Rioting in London?

[Bakustra]

Being criticised by them from the left would probably have made Mrs Thatcher second-guess herself.

Criticising legal tax avoidance might conceivably be characterised as left wing, but criticism of excess and outright pillaging by politicians is in no way a left-wing viewpoint. Rather, socialists and communists are all for the party leadership and faithful getting special luxuries and privilidges; a signature feature of both the USSR and increasingly the EU. The massive all-powerful state apparatus advocated by the left wing inevitably gets exploited by elites as a way to maintain their lifestyles.

Hahaha you think that the EU is socialist- you're so incredibly ignorant about political systems it is possible that things become wrong just because you say them.

PS: Anarchists, anarcho-syndicalists, and other anti-statist groups are still part of the left wing, but again you're too ignorant to understand that.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I just found this gem on Facebook:

THE RIOTERS PRAYER:
Our father,
Who art in prison,
My mum knows not his name,
Thy riots come,
Read it in the Sun,
In Birmingham,
as it is in London.
Give us this day our welfare bread
And forgive us our looting,
As we're happy to loot those
Who defend stuff against us,
Lead us not into employment;
But deliver us free housing,
For thine are the teles,
The burberry,
And the bacardi
Forever and ever...innit!

[K. A. Pital]

Criticising legal tax avoidance might conceivably be characterised as left wing, but criticism of excess and outright pillaging by politicians is in no way a left-wing viewpoint. Rather, socialists and communists are all for the party leadership and faithful getting special luxuries and privilidges; a signature feature of both the USSR and increasingly the EU. The massive all-powerful state apparatus advocated by the left wing inevitably gets exploited by elites as a way to maintain their lifestyles.

You mean the partocrats, of course. Radical socialists cringe when they see partocrats having "special luxuries" and "priviliges".

When I see a Hummer H2 in the streets of Pyongyang, DPRK, I want the person driving it dead. Same goes for other nations, though. It doesn't matter who and where has obscene privileges and luxuries, even if he calls himself a "socialist".

[Zaune]

I don't think the luxuries and special privileges are a major problem in an of themselves, as long as they aren't having a negative impact on the majority. Partocracy at the level of Party leaders being able to requisition a fancy car with a Blaupunkt and really crappy fuel consumption may not be right, but it's an apparently ineradicable facet of human nature and in the grand scheme of things, it's just a damn car.
No, it's when the special privileges come at the expense of basic necessities like healthcare, transport infrastructure and affordable housing for the majority that there's a major problem.

Oh, and here's some more on Bill Bratton. And I could have sworn the post of police commissioner had to be filled by a serving officer, not just a UK national.

[K. A. Pital]

I don't think behaving like a fucking ape is "human nature". Humans are more intelligent than apes and more is expected of them.

Fucktards who drive luxury cars while children are still starving in the world - no matter where they may drive or park their fucking Hummers - should suffer the fate they say is merely "bad luck" for others.

Luxury consumption ALWAYS comes at the cost of necessary consumption. One luxury car made is two or ten less ordinary cars made. One luxury yacht made is one less multi-deck passenger ship made. Costs and industrial resources wasted - in man-hours, in materials - are the same for both.

If you speak out against luxuries only when that feels "right" and not on principle, you are a hypocrite.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed - said Eisenhower. Every luxury yacht built and every Hummer built for a rich fucktard represents the same, in the final sense.

[Starglider]

When I see a Hummer H2 in the streets of Pyongyang, DPRK, I want the person driving it dead.

There is a qualitative difference between luxury consumption that directly results in lack of vital necessities i.e. peasants starving to death, and luxury consumption that merely results in an uneven distribution of standard of living. It is quite clear that you are not using naive utilitarianism anyway, as you are happy to pronounce a death sentence on people for the crime of driving a nice car*, rather than merely saying that they should have the same wealth as everyone else. It is interesting that you seem to have a concept of 'because they deserved it' for punishment but not rewards.

* Admittedly the majority of this specific population, senior party members of the DPRK, are directly complicit in murderous state oppression. Even so the soft Western Left generally objects to the death penalty whatever the crime, although real communist states invariably employ it in abundence against enemies of the state.

