"Deep inequalities that pertain here"

amjon.

I have been reading a lot of articles about the recent riots across the UK. Most recently this one by Vincent Browne. Those on the left seem to stop short of openly congratulating those who participated in the chaos, while theorising that the route cause of these disturbances was some sort of "inequality". It seems some sort of invisible celestial scales has been knocked out of balance and only these new age Che Guevara's with their broad insight can set it right.

I would really like understand what these new, deep inequalities are that did not exist 10 years ago. What are the causes of these fault lines across society that have simply opened up and swallowed electrical stores whole? What makes the UK "unequal"? People are living longer than ever before, social welfare guards people from poverty, their public health system while not perfect is envied by many, and they seem to be fighting the global recession with more success than the majority of their European counterparts and so on.

It seems to me as society continues to evolve and advance those who do not care, whether through inclination or lack of intelligence or both, invariably get left behind. As the cost of living continues to climb skyward it comes as no surprise that those who posses the will power, work ethic and determination to maintain a career streak ahead from those who do not. There is no doubt in my mind that these two sets of people are not equal. This lack of equality is the basis of human nature, survival of the fittest if you will. It is natural. It is good. It ensures our survival. This so called "inequality" was not the cause of the UK's misfortune last week.

There is another type of inequality festering in British society, that is the cancerous inequality that is eating away at their police forces ability to police. This is the type of inequality that The Guardian so gleefully potentiated last week while tearing shreds out of the police's limp response in the national press.

On the 6th of August the Metropolitan police force were paralysed by fear. This fear did not stem from any burning double decker bus or group of hooded youths. Nor did it stem from a lack of water cannons or plastic bullets. It stemmed from precedent, whereby every time they flex a muscle their officers are unceremoniously paraded in front of inquiries and civil court cases. It happens when they act. It happens when they fail to act. It might just happen when they sneeze. It simply depends what type of furore is kicked up by the press at the time. They just don't know anymore, which is of course the worst fear of all - the fear of the unknown, the fear of the midnight knock on the door.

Stricken and panicked, they made the wrong call for the citizens of London, but made the right call if they were a group of spin doctors’ intent on damage limitation. They could have dealt with these rioters if not on the first night, but certainly on the second with crushingly decisive force. Where was the decisiveness and force they dealt with the student riots or the globalisation protestors? The real inequality that lays at the root cause of last weeks riots was the victimhood that the left and their associated media circus have extended to outwardly aggressive, anti-social, unemployable youth that encompass everything that is wrong about working class western society. How could the police punish these victims?

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I am happy to assume that this cotton gloved victomhood is administered with good intention - not necessarily because I believe in the intrinsic good of those who purport and support these views but more because I am sceptical that we have a collection of diabolical, master mind anarchists that are intent on dissolving society from the ground up. The fact remains that this section of society is effectively unpoliceable, above the law. This is the inequality that was at the root of last weeks riot. This is the inequality that forces them and their social workers to look outwards and not inwards for the source of their disharmony, for by their very definition victims cannot be source of their own misfortune. This is the inequality that imprisons them in glasshouses whereby every attempt to leave is blocked by an invisible glass pane, a condescending look of pity. A construction that they can occasionally spectacularly shatter and leap about until, sedated by their conquests, they skulk back to their bubbling lair of resentment. How can they ever hope to rise above this existence when they are effectively pariahs, victims just like the new born child that is smothered unwittingly by its restlessly slumbering mother. Never has the phrase "...some... are more equal than others" ever been truer, but not for quite the reason Browne et al. would like to have you believe.

Nodin

amjon. wrote: »

...............

On the 6th of August the Metropolitan police force were paralysed by fear. This fear did not stem from any burning double decker bus or group of hooded youths. Nor did it stem from a lack of water cannons or plastic bullets. It stemmed from precedent, whereby every time they flex a muscle their officers are unceremoniously paraded in front of inquiries and civil court cases. It happens when they act. It happens when they fail to act. It might just happen when they sneeze. It simply depends what type of furore is kicked up by the press at the time. They just don't know anymore, which is of course the worst fear of all - the fear of the unknown, the fear of the midnight knock on the door.

.................

Perhaps if they learned to discern between unarmed Brazilians and suicide bombers, peaceful protesters and rioters, reasonable and unreasonable force, they'd sleep better? Just a thought.

