (a failing system with chronic over crowding, and how to address present levels of re-offending) and you're working with nebulous ideals as to a perfect world, with no actual clue as to how you'd reach it from the here and now.


How petty. I'd rather not argue with someone who uses such immature rhetoric. I haven't once said that material possessions are the key to life, nor that the rioters did not act of their own volition.

Merely cutting to the chase. You're intentions are admirable, but your grasp on reality is shoddy at best. Maybe when you've grown up and seen a bit of the world in all it's glory you'll realize that sometimes a bit of measured discipline is required to achieve results. Everyday, every minute, every second people have the capacity to change the direction of their lives through their decision making and their choices. They might not necessarily be able to get themselves a job, but the means are there to people to improve their prospects through education and learning (school, colleges, night classes, etc, etc) and make themselves more employable. Instead people choose not to.

GraveyardJimmy
13-08-2011, 05:46 PM
No prison is an attempt to reform criminals, which clearly isn't operating at a suitable level of efficiency at present.

I'm not sure I agree. If prison is meant to be a deterrent as you wish it, then it is a form of punishment. You say it should be (and so do politicians) an unpleasant experience, therefore a punishment.




Given the vast majority of drugs are psychologically addictive rather than physically addictive I don't see it as a huge problem. There are plenty of outreach programs that will deal with such issues during lengthy rehabilitation.
Its not a problem is not an answer. Drugs are a huge cause for crime in communities, such as the growth of crime and burglaries after the prohibition of heroin. Sure they may come off it in prison, but many prisoners and addicts go back to the same situation afterwards and re-obtain drugs. This is a problem that fuels recommitting crimes, one of the areas that needs to be examined (and not necessarily by more "war on drugs", prohibition always creates and funds a black market through criminal activities)




I'm fairly sure at no point in the entire thread have I said the words 'mental attack'. The point of a short period of SC would be to make the individual more compliant (due to social deprivation) to vigorous neuro-linguistic programming. Yes, certainly not an approach that could be used with all cases, but with testing might prove to be more effective than current methods (or lack of) if employed with a robust rehabilitation problem in place as well. Principally I'd propose trying it with low level non violent criminal offenders.

You may not have said mental attack, but that is the opinion of the psychologists who are involved. I'm sure they are far more qualified than you to have a view on the matter. Still waiting for you to back you assertions up.


The problem with putting criminals together is that it puts people in the position of 'them and us' and takes the onus off the individual to face up to their own actions, and at the same time acknowledge their ability to change.

This is why many judges and those involved with the prisons see prision sentences as futile, especially for low-level offenders that you suggest should be put through this process. Using punishments which are suggested to be the most cruel and unusual aside from the death penalty is clearly not going to make people feel part of society. You will call this naysaying, but I still wait a source from you.





OK and what do you do with people who don't realise? How long do you give someone to come to realise? What if they realize but just don't give a shit anyway? When does it become acceptable for the state to step in an make them realise for the good of society as a whole?
I havent said to abolish prisons. I have said that there needs to be a focus on both prevention and rehabilitation, not an attempt ot overfill prisons or use untested techniques which have in other situations been harmful.



Sure you can tout all the pipe dreams of an ideal world in which people don't commit crime and are fully cognizant of their situation, but that is not the reality of the world. You have to work with reality, not pipe dreams. The present system is broken, it needs addressing. Your proposals are unrealistic, because they are wholly dependent upon a seismic shift in society (which is not going to happen overnight, or tackle the problems of re-offending at the moment). Mine might be a radical suggestion, but it is grounded in an approach.
Its not a complete seismic shift. Groups are out there doing great work at tackling problems, yet the judicial system is still intent on pushing people into overfilled prisons, which is clearly not working. Your "grounded in an approach" is an approach that when implemented in a different way in the USA has been unsuccessful, and suggesting a technique which psychologists say creates mental problems including paranoia and aggression, two problems already in the prison system, is not a sensible idea.


Also again I'll repeat show me the report that shows that a weeks worth of SC is dangerous.

Show me a single source that backs up your position. I have given you multiple sources that show its use has been dangerous in the long term.




Your argument is society needs to change (nothing original there). All very admirable but where do we start and how? And more importantly how do we fund it realistically? (Show me the Money Lebowski, show me the money!! ) Again I'm working with what is (a failing system with chronic over crowding, and how to address present levels of re-offending) and you're working with nebulous ideals as to a perfect world, with no actual clue as to how you'd reach it from the here and now.