[Simon_Jester]

I agree with a bit of what Starglider said- the existence of individuals who have luxury within reason in a society where, say, all people within a five hundred kilometer radius are living under acceptable conditions isn't such an affront.

To make Stas happy we would need global levelling of wealth. I cannot imagine any system of government or policy which could make this work, and as long as it doesn't exist, abolishing luxuries in rich nations can't guarantee acceptable living conditions in poor nations.

You can certainly make a case for the grotesque nature of certain conspicuous luxury products like civilian Hummers, and justly criticize them on that basis, but abolishing them wouldn't abolish poverty in the Third World because we don't have a world government and neither the rich nor the poor nations really want one.

[Big Orange]

So David Cameron wants to go after the London gangs, when it was a police anti-gang operation that sparked the disturbances to begin with?!

[Chirios]

So David Cameron wants to go after the London gangs, when it was a police anti-gang operation that sparked the disturbances to begin with?!

It was a variety of circumstances that sparked the disturbances. The decades of institutional racism, the decades of poverty, the decades of anti-police sentiment, greed, lost opportunity, bad schools, drug problems etc. I remember being young and having my elders tell me that I can't talk to the police about anything because they're racist and they'll arrest me. The problem is that this issue is complex, you can't just say: it's the cops, or it's the kids. There are so many issues here that it'll take years to properly unravel the whole thing. Don't get me wrong, most of the people who were looting were just there to get free shit, but the fact is that areas like Brixton, Tottenham, the East End of London have had problems which have existed for years. Saying that all we need to do is beat up the criminals is simply wrong.

[Edward Yee]

Isn't that pretty much why you had Mr. Bratton (assuming he ends up with no official title) "can't just arrest our way out of this," because it seems like "the obvious" -- crackdowns have to be accompanied by long-term dealing with "root causes" and are not an adequate substitute -- isn't very obvious to the government?

[Broomstick]

Part of the problem is that people want an easy answer and a quick fix - and neither will work for what's really wrong. It took years to get into the hole, there are many factors at work, and it's going to take time and money to climb out. It's also going to take doing things that are either not obvious, don't have an immediate payoff, and in some cases doing stuff on the public dime for people who really are unpleasant or even disgusting.

[Hillary]

So David Cameron wants to go after the London gangs, when it was a police anti-gang operation that sparked the disturbances to begin with?!

It was a variety of circumstances that sparked the disturbances. The decades of institutional racism, the decades of poverty, the decades of anti-police sentiment, greed, lost opportunity, bad schools, drug problems etc. I remember being young and having my elders tell me that I can't talk to the police about anything because they're racist and they'll arrest me. The problem is that this issue is complex, you can't just say: it's the cops, or it's the kids. There are so many issues here that it'll take years to properly unravel the whole thing. Don't get me wrong, most of the people who were looting were just there to get free shit, but the fact is that areas like Brixton, Tottenham, the East End of London have had problems which have existed for years. Saying that all we need to do is beat up the criminals is simply wrong.

Indeed - Blaming the police is being just as simplistic as Cameron's blame the gangs.

This is a problem that has been 30 years in the making. The Thatcher government started to bring in policies that were aimed at individual achievement rather than societal good. This has continued ever since, regardless of which party has been power. The famous quote of Thatcher ("there is no such thing as society") rather sums up the attitude.

The whole focus on individual achievement above common good led us into the Gordon Gekko "greed is good" mantra and the "every man for himself" belief system. Whereas people have alway been poor, they had support structures around them (mostly family, but also social welfare) and a keen sense that they were part of the community in which they lived, even if they had no work. That is now all gone for the least well-off.

Instead, the poor are routinely branded as lazy and parasites, they are denied decent schooling, good job opportunities, proper social support from the state and decent quality housing (not helped by the sell off of the best council house stock in the 1980s). Unsurprisingly, teenage pregnancies increase leading to a a new generation of kids being brought up by under-educated, immature parents (often only one parent at that) who are little more than children themselves. This new generation stands little chance - being brought up by parents who have no idea how to parent, getting no support through school, being actively discouraged from higher education (even if they have any aptitude) and then repeating the cycle with their own kids.

