Kiffy

Isnt the Carnival one big arrest zone anyway?

Not these days no, it's probably much legalised weed for the weekend in fact. There'll be a few groups going through the crowd mugging as they go, and you do unfortunately get the possibility of some stabbings. But other than that it's all quite good natured and fun.

Alot of the people involved in Carnival are making a big point of saying not to cause trouble there, on the basis it could be the excuse needed to cancel it.

Cops are coming from all over though, tasty overtime wedge, they've get force from newcastle coming all the way down for it.

Freedom of speech doesn't cover intent to create criminal activity, and never did.

And these riots, for the most part, really weren't focused at regime change, moving the status quo, anything like that. I'd have thorouhgly approved of them if they were, but they weren't.

You're right about the economic crisis to come though, will be the eurozone that goes first, once that's gone the dollar busting will just be another part of it. And yeah, it will make the last crash look like nothing.

Of course you're right about peaceful protests acheiving fuck all, but looting jd sports acheives less, and creates an enviroment when a proper uprising is harder to acheive.

This is the main problem with this fucking country, the people angry enough and passionate enough to actually kick off are too retarded to understand what they're fighting for, only what they're fighting against. Most depressing.

Would you not say the countries been too soft on crime the past few years?

In some cases yes, in some cases too harsh, in most no cases no. You have to remember, reasonable sentencing tends not to make as good a headline as "Murderer gets 6 mths!"

And it has been working, crime has been going down, just reporting of crime's stayed at the same hysterical level (as it sells papers) so people assume it's been getting worse. It hasn't.

Collectively the whole thing was a massive crimewave that can't be allowed to happen again. People's untouchable belief is only one aspect of society that needs to change, but it's certainly one we can deal with right now.

See this type of thinking worries me, the idea that the student nicking bottles of water gets six months, as a way of punishing those setting houses on fire, really does scare me. If I squint my eyes I can just about see why the guys trying to organise a riot got so long, bottom line what you're trying to create is a crimewave and for that intent I can see an argument for a very high sentence. But for those on the outskirts, as it were, this all seems a bit much.

Could they not have used the "I was joking," defense? I suggested rioting to various friends on facebook, without any intent to be involved. Or was I just lucky that no-one reported me?

Either way, seems a little draconian.

That sounds like tabloid level bollocks to me to be honest.

Well on the basis there's footage of families taking part in the looting I'd say it's reasonably plausable that there are one or two examples of that or something similar. The tabloid bit comes when a few examples gets repeated as "And the parents were encouraging them," in relation to all the rioters.

Sky News currently showing an interview with four teenagers, involved with the looting, who say they looted because whilst they did want the 'stuff', they also needed the stuff to sell for income because they have no jobs and believe that the state institutions are skewed to help the have's and not the have-not's. They may be anomalous, they may not, but Sky subsequently interviewed Eric Pickles who was happy to say 'no, they're lying.'

 

Whilst nothing can justify attacks, and whilst undoubtedly (like the teacher and the grammar school student) there were those who weren't disaffected, if the government narrative is going to be one that actively ignores the opinions of those involved, and their communities, then we're doomed to repeat this all over again.

 

Scarier still? ...Pickles is the bloody communities minister.

To look at the causes would involve being prepared to address them, addressing them goes against the current government policies, going against government policies is not something the government are prepared to do. Therefore there are no underlying causes, other than pure criminality (which is actually a description, not a cause, but why sweat the small stuff) everyone who did it will be locked up and we'll await the next time it goes and feign surprise once again.

I fucking hate the tories.

And the system is undoubtedly skewed to help the haves more than the have nots, or opportunistic looters and opportunistic expense fiddlers would be facing the same consequences (theft being theft) which they are quite clearly not.

France, Spain, Italy and Belgium ban short-selling on bank shares and shares of other financial institutions...

I spoke to a chap in banking about this when england banned it, his view was that there's a couple of hundred different ways of short selling, of which about 15 had been banned. The problem with this stuff is alot of the times bankers know far more about it than governments, which is why leglislation is so ineffective.

Either way though, it highlights just how close to total collapse the whole thing is, that this sort of fire fighting panicked legislation is.