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

Perhaps if they learned to discern between unarmed Brazilians and suicide bombers, peaceful protesters and rioters, reasonable and unreasonable force, they'd sleep better? Just a thought.

Personally,I find the constant use of Jean Charles de Menenzes name as an instrument of flagellation with which to lay into the entire Metropolitan Police as displaying all the signs of taking the easy,populist route in attempting to understand the events of last week.

It's the same with crime in general,as even here at home,we see Seanie Fitzpatrick , Michael Fingelton and Bertie Aherne's names all flung out with depressing regularity when an attempt is made to refer to any element of Law Enforcement.

The Metropolitan Police's handling of the de Menenzes case remains a very scary example of what can,and does go wrong when such real-life drama is brought to the stage on a crowded train,bus or in a busy shopping precinct.

I'm unsure as to what level of response,if any,Nodin might wish the perfect Police Force to use in situations such as the Met Officers were involved in during the de Menenzes disaster.

It all smacks of perfect hindsight and an ever present willingness to to believe the absolute worst about any given organization once it fit's a certain broad belief.

For what it's worth to you Amjon,I'll gfive you a thumbs up on your broad assertions....

Nodin

AlekSmart wrote: »

Personally,I find the constant use of Jean Charles de Menenzes name as an instrument of flagellation with which to lay into the entire Metropolitan Police as displaying all the signs of taking the easy,populist route in................

You'd rather Stephen Lawrence, the McPherson report and Ian Tomlinson?

It addresses the general point, which is that the police over there have been under scrutiny over their own misdeeds. That, as far as my understanding of 'Western Democracy' goes, is exactly how it is supposed to be. When the police learn from their errors, both they and the people they are employed to protect will profit by it.

AlekSmart

Nodin wrote: »

You'd rather Stephen Lawrence, the McPherson report and Ian Tomlinson?

It addresses the general point, which is that the police over there have been under scrutiny over their own misdeeds. That, as far as my understanding of 'Western Democracy' goes, is exactly how it is supposed to be. When the police learn from their errors, both they and the people they are employed to protect will profit by it.

Actually I'd rather None of the above,I'd rather that a force of 32,500 policing a population of 7,750,000 had no incidences such as are referred to.

Equally,I'd go so far as to offer an opinion that given the size of the force,the vast area of it's remit and the sheer complexity of the types of policing it is tasked with delivering that Nodin's list is remarkably short,although none the less tragic for that.

What Nodin refers to as the Police learning from it's errors is I would suggest part and parcel of the Met's Management Strategy.

Mind you,Amjon's post suggests,not without foundation,that there's a very fine line between Learning from Errors and being emasculated as an effective Police Force by constant shifting of the goalposts in relation to the very concept of Policing.

Policing,of itself,has to be about ensuring the We,the people,acknowledge,respect and (importantly) Obey the Law.

That acknowledgement of the Law is not always an easy thing to engender in,for example,the motorist parking on a footpath whilst "just nipping in for a paper" etc etc.....The Police Officer dealing with that Driver will doubtless be acused of ignoring "real" criminals such as Seanie Fitzpatrick,Michael Fingleton etc etc.....

On and on it goes with the Police being ever more restricted in methods of effective response to the point where Officers can only look on whilst an elderly man is battered to death for daring to question the disadvantaged yoof laying waste to his home district.

Democracy,be it Western or not,is'nt quite such a simplistic ideal that it can only be used to question the attitudes and ethos of it's proponents.

In this case,there's nothing undemocratic at all about acknowledging the Met's deficiencies but not allowing those to be forever used as the barriers to progress.

Binman11

Nodin wrote: »

You'd rather Stephen Lawrence, the McPherson report and Ian Tomlinson?

It addresses the general point, which is that the police over there have been under scrutiny over their own misdeeds. That, as far as my understanding of 'Western Democracy' goes, is exactly how it is supposed to be. When the police learn from their errors, both they and the people they are employed to protect will profit by it.

Honestly is there a bigger cúnt on any other forum anywhere in the country?

nesf

Binman11 wrote: »

Honestly is there a bigger cúnt on any other forum anywhere in the country?

Actually permabanned as a rereg.

whydoibother?