This is not to say that individuals cannot rise from this and make a success of their lives - it happens - but far, far more will fail, as they have done. Hence we now have an underclass who really care nothing for the communities they live in. This has been apparent for years, but the politicians could largely ignore it (the odd case, like Damilola Taylor raises the issue briefly but it soon subsides after a bit of hand-wringing and chest thumping) - now they are acting surprised when it all kicks off.

There is simply not a quick fix here. We need to change our view of what society/community is. We need to bring back some form of compassion for others and we need to arrest the gap between rich and poor which continues to accelerate away. Unfortunately, I don't think there is an appetite from the general public to do these things. They are more in favour of solutions that would be chosen by a military dictator. National Service, bring in the army, shut down the internet. It's all rather depressing.

[K. A. Pital]

There is a qualitative difference between luxury consumption that directly results in lack of vital necessities i.e. peasants starving to death, and luxury consumption that merely results in an uneven distribution of standard of living. It is quite clear that you are not using naive utilitarianism anyway, as you are happy to pronounce a death sentence on people for the crime of driving a nice car*, rather than merely saying that they should have the same wealth as everyone else. It is interesting that you seem to have a concept of 'because they deserved it' for punishment but not rewards.

* Admittedly the majority of this specific population, senior party members of the DPRK, are directly complicit in murderous state oppression. Even so the soft Western Left generally objects to the death penalty whatever the crime, although real communist states invariably employ it in abundence against enemies of the state.

One: this is a feeling. If I were planning punishment, I would create a scientific basis for evaluating utilitarian harm. Obviously anything that leads to death by neglience should carry the threat of death to the perpetrator as well. Two: the soft Western Left may cringe at the death penalty, it is not as if I care or I'd change my own position simply because someone says so; what they fail to understand is that poorer nations simply do not have the luxury of ignoring a tool like the death penalty. I have been consistently advocating the death penalty only for serial murderers who have commited murder not once, but twice or thrice (obviously crimes separated by a time interval, a singular crime doesn't lead to DP no matter how many one kills) - making a setup or forgery of evidence or simple error virtually impossible.

Please spare me from explaining that neither the DPRK partocrats nor any of the Third World oligarchs deserve any "rewards" for their evil acts and their mere existence offends any person who is not completely heartless.

And "rewards"? What sort of bullshit is that? Evil carries punishment, but "success" does not mean a moral good. You can achieve success (and thus expect a 'reward') and be a morally hideous creature anyway. "Rewards" that do not impact the standard of living of others, and especially the poor, are not the same as "rewards" that actually do impact said standard of living.

[Starglider]

To make Stas happy we would need global levelling of wealth. I cannot imagine any system of government or policy which could make this work, and as long as it doesn't exist, abolishing luxuries in rich nations can't guarantee acceptable living conditions in poor nations.

Indeed. I was just at a social evening in central London, nine tech and marketing guys making 100-250K GBP/year. I was actually thinking of Stas when I asked 'so who donates to charity?' and 'don't you feel a moral requirement to help starving Africans?'. Two people regularly donnated to animal welfare charities (one of whom was me) and one donated to a UK children's charity. I was suprised how rapidly a consensus on starving Africans was reached; 'no amount of money we could donate would make any difference, we have been sending millions there for decades and nothing is solved, there are more starving Ethiopians than ever, so it's pointless'. Later on there was broard consensus that '1 million GBP cash savings is already not enough to retire on if you want to keep a decent standard of living', which I found a little surprising.

[Simon_Jester]

Much may depend on the definition of a decent standard of living there, I'd think- although it's already an accepted consensus for a million US dollars.

That'll keep you alive at some vaguely reasonable income for quite a while, but you're living rather minimally and there's certainly not a lot of luxury room for vacations or even moderately expensive hobbies. It's also not going to do you a lot of good if it starts requiring expensive medical treatment to keep you alive.