To give you some idea of the figures involed, the sub prime crisis which caused the last crash was due to a few hundred bilion dollars of toxic stock in the market place. There are currently 3 trillion dollars of italian bonds alone in the market place, that's before you add france spain belgium portugal and greece into the equation. And don't think we wouldn't be afffected, all of our banks have massive exposure to them all through their bond trading arms.

A different focus as well, seriously there's better things to be doing with their time than nicking people for using mobiles in their car.

It's all bollocks though I reckons, for all their noise I've not heard any cops saying their paperworks gone done or is even likely to go down. The paperworks there for a reason, to back up laws and proper procedures and targetting and all that and the government won't scrap all that. Methinks it's a smoke screen while they cut the budget and reduce the numbers, personally.

Naming the streets is a bit harsh, these people have and come from families, who shouldn't be getting this grief. Yes it's in the public domain anyway but a name and a photo would acheive the same thing without bringing people who were not involved into it.

Yeah top man!

 

Real shame what happened & he could easily have inflamed the situation, but he stood up & took charge of the situation, well played sir!

Pretty much the exact opposite approach to the EDL, so yeah he did rather well.

It was actually Smeg who made the analogy that at least the looters were honest. Apologies. EDIT: Although you did allude to the fact that not hiding behind the initial shooting somehow gives the impression that we should empathise with them.

 

 

 

Although that line isn't too great by Kiffy.

I said there's more justification for theft by the poor than by the rich, cos, you know, they have very little. Not that it's ok, just less unreasonable than the rich stealing even more.

I suppose that's ok then. Good old rioters, the salt of the earth; full of honesty, values and transparency.

 

Also, does that make the Manchester/Birmingham/Liverpool rioters a better class of rioter than the London ones then?

Don't be retarded, he's in no way trying to justify the rioters, he's simply pointing out the broader social context it's happening in. And willfully misunderstanding every time he does so to accuse him of saying the rioting is justified is so amazingly counter productive it beggars belief.

I know you said that in your previous post - it was stupid then, and its stupid now. If you think that fiddling a few expenses is equal to completely destroying the homes, businesses and livelyhoods of innocent people then we may as well give up.

They weren't honest either - they originally hid behind the facade of a political protest over the shooting of that bloke. And the very fact that I can't even remember his name, probably sums up that very point.

 

EDIT: Mark Duggan! But it took me a good 35 seconds.

You're making the same mistake as alot do, to describe the rioters as one entity. The more complicated fact is some would genuinely have a real gripe with the police, some were determined only to turn over large companies and ignore small business's, the vast majority were not destroying homes, and some were opportunist criminals who joined in later, some were young stupid kids who had no idea about anything but went along with it for the fun.

Do I think kids turning up, seeing JDsports had had the windows smashed in and went in to grab some stuff for themselves too is comparable to mp's fiddling expenses? Undoubtedly, morally it's the same thing, an opportunity to steal presents itself so you take advantage. In fact, you could make a very good case that there's more reason for it, they're poor in the first place (and yes I know some rich kids did it as well, but the majority were poor kids from poor neighbourhoods) and do without a hell of alot more than politicians do.

Its amazing that people think that you can just "find the money". We had the money. We spent it stupidly. Now we're trying our level best to tighten our belts to get back on our feet. Yes its wank, and its meant that a lot of people have ended up jobless, but there was no other feasable solution. And yes, plenty of politicians are dishonest, but the last time I checked they weren't breaking into Curries for a new flatscreen.

No they were just putting it on expenses when they weren't allowed, same principle, same morality, just an assumption they'd never get in any shit for it. As the letter a few pages back so accurately stated, cameron himself went around messing up small business's back in his teenage years, he just paid for the damage afterwards. Again it's pretty much the same morality, just from someone who's rich enough that spending the money doesn't matter.

As far as finding the money goes, well you don't have to cut the deficit in five years, we weren't close and aren't close to losing our credit rating, they've found the money to vodafone off the best part of

It's amazing how far to the right peoples views have got as this thing goes on, not just on here but on facebook, the fucking guardian website comments have got a shitload of people quoting powell's rivers of blood speech and talking about it being the end for multicultural society (of course the manchester riots being predominantly white is nothing more than a red herring).

It's a disgusting unjustifiable bit of mindless thuggery, no doubt, but anyone trying to look at it in a broader sociological context seems to just get shouted at at the moment, which is really rather disheartening.