I think it's interesting that all sorts of people were found to be rioting. There were many in the less well off areas of London, but the papers reported a dental assistant, a straight A A-level student - millionaires daughter from a very good school, an Oxford law graduate on his way back from a job interview at a named organization which I can't remember (wonder if he got the job:eek:), an Olympic ambassador. The papers were focusing on the moral breakdown of society in general. I think that's quite sensationalist. The vast majority of people are good people and did not riot, though if they'd thought about it, they would have quickly realized that the police might have been too stretched to stop them, so it wasn't fear for the most part, it was respect that kept most people out of the riots.

As for those that did, lock them up.

irishh_bob

amjon. wrote: »

I have been reading a lot of articles about the recent riots across the UK. Most recently this one by Vincent Browne. Those on the left seem to stop short of openly congratulating those who participated in the chaos, while theorising that the route cause of these disturbances was some sort of "inequality". It seems some sort of invisible celestial scales has been knocked out of balance and only these new age Che Guevara's with their broad insight can set it right.

I would really like understand what these new, deep inequalities are that did not exist 10 years ago. What are the causes of these fault lines across society that have simply opened up and swallowed electrical stores whole? What makes the UK "unequal"? People are living longer than ever before, social welfare guards people from poverty, their public health system while not perfect is envied by many, and they seem to be fighting the global recession with more success than the majority of their European counterparts and so on.

It seems to me as society continues to evolve and advance those who do not care, whether through inclination or lack of intelligence or both, invariably get left behind. As the cost of living continues to climb skyward it comes as no surprise that those who posses the will power, work ethic and determination to maintain a career streak ahead from those who do not. There is no doubt in my mind that these two sets of people are not equal. This lack of equality is the basis of human nature, survival of the fittest if you will. It is natural. It is good. It ensures our survival. This so called "inequality" was not the cause of the UK's misfortune last week.

There is another type of inequality festering in British society, that is the cancerous inequality that is eating away at their police forces ability to police. This is the type of inequality that The Guardian so gleefully potentiated last week while tearing shreds out of the police's limp response in the national press.

On the 6th of August the Metropolitan police force were paralysed by fear. This fear did not stem from any burning double decker bus or group of hooded youths. Nor did it stem from a lack of water cannons or plastic bullets. It stemmed from precedent, whereby every time they flex a muscle their officers are unceremoniously paraded in front of inquiries and civil court cases. It happens when they act. It happens when they fail to act. It might just happen when they sneeze. It simply depends what type of furore is kicked up by the press at the time. They just don't know anymore, which is of course the worst fear of all - the fear of the unknown, the fear of the midnight knock on the door.

Stricken and panicked, they made the wrong call for the citizens of London, but made the right call if they were a group of spin doctors’ intent on damage limitation. They could have dealt with these rioters if not on the first night, but certainly on the second with crushingly decisive force. Where was the decisiveness and force they dealt with the student riots or the globalisation protestors? The real inequality that lays at the root cause of last weeks riots was the victimhood that the left and their associated media circus have extended to outwardly aggressive, anti-social, unemployable youth that encompass everything that is wrong about working class western society. How could the police punish these victims?

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I am happy to assume that this cotton gloved victomhood is administered with good intention - not necessarily because I believe in the intrinsic good of those who purport and support these views but more because I am sceptical that we have a collection of diabolical, master mind anarchists that are intent on dissolving society from the ground up. The fact remains that this section of society is effectively unpoliceable, above the law. This is the inequality that was at the root of last weeks riot. This is the inequality that forces them and their social workers to look outwards and not inwards for the source of their disharmony, for by their very definition victims cannot be source of their own misfortune. This is the inequality that imprisons them in glasshouses whereby every attempt to leave is blocked by an invisible glass pane, a condescending look of pity. A construction that they can occasionally spectacularly shatter and leap about until, sedated by their conquests, they skulk back to their bubbling lair of resentment. How can they ever hope to rise above this existence when they are effectively pariahs, victims just like the new born child that is smothered unwittingly by its restlessly slumbering mother. Never has the phrase "...some... are more equal than others" ever been truer, but not for quite the reason Browne et al. would like to have you believe.

from riotious thugs to bad weather , vincent browne blames everything on equality , nothing new there , the man is a walking broken record

Laminations

+1 OP, I've been trying to put this as eloquently. I think you've penned what should be a letter to the IT. Send it in.

Palmach

amjon. wrote: »

I would really like understand what these new, deep inequalities are that did not exist 10 years ago. .