There are many areas to start in- the closure of youth centres certainly doesnt help youth crime, many outreach projects have been successful along with working with young people. Huge amounts of money are wasted each year on putting offenders in prison who really shouldnt be there (according to the judges and prison wardens involved). Large amounts of money are spent on a war on drugs, a problem which has created its own cause of crime and huge resource drain. There are also large amounts of money pushed into having police "on the beat" a tactic that high level commissioners say is worthless. The moeny from these areas could be put better to use in social programs and preventative policing. Once again I refer you to Sweden, where society is less emphasised on punishment, but on preventing and rehabilitating crime.




Merely cutting to the chase. No, merely trying to make an ad hominem.
You're intentions are admirable, but your grasp on reality is shoddy at best. Coming from someone who thinks he can argue without factual evidence.
Maybe when you've grown up and seen a bit of the world in all it's glory you'll realize that sometimes a bit of measured discipline is required to achieve results. Everyday, every minute, every second people have the capacity to change the direction of their lives through their decision making and their choices. They might not necessarily be able to get themselves a job, but the means are there to people to improve their prospects through education and learning (school, colleges, night classes, etc, etc) and make themselves more employable. Instead people choose not to.

Again, I haven't said that people have no agency. Once again you try to be patronising using the old "I've seen the world line". People will commit crime and once again I have said- if you want to reduce crime, reduce the causes of crime. This is common sense. Countries with low crime rates and low re-offending rates focus on rehabilitation and attacking the causes of crime.

Kadayi
13-08-2011, 07:02 PM
I'm fairly sure most of society things that those who knowingly do wrong, deserve to be punished in some form. It is you who refuse to believe a person should be held accountable for their actions.

I don't hold to existing drugs legislation. I'm against prohibition. Present illegality fuels criminal activity, and there in lies the root of many problems. However the repeal of existing drug laws is frankly a different topic Vs how to improve the prison system*. Again sure it would be great if we lived in some utopian ideal, but we don't.

Contrary to what you claim no one has implemented the sort of proposal I have. And there is I repeat no evidence that you've provided to support your assertions of likely impact, given the proposition is for a much shorter period than those deployed in the reports you've cited.

I can hardly proffer a report on the success/failure of something doesn't exist or has been tried. Human history is build on trial. You run a pilot program and gauge the results.

Sweden as a whole has a higher crime rate than London (151 offences/1000 inhabitants Vs 111 per 1000 of the population judging by Wikipedia) Citing its lighter approach as the way to go seems counter productive given the intention is to reduce re-offending. Either there are far more criminals per 1000 people in Sweden, or re-offending is actually more common place.



*On principal I'm against drug prohibition, because it does fuel a multitude of sins (petty crime, prostitution, etc, etc), however at the same time when you read real life drug fueled horror stories like this: -

http://www.turnto23.com/east_county/19473681/detail.html

You have to ask yourself would making certain drugs freely available would do more harm to society than good.

GraveyardJimmy
13-08-2011, 07:09 PM
I'm fairly sure most of society things that those who knowingly do wrong, deserve to be punished in some form. It is you who refuse to believe a person should be held accountable for their actions.

Again, misrepresenting my position. I havent said that so dont need to respond.



I don't hold to existing drugs legislation. I'm against prohibition. Present illegality fuels criminal activity, and there in lies the root of many problems. However the repeal of existing drug laws is frankly a different topic Vs how to improve the prison system. Again sure it would be great if we lived in some utopian ideal, but we don't.

Obviously this is a different topic but at least there is some common ground!


Contrary to what you claim no one has implemented the sort of proposal I have. And there is I repeat no evidence that you've provided to to support assertions of likely impact, given the proposition is for a much shorter period than those deployed in the reports you've cited.

I can hardly proffer a report on the success/failure of something doesn't exist or has been tried. Human history is build on trial. You run a pilot program and gauge the results.

Ok, so you are proposing something without any evidence to proffer as to why it might work or even if it would.



Sweden as a whole has a higher crime rate than London (151 offences/1000 inhabitants Vs 111 per 1000 of the population judging by Wikipedia) Citing its lighter approach as the way to go seems counter productive given the intention is to reduce re-offending. Either there are far more criminals per 1000 people in Sweden, or re-offending is actually more common place.
Here is evidence showing the rate is dropping and under 60%, 20% lower than the UK. It is also dropping due to proposals such as mine- courses to help people off drug abuse, rehabilitating people who come into prison. This also supports the idea that drug addiction is a major problem that needs to be tackeled, rather than simply an unwillingness to be part of society that needs mental therapy.
http://www.thelocal.se/14064/20080901/

Kadayi
13-08-2011, 08:12 PM
Given you've radically reinterpreted what I've said innumerable times ('mental attack' being the classic) I hardly think your in any position to criticize. You clearly seem to feel that society is the bigger culprit in things, rather than the individual themselves, and that prisons are somehow a punishment. Even Tei pointed out the fallacy in that line of thinking.