Left east ham at 2.00pm today, shops were shutting, teenagers in white masks getting chased by the old bill, and it was quiet, like really strangely quiet, all through the morning. Course having said that dunno if it actually will go off.

Last night looters tried it on in green st by upton park, and got chased out by 100's of asian kids/blokes (fine work).

Hackney council closed at 12.30 today.

London's not fun at the moment at all.

"Create a society that values material things above all else. Strip it of industry. Raise taxes for the poor and reduce them for the rich and for corporations. Prop up failed financial institutions with public money. Ask for more tax, while vastly reducing public services. Put adverts everywhere, regardless of people's ability to afford the things they advertise. Allow the cost of food and housing to eclipse people's ability to pay for them. Light blue touch paper." - Andrew O Neill.

I've been trying very hard to say that on facebook, but that's put it far better than I ever could. Brilliant in fact.

Croydon is terrible, fucking arsonists! Tofu sandwiches and hugs isn't going to solve this.

We're certainly past that point now, but I did say a year ago that cutting funding for things like youth outreach work, to ncy connections, create and various others, in the poorest boroughs in the country, was incredibly fucking shortsighted given the work they do.

Would appear I may have been right.

He's chosen his words very carefully, but this is clearly just the groundwork. Laying the foundations for an attack on worker's rights.

Of course it is. The current regime know fine well that the plans they have for cutting jobs & services will result in widespread anger and trade union action. They have to stop it somehow, and the fact that they are blatantly talking about changing the laws to make it even more difficult to take strike action (despite the UK currently having some of the most undemocratic laws in Europe when it comes to strike action already) shows how they intend to deal with any resistance.

 

Do we expect anything else from the 'Tories and their lapdogs the Lib Dems?

 

Sorry to butt in but I know a guy who's a proper hardcore Tory. Happens to be gay and is a blogger and a member of the LGBTory group. One thing I love is how he goes on about how the Conservative "common sense" agenda is held hostage by the Lib Dems and their "strange whims". He makes them sound like the thin red line.

This would be the tory party that created clause 28, banning the promotion of homosexuality in schools (in essence, banning teachers from sayng it was ok to be gay) and then voted against removing this?

They have a LGBtory group?

Presumably they all get together to get bollocked by anne widdecombe for being filthy and unclean.

Most odd.

As per usual, when you actually read his words, it seems perfectly sensible.

That's a talent nearly all politicians have, unfortunately.

Anyways, the bottom line is clear, if there's too much striking and it makes the governments position untenable, they'll ban striking. And they just told the trade unions that.

Still, all helps ensure they'll be gone at the end of this term, that's about all I like in politics at the moment.

It just seems rather unfair in regards to cigeratte pricing, whereby smokers are penalised a huge amount for no really good reason.

And with alchohol, if you're waking up prices to try and encourage a problematic minority to drink less the population as a whole (most of whome manage to drink without beating up spouses or others with no problem to society as a whole) then you penalise people who've done nothing to deserve it. In addition to the points above that at best you only really tackle the problem amongt the poor.

Essentially alchoholism and domestic abuse and kicking off and such are part of a bigger sociological problem, which changing the price on booze makes no difference too.

I think the domestic abuse link you mentioned proves the point that it should be a more complex issue for governments than unregulated personal choice for all. It's still a personal choice to buy cigarettes when they're

Not entirely what I was saying, as a smoker I repeatedly hear the very misinformed comment that my actions are selfish as they cost the country money and it should be stopped. The response is, do your fucking research, I'm saving it money. Which doesn't mean I'm saying the government should be pro smoking, simply pointing out that the idea smokers cost the country money is bollocks, we actually do quite the opposite, and it's worth pointing out.

Alchohol's a different issue as the issues surrounding it can and do have a negative impact on society, on top of premature deaths and cost to health service and such there's unseen knock on costs. It's very hard to put a financial figure on the damage done by a child seeing his alchoholic father beat shit out of his mother every day, but we can probably all agree the affect it has will probably not be a good one. I do believe (but could be wrong) that the higher level of domestic abuse in scotland is generally considered to go hand in hand with the higher levels of alchohol consumption there.

But even so, it's not the governments job to decide how much we drink, smoke, or indeed snort inject eat or stick up our ass. It's a matter of personal choice, and it's high time legislation started to reflect that.