Whatever inequalities there are have come despite New Labour and Blair ramping up social spending. So if all this public largesse results in such outcomes as rioting the lesson is that mere spending doesn't work. Don't tell the smoked salmon socialists like Vinny Brown . Good op by the way.

Boulevardier

Economically equal societies are demonstrably less violent than unequal ones. Societies undergoing austerity policies have been proven to be more prone to rioting than those which are not.

Societies where the poor are blamed for their own condition are the most violent, dirty, and unhappy of the lot.

Norway does not have riots. Instead, it has acts of mass terror by the sort of nut-jobs who do not believe in equality.

Laminations

Boulevardier wrote: »

Economically equal societies are demonstrably less violent than unequal ones. Societies undergoing austerity policies have been proven to be more prone to rioting than those which are not.

Societies where the poor are blamed for their own condition are the most violent, dirty, and unhappy of the lot.

Norway does not have riots. Instead, it has acts of mass terror by the sort of nut-jobs who do not believe in equality.

Ah so Breivik is an indiscriminate nut job responsible for his own condition but the rioters are products of their society?

Breivik lashes out indiscriminately to highlight perceived issues he has with society. He is a monster.

Rioters do the same. They are 'just trying to express their anger'.

In both instances personal choices were made and the perpetrators have to own their actions. Neither were creations of society, we all have choices, and they all chose to attack their own communities

nesf

Boulevardier wrote: »

Norway does not have riots. Instead, it has acts of mass terror by the sort of nut-jobs who do not believe in equality.

Eh, he was anti-Muslim not anti-equality.

Boulevardier

I'm not defending the rioters' behaviour. Indeed I hope some stiff sentences are handed down.

However, it is inescapable that in more equal societies, this sort of thing happens much less.

nesf

Boulevardier wrote: »

I'm not defending the rioters' behaviour. Indeed I hope some stiff sentences are handed down.

However, it is inescapable that in more equal societies, this sort of thing happens much less.

Why don't we have more rioting in the US then given that it's more unequal than the UK?

I think you're oversimplifying things here with your focus on equality. I think actually that social mobility might be more the problem than equality per se.

hatz7

Dearest OP,
If you are an adult (over 18) I believe you should know the answers to these questions.

Are you honestly saying you do not know the causes of inequality?

On a semi related note, you have a lovely writing style.

V_Moth

amjon. wrote: »

It seems to me as society continues to evolve and advance those who do not care, whether through inclination or lack of intelligence or both, invariably get left behind. As the cost of living continues to climb skyward it comes as no surprise that those who posses the will power, work ethic and determination to maintain a career streak ahead from those who do not. There is no doubt in my mind that these two sets of people are not equal. This lack of equality is the basis of human nature, survival of the fittest if you will. It is natural. It is good. It ensures our survival. This so called "inequality" was not the cause of the UK's misfortune last week.

Social Darwinian detected. There is nothing natural or good about separating humanity into two or more "groups" based on some fatous reason.

>trolledsoftly.jpg

anymore

Boulevardier wrote: »

I'm not defending the rioters' behaviour. Indeed I hope some stiff sentences are handed down.

However, it is inescapable that in more equal societies, this sort of thing happens much less.

When poverty was endemic in large sections of the Uk, riots did not happen at all.The reality is that the " poor" in UK are better off now than ever before ! It is the lack of fear of serious consequences for bad behaviour that is generating so much contempt for pthers.

Boulevardier

The US has a long and glorious history of riots.

So, for that matter, has Britain. Tha Gordon riots of 1784 were even worse than the recent ones.

nesf

Boulevardier wrote: »

The US has a long and glorious history of riots.

So, for that matter, has Britain. Tha Gordon riots of 1784 were even worse than the recent ones.

Sure but one would expect more riots more often during worse equality periods. That doesn't seem to stack up. I think you're confusing a necessary condition with a cause here.

Nodin

anymore wrote: »

When poverty was endemic in large sections of the Uk, riots did not happen at all................

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Riots_in_England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_riots_in_London

And that doesn't seem to take into account the many decades of football related violence.

Boulevardier

A necessary condition, even as distinct from a cause, makes my point.

Also, this necessary condition is only going to have greater effects as time goes on. Social deference is gone out the window, and no amount of cameron-style nostalgia for the family is going to bring it back. That leaves equal treatment for all as the only possible social legitimator.

nesf

Boulevardier wrote: »

A necessary condition, even as distinct from a cause, makes my point.