[Broomstick]

That's why I've always said the best retirement plan is to stay as healthy as possible as long as possible. The rest of it just makes you more comfortable.

[Simon_Jester]

Being able to pay for vacations and stuff is really nice, though, and I think that's included in the plans of a lot of these people. They don't just want to stay alive, they want to be able to do all the things they now have money (but not time) to do... and that costs a lot more.

[Broomstick]

Understood - however, travel and all those other things are also easier when you're healthy.

[mr friendly guy]

tough justice

British prime minister David Cameron backed tough sentences for rioters after campaigners raised concerns about two men jailed for four years each for trying to organise unrest on Facebook.

The sentences given to Jordan Blackshaw, 20, from Cheshire, and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, from Warrington, both in north-west England, were the toughest so far following four frenzied nights of violence in England last week.

Prosecutors said the men's online incitement to riot last Tuesday caused "significant panic and revulsion", even though no-one responded, because they were on the same night as violence erupted in the nearby city of Manchester.

During a visit to Cheshire, north-west England, Mr Cameron backed the sentence, saying: "What happened on our streets was absolutely appalling behaviour and to send a very clear message that it's wrong and won't be tolerated is what the criminal justice system should be doing".

But justice campaigners and defence lawyers said the punishment was not in proportion to the crime, and urged the courts not to overreact as they struggle to process almost 1,200 people charged over Britain's worst unrest for decades.

"The rush to send a message out is leading to some very bad sentences, which will be overturned on appeal," said Andrew Neilson, director of campaigns for the Howard League for Penal Reform.

He said it was "understandable" that the riots be treated as an "aggravating factor", but added: "In the Facebook case we're talking about four years' jail which would normally be associated with serious and violent offences."

The sentences compare with typical punishments of four years for robbing someone with a weapon.

The sentencing debate comes as Prince Charles met families left homeless by the London riots, with some Tottenham locals pleading for funds to help drag wayward youngsters away from trouble.

Blackshaw and Sutcliffe-Keenan, who do not know each other, both pleaded guilty to intentionally encouraging another person to assist the commission of an indictable offence, and were sentenced at Chester Crown Court on Tuesday.

Blackshaw had set up a Facebook page entitled "Smash Down Northwich Town", which encouraged people to gather "behind maccies" - believed to be the McDonald's restaurant in Northwich town centre - last Tuesday.

Only the police turned up, however, and he was promptly arrested.

Sutcliffe-Keenan's creation, "Let's Have a Riot in Latchford", called for people to riot the following day. The court heard he had been drinking, and when he awoke with a hangover the next morning, he removed the page and apologised.

But prosecutor Martin McRobb said the pages created "significant panic and revulsion" among local people.

Jailed over bottled water

Audio: Lengthy jail sentences for inciting riots sparks criticism (AM)

Other cases have indicated the courts are taking into consideration Mr Cameron's earlier call for those responsible to be jailed.

Last week, a 23-year-old student with no previous convictions was jailed for six months for stealing bottled water from a supermarket in Brixton, south London.

Media outlets said the stolen bottled water was worth 3.50 pounds ($5.78).

And on Wednesday, a 17-year-old who posted a Facebook message saying "come on rioters" was banned from social networking sites for 12 months, subjected to a three-month overnight curfew and ordered to do 120 hours community service.

At Manchester Crown Court on Tuesday, judge Andrew Gilbart handed down tough sentences to three looters, saying "outbursts" of criminal behaviour "must be met with sentences longer" than if they were committed in isolation.

Criminal defence barrister Paul Mendelle said some people must be imprisoned over the riots, but there were clear guidelines which must be followed.

"It appears the courts are being urged to ignore those guidelines and somehow to throw the rule book out of the window, and ramp up sentences. I find that unsettling and potentially unjust," he told BBC radio.

"It's often said that justice delayed is justice denied, but justice rushed can be justice denied as well."

A spokeswoman for the Judicial Office denied judges had been formally told to increase sentences.
Softer line

But even Mr Cameron's coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, are distancing themselves from his approach.

For less serious crimes, they advocate punishments such as helping to repair riot damage and being forced to meet victims of the disorder.