As I said I'm against drug legislation, but at the same time people do crazy things on drugs (we certainly did back in the day), and there is an issue as regards to whether legalization would be more of a bane Vs a benefit given that its all too easy with for people to lose sight of reality when they hit a point of psychosis. The detrimental effects of drugs are simply not confined to their illegality, but also how they impact the individual in terms of functionality and capability within society. The problem is unfortunately that many hard drugs are extremely debilitating in this respect because the individual needs to maintain the 'high' on an increasing basis (crack cocaine, Methamphetamine) Vs more casual drugs (Canabis, MDMA) where in the user can self regulate consumption.

Evidence? Investigate transactional analysis and Neuro linguistic Programming. They've been around a while.

Based on the report you cite, there's only an 8% drop in criminal recidivism for those drug dependent criminals (who represent 60% of criminals) who undertook the drug rehabilitation program Vs those who didn't (58% Vs 50%). However that still doesn't explain why there's more crime in Sweden per 1000 Citizens than in London.

CuriousOrange
13-08-2011, 08:28 PM
Prison is an attempt to punish people, and eject them from society because you don't want to deal with the problem.

Society is the bigger problem, reacting to problems doesn't stop them from happening at all, sending people to prison makes them better criminals. My friend works with someone on a scheme to get him back into work from prison. He's a nice guy really who had no other option than to keep recommitting and getting put back in prison. It's only rehabilitation, not punishment that has helped him get back into society.

If you just talk to people reasonably, you find out they usually have good reasons for what they have done. Usually lack of education and thinking there is no alternative.

Quirk
13-08-2011, 08:35 PM
So, let's talk about the underclass. We call them neds up here, rather than chavs, but the principle remains the same. Firstly, it needs to be pointed out that being poor is not what causes people to call them chavs. Plenty of homeless people wouldn't qualify. The word is used to describe a particular way of speaking, of dressing, and particularly of acting: a subculture.

We have a reasonably good education system in the UK. If you have some talent and stick in and work, you can go pretty far. The huge tuition fees kerfuffle is mostly a red herring: the point at which you start having to pay back the debts is when you have a yearly income of £21,000, and you have to pay back just 9% of the excess earnings over £21,000 per year. If you were earning £25,000 p.a., slightly greater than the median wage, that's just £30 per month. After 30 years, your loan gets written off. Given the impact on earnings a university education has, getting one is a no-brainer. You're pretty much guaranteed to be better off as things stand.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/EducationAndLearning/UniversityAndHigherEducation/StudentFinance/DG_194804

(The government gets flak for completely the wrong reasons about tuition fees. They markedly raised the threshold for repayment at the time the fees went up, and the fees are very much a tax on the well-educated rich. The real problem with the way they're doing things is that they face a major shortfall from people unable to eventually repay the loans, which will need to be covered somehow.)

It's possible to dig yourself out of the underclass through education, then, and people do. It's possible to remove the perceived taint of the underclass culture from the way you dress, learn the etiquette of wider society, even lose the accent of the deprived areas. All these things are possible - and so, many people view it as justified to scorn those who are left, who have not bettered themselves, who remain ignorant and antisocial. After all, haven't they chosen the path they have?

For most of them it is not a choice. The education in a rough inner-city school is not on a par with that of a genteel suburban school. Only the most hard-working and dedicated rise from these places. At home, it is unlikely their parents teach them to value education; and they will grow up in turn to pass that apathy on to their own children. Without the help of the state their lives would be even more miserable than they already are. Some of them do find ways to eke out more benefits than they are strictly entitled to, though the practice is not as widespread as it is sometimes reported to be. They are products of their environment, and should not be despised for being such.

Fifty years ago, many of them would have found work in factories or mines or shipyards. The world is changing. There are now progressively few jobs for the illiterate and unskilled, and relatively little effort is made to teach them skills within their capabilities that are not academic ones. Bunging them cash to keep them quiet solves none of the long-term problems, indeed plays a part in creating a culture that is a long-term problem in itself - but leaving people to starve is worse, and there are no simple easy solutions that don't introduce more problems still.

Many of the people who're rioting are ignorant, even stupid, are greedy and thoughtless and callous. They aren't making a coherent political protest because they aren't equipped to understand the complexities of the politics. Most of them are the product however of dead-end areas, born into a poverty trap which could only be escaped through academic brilliance or a work ethic they were never taught, enticed by a society that offers every kind of material good to those who can afford it. One of the main political parties doesn't really give a damn whether they live or die, the other just forks over money and hopes it keeps them quiet. If we throw them all into jail, does it solve anything?