Also, this necessary condition is only going to have greater effects as time goes on. Social deference is gone out the window, and no amount of cameron-style nostalgia for the family is going to bring it back. That leaves equal treatment for all as the only possible social legitimator.

If it's a necessary condition as opposed to a cause what we need to look at is the causes and minimise those. That is, if you accept that inequality will always be in society, we may be able to reduce it but never get rid of it. We're not all born smart, strong or quick after all.

Monty Burnz

nesf wrote: »

Eh, he was anti-Muslim not anti-equality.

He seemed to be pretty clearly against gender equality.

nesf

Monty Burnz wrote: »

He seemed to be pretty clearly against gender equality.

We're surely talking about economic equality here though?

Monty Burnz

V_Moth wrote: »

Social Darwinian detected. There is nothing natural or good about separating humanity into two or more "groups" based on some fatous reason.

>trolledsoftly.jpg

But who is doing the separating? Guys I went to primary school with had the exact same opportunities as I did. Lots of them are career dolers now with no interest (or motive) in working. They have separated themselves. And I wouldn't accept at any level any 'societal' excuse if one of them trashed my home or place of business.

I don't see why I can't have a more expensive home/car/whatever than these guys (which is, of course, inequality) and make apologies to these guys who sat next to me in school as if it's my fault that they weren't arsed to do any work, didn't bother going to college and were happy to take charity from the taxpayer. Perhaps these guys and their families are to blame?

The idea that inequality is wrong by definition seems to have become ingrained in the mind of the collective left wing. It's not. We treat people unequally every day - we reward nice people by being nice to them, we reward the best tennis player by given them a trophy, we reward the best musicians by listening to their music.

Does this make me a social Darwinist?

Duke Leonal Felmet

Anyone watch VB last night? Richard Boyd-Barrett III pretty much summed up the lefts take on this; the only possible explanation is one where Marx was correct.

So predictable.

Monty Burnz

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Anyone watch VB last night? Richard Boyd-Barrett III pretty much summed up the lefts take on this; the only possible explanation is one where Marx was correct.

So predictable.

Marxism is closer to a religion than a political view. It's not surprising its adherents twist reality to fit their preconceptions.

Duke Leonal Felmet

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

Anyone watch VB last night? Richard Boyd-Barrett III pretty much summed up the lefts take on this; the only possible explanation is one where Marx was correct.

So predictable.

Marxism is closer to a religion than a political view. It's not surprising its adherents twist reality to fit their preconceptions.

Its unreal. All the others were trying to reason with him when saying that surely the breakdown of families is one contributing factor, but no, His Majesty RBB III just wouldn't have it. It was gas having Ganley as a host, the mere presence of Ganley had His Royal Highness throwing tantrums from the first question.

Boulevardier

I wish the self-made men would stop congratulating themselves. A lot of people do less well through no fault of their own. It can be mental illness, it can be physical illness, or it can be simply lack of talent. None of that is anyone's fault.

At the same time, for those who do do well, the reasons are often to do with high talent (which they were born with, they did not simply choose to make themselves talented) ruthlessness, or very frequently, sheer good luck.

I myself do not mind some differentials between the hard workers on one hand and the dossers like myself on the other. However, I do think that society has gone too far basing everything around that.

Monty Burnz

Boulevardier wrote: »

I myself do not mind some differentials between the hard workers on one hand and the dossers like myself on the other. However, I do think that society has gone too far basing everything around that.

I think you have it arseways. Society has never rewarded the talentless and the lazy more than it does today. This is something that needs to be tackled. I don't give a rat's arse if Bill Gates is far, far wealthier than I can ever dream of - the difference between Bill and I is hundreds of thousands of the size of the difference between me and my doler classmates. I'm not going to riot because he has billions, and I'd appreciate it if the stupid, the lazy and the unlucky didn't trash the little extra I have on the pretext of some sort of imaginary unfairness.

Sand

Excellent OP. I cant find much to disagree with. It is noticeable how bi-polar the media reaction has been - swinging from castigating the police for being too soft and abandoning ordinary people, and then swinging back to castigating the police for being too heavy handed.

SamHarris

Nodin wrote: »

Perhaps if they learned to discern between unarmed Brazilians and suicide bombers, peaceful protesters and rioters, reasonable and unreasonable force, they'd sleep better? Just a thought.