The Liberal Democrats' softer line on the riots has the potential to split the government.

"Short prison sentences for relatively petty offences go against the Ministry of Justice's own evidence that shows that short prison sentences are very ineffective at reducing reoffending," said Tom Brake, co-chair of the party's committee on home affairs, justice and equalities.

Former Liberal Democrats leader Menzies Campbell stressed the importance of independent judges, saying: "With all due deference to the prime minister, politicians should not be either cheering nor booing in the matter of sentencing."

In London, more than 1,000 people have been charged with crimes connected to the riots, which also spread to the cities of Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham and Bristol.

AFP/Reuters

I am not going to get into the debate whether 4 years is too harsh for organising a riot that failed to get off the ground. However these guys aren't innocent, and trying to play them as "just having a laugh on facebook" (see video from the link) smacks of apologism. Hey its just a laugh, unless you are one of the victims.

[Zaune]

I wasn't going to use the phrase "having a laugh", but it does strike me that four years in prison is a hell of a stiff penalty for being an immature, thoughtless twerp.

Though I suppose that if six months in prison is considered proportionate for the theft of £3.50's worth of bottled water...

[Hillary]

I wasn't going to use the phrase "having a laugh", but it does strike me that four years in prison is a hell of a stiff penalty for being an immature, thoughtless twerp.

Though I suppose that if six months in prison is considered proportionate for the theft of £3.50's worth of bottled water...

So much for independent courts, eh? I really don't understand how these crimes are worse because they took place during a period of unrest. Surely, if anything, that should be a mitigating circumstance. A lot of the looting crimes were clearly spur-of-the-moment acts. Whilst that doesn't make it any easier for the shop owners to take, the actual crime is surely no more serious for being so. Therefore why are the sentences heavier.....unless there is political interference of course. Don't we complain when other countries do this sort of thing?

[mr friendly guy]

Therefore why are the sentences heavier.....unless there is political interference of course. Don't we complain when other countries do this sort of thing?

I heard a joke on line which goes along the lines that the in the latest meeting of the Chinese communist party the item for discussion was that the UK now wants to adopt Chinese style social controlling measures. Followed by laughter.

For years the West has lectured others on human rights, calling for restraint like some generic catch call when some other country has similar problem. I wonder how British diplomats feel having Iran giving them a taste of their own diplomatic medicine. I wonder how they feel knowing that when push comes to shove they adopt some of the same measures or call for the same measures repressive regimes use.

[Teebs]

So much for independent courts, eh? I really don't understand how these crimes are worse because they took place during a period of unrest. Surely, if anything, that should be a mitigating circumstance. A lot of the looting crimes were clearly spur-of-the-moment acts. Whilst that doesn't make it any easier for the shop owners to take, the actual crime is surely no more serious for being so. Therefore why are the sentences heavier.....unless there is political interference of course. Don't we complain when other countries do this sort of thing?

This court transcript provides an interesting and useful insight into what's going on in the sentencing process for rioters.

[Ryan Thunder]

For years the West has lectured others on human rights, calling for restraint like some generic catch call when some other country has similar problem. I wonder how British diplomats feel having Iran giving them a taste of their own diplomatic medicine.

Iran calling for restraint is like a coke addict telling me off for drinking coffee.

Sorry if I missed it somewhere, but near as I can tell, the system hasn't actually failed to prevent these things from happening yet. So it seems like you're just hyperventilating over possibilities...

[mr friendly guy]

Iran calling for restraint is like a coke addict telling me off for drinking coffee.

Which is one of the reasons why its funny.

Sorry if I missed it somewhere, but near as I can tell, the system hasn't actually failed to prevent these things from happening yet. So it seems like you're just hyperventilating over possibilities...

What things are you referring to? Foreign diplomats dishing it out to the British ones? Because I am not sure if there is a system to prevent diplomats rubbing it in. In light of criticism of the Brits from the US, India, China and Iran (off the top of my head), the rubbing it in has already occurred.

If you are referring to measures the British have done in light of the riots, or say they will do, yes you did miss it somewhere.