How do you find jobs for people from the sink estates that give them something they can take satisfaction in? How do you make them feel they matter to society? One thing that is apparent is that the geographical concentration of poverty leads to problems increasing. Once poverty's set in within a particular area, perhaps a former seat of a now historical industry, how do you banish it? And once you've found reasonable answers to the above, how do you force them through the rough and tumble of political discourse, enemy to all subtle solutions? I wish I knew.

Alex Bakke
13-08-2011, 10:45 PM
WOoooooooooooooooah that was a good post.

Xercies
13-08-2011, 11:39 PM
All i know, i don't think the major political parties are going to really do anything about it significantly.

Tei
14-08-2011, 12:54 AM
How do you find jobs for people from the sink estates that give them something they can take satisfaction in?


you can create new jobs, maybe opening a factory nearby



How do you make them feel they matter to society?


Do I matter in my society? (no). You can offer then role models. People from his culture that succeed and is influential.



One thing that is apparent is that the geographical concentration of poverty leads to problems increasing. Once poverty's set in within a particular area, perhaps a former seat of a now historical industry, how do you banish it?


Turn the area in a high-value area, so the rich people move there and the poor people must move elsewhere.
New Detroit!.



And once you've found reasonable answers to the above, how do you force them through the rough and tumble of political discourse, enemy to all subtle solutions? I wish I knew.

This is another problem we have to solve, and we can't delay it anymore. Maybe this is the problem we have to solve. Next to not really having leaders, but leechers.

I will be a very bad idea to not disband this chav culture.

icupnimpn2
14-08-2011, 03:37 AM
you can create new jobs, maybe opening a factory nearby

The reason that factory isn't there is because labor is cheaper in China. If having a factory there would be good for business, the old factory never would have closed. Should the government subsidize a factory nearby if the economics don't work out? What is the best way to placate the masses?

soldant
14-08-2011, 07:39 AM
Meanwhile, in the colonies, Australian media (well, mostly commentators and readers on The Drum site on the ABC) are beating it up like a glorious leftist revolt to overthrow the wealthy elite and bring personal responsibility back to the capitalists... while also completely absolving "the disadvantaged" of any kind of personal responsibility in the process, where "disadvantaged" means anybody who earns less than somebody else apparently.

Obviously I don't live over there so I can only comment as an outsider, but it seems to me that this entire thing is being over-inflated as some sort of great triumph for the left (with some people even claiming it's on par with Libya and shows the slow downfall of the West) and that these people are going to bring about reforms. But I'm not seeing it at all, I'm not seeing any sort of real motivation except greed and perhaps boredom, neither of which are a great excuse to go rioting. I've also read articles and comments (not here but in Australian media) that this kind of rioting is okay because the people who "caused the GFC" and Murdoch weren't held personally accountable for... well, everything bad that's ever happened.

Whether or not you agree with the near-endless analysing, and whether you think it's the symptom of a greater problem of the uneducated class or just bored people looking for an excuse to be violent, I seriously don't think that there's any justification for the rioting to go on for as long as it did. It seems a bit hypocritical to attempt to absolve these people of personal responsibility and then demand that personal responsibility be applied to a different class because it suits your purposes. Personal responsibility should apply for all, but it seems like the "riot apologists" over here are intent on skewing it to the "capitalist elite" side such that anybody who isn't part of that group isn't responsible for anything. I'd be very surprised if any of the rioters even know nor care about the problems so many people are dredging up, but now that the media is making a point of it, of course they're going to latch onto it and claim that it's the fault of the establishment or capitalists or anybody else.



It also reminds me a bit of the Cronulla riots back in 2005... I wonder if they'd try to explore the underlying issues for that and absolving people of personal responsibility? Oh no wait, it's just easier to call the rioters racist and blame them for it.

Xercies
14-08-2011, 11:12 AM
While over in America Fox News is blaming our social welfare culture for this problem.

Tei
14-08-2011, 03:05 PM
The reason that factory isn't there is because labor is cheaper in China. If having a factory there would be good for business, the old factory never would have closed. Should the government subsidize a factory nearby if the economics don't work out? What is the best way to placate the masses?

I will cost us money anyway. Maybe put a barrier on China products, since seems that China is breaking the rules with slave labor.

Ergates
14-08-2011, 11:31 PM
While over in America Fox News is blaming our social welfare culture for this problem.
If a meteorite hit London they'd blame it on our social welfare culture.