A more robust police force WILL make the occasional mistake, the question of whether the increased security to most is worth the trade of of the occasional stupid arrest or misccarriage of justice is the type of discussion theUK should be having now.

SamHarris

whydoibother? wrote: »

I think it's interesting that all sorts of people were found to be rioting. There were many in the less well off areas of London, but the papers reported a dental assistant, a straight A A-level student - millionaires daughter from a very good school, an Oxford law graduate on his way back from a job interview at a named organization which I can't remember (wonder if he got the job:eek:), an Olympic ambassador. The papers were focusing on the moral breakdown of society in general. I think that's quite sensationalist. The vast majority of people are good people and did not riot, though if they'd thought about it, they would have quickly realized that the police might have been too stretched to stop them, so it wasn't fear for the most part, it was respect that kept most people out of the riots.

As for those that did, lock them up.

I think there is a powerful psychological aspect once looting hits a certain critical mass. How many 60" televisions could you watch being wheeled out a nearby store before you decided what the hell?

anymore

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I think you have it arseways. Society has never rewarded the talentless and the lazy more than it does today. This is something that needs to be tackled. I don't give a rat's arse if Bill Gates is far, far wealthier than I can ever dream of - the difference between Bill and I is hundreds of thousands of the size of the difference between me and my doler classmates. I'm not going to riot because he has billions, and I'd appreciate it if the stupid, the lazy and the unlucky didn't trash the little extra I have on the pretext of some sort of imaginary unfairness.

Well said -

anymore

SamHarris wrote: »

I think there is a powerful psychological aspect once looting hits a certain critical mass. How many 60" televisions could you watch being wheeled out a nearby store before you decided what the hell?

Well actually quite a lot. It is not compulsory. In fact I have worked for people and have handled lots of cash without feeling the need to rob any of it - funny that isn't ?

SamHarris

anymore wrote: »

Well actually quite a lot. It is not compulsory. In fact I have worked for people and have handled lots of cash without feeling the need to rob any of it - funny that isn't ?

Yes but then thats you, and there very clearly was a culmanative effect.

One that springs to mind is the guy that took a bottle of water, almost anyone would do that given the chaos on the street.

Im not saying I would be running around grabbing toasters and what not, but people who MAY be inclined would not have to see much before they joined in, which would raise the chances of someone else doing the same.

Dont take my word for it, its very clear that that DID happen as each night more and more people decided it was safe to join in.

thebman

nesf wrote: »

If it's a necessary condition as opposed to a cause what we need to look at is the causes and minimise those. That is, if you accept that inequality will always be in society, we may be able to reduce it but never get rid of it. We're not all born smart, strong or quick after all.

I don't think people really care about economic equality as long as their basic needs are met. I think what you are seeing in Britain is people fearing being pushed back onto the breadline about to be left wondering can they afford both heating and food next month.

I think people are also seeing crime from drug cartels such as murders (not the actual dealing) and the police not being able to catch those people properly which is why youths are actually committing crimes to demonstrate that they don't see what the police can do about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Monty Burnz

thebman wrote: »

I don't think people really care about economic equality as long as their basic needs are met. I think what you are seeing in Britain is people fearing being pushed back onto the breadline about to be left wondering can they afford both heating and food next month.

I saw one looter stealing a bag of rice, but most of them seemed more interested in electronics and fashion. They might want to read up on Maslow again if it really is the breadline that they fear. :rolleyes: Perhaps they heard that LCD TVs burn well, and they thought they'd find actual apples in the Apple stores?

nesf

thebman wrote: »

I don't think people really care about economic equality as long as their basic needs are met. I think what you are seeing in Britain is people fearing being pushed back onto the breadline about to be left wondering can they afford both heating and food next month.

I think people are also seeing crime from drug cartels such as murders (not the actual dealing) and the police not being able to catch those people properly which is why youths are actually committing crimes to demonstrate that they don't see what the police can do about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs has been pretty much disproven. People care quite a bit about more than their basic needs.

That, and these riots weren't political like the Poll Tax riots. I don't think you can ascribe them to people being fearful about being on the breadline. Christ, we had teachers participating in the riots ffs.

djpbarry

Boulevardier wrote: »

I wish the self-made men would stop congratulating themselves. A lot of people do less well through no fault of their own. It can be mental illness, it can be physical illness, or it can be simply lack of talent.

At the same time, for those who do do well, the reasons are often to do with high talent (which they were born with, they did not simply choose to make themselves talented) ruthlessness, or very frequently, sheer good luck.

Or maybe the difference, more often than not, is just hard bloody work?

djpbarry

SamHarris wrote: »

How many 60" televisions could you watch being wheeled out a nearby store before you decided what the hell?

∞

thebman wrote: »

I think what you are seeing in Britain is people fearing being pushed back onto the breadline about to be left wondering can they afford both heating and food next month.

And yet, fuel depots and grocery stores emerged from the riots relatively unscathed. Strange that.

V_Moth

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But who is doing the separating? Guys I went to primary school with had the exact same opportunities as I did. Lots of them are career dolers now with no interest (or motive) in working. They have separated themselves. And I wouldn't accept at any level any 'societal' excuse if one of them trashed my home or place of business.

I don't see why I can't have a more expensive home/car/whatever than these guys (which is, of course, inequality) and make apologies to these guys who sat next to me in school as if it's my fault that they weren't arsed to do any work, didn't bother going to college and were happy to take charity from the taxpayer. Perhaps these guys and their families are to blame?

The idea that inequality is wrong by definition seems to have become ingrained in the mind of the collective left wing. It's not. We treat people unequally every day - we reward nice people by being nice to them, we reward the best tennis player by given them a trophy, we reward the best musicians by listening to their music.

Does this make me a social Darwinist?

You are completely missing what I was trying to point out. Social Darwinism and its associated "survival of the fittests" argument is one of the ideologies of the far right, as well as one of the key ideas in eugenics and scientific racism. Personally, I find Social Darwinism repulsive as it is frequently used to justify racism.

Also, I agree with you on everything you wrote in the third paragraph.

Nodin

SamHarris wrote: »

A more robust police force WILL make the occasional mistake, the question of whether the increased security to most is worth the trade of of the occasional stupid arrest or misccarriage of justice is the type of discussion theUK should be having now.

...the mistakes I referred to were all pre the last set of riots. Personally I can't see how not hammering a bunch of peaceful hippies and dealing harshly with violent looters are somehow mutually exclusive abilities in a police force.

Monty Burnz

V_Moth wrote: »

You are completely missing what I was trying to point out. Social Darwinism and its associated "survival of the fittests" argument is one of the ideologies of the far right, as well as one of the key ideas in eugenics and scientific racism. Personally, I find Social Darwinism repulsive as it is frequently used to justify racism.

I don't ascribe to any far-right beliefs, but I do believe that the best you can do is to facilitate social mobility for those who want to use it, and cut funding to those who don't. Everyone should have the same opportunities, but only those who make an effort should see rewards.

nesf

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't ascribe to any far-right beliefs, but I do believe that the best you can do is to facilitate social mobility for those who want to use it, and cut funding to those who don't. Everyone should have the same opportunities, but only those who make an effort should see rewards.

What about those who can't? i.e. people on disability etc.

Monty Burnz

nesf wrote: »

What about those who can't? i.e. people on disability etc.

They should be facilitated to achieve whatever they can. Nothing I've done since leaving university couldn't have been done as well by a paraplegic person, or whatever. I'm sure most genuine cases of people on disability benefits would jump at the chance to be self sufficient.

nesf

Monty Burnz wrote: »

They should be facilitated to achieve whatever they can. Nothing I've done since leaving university couldn't have been done as well by a paraplegic person, or whatever. I'm sure most genuine cases of people on disability benefits would jump at the chance to be self sufficient.

Ah but having disability benefit higher in the dole just creates a massive incentive to commit fraud. It's very hard to prove that someone doesn't have a "bad back" and so on.

Monty Burnz

nesf wrote: »

Ah but having disability benefit higher in the dole just creates a massive incentive to commit fraud. It's very hard to prove that someone doesn't have a "bad back" and so on.

It is very hard to prove. We won't eliminate crooks at the bottom any more than we will eliminate them at the top, but that doesn't me we should give up on improving the system - clearly what we have now does not work (unless our aim is to create a self-perpetuating underclass of parasites).

nesf

Monty Burnz wrote: »

It is very hard to prove. We won't eliminate crooks at the bottom any more than we will eliminate them at the top, but that doesn't me we should give up on improving the system - clearly what we have now does not work (unless our aim is to create a self-perpetuating underclass of parasites).

Sure, I'm not arguing for the current system just pointing out problems in changing it.