Recent UK Riots, whose fault were they?

Slideshowbob

Anyone care to contribute?

Looking back at societal issues preceding the riots, I'd hold educational systems and lack of parental values most accountable as the main causes.

Laminations

Is this a trick question?

The rioters

Slideshowbob

Laminations wrote: »

Is this a trick question?

The rioters

Ok let me rephrase

Why did they riot?

Laminations

There were thousands of rioters, they each had their own reasons and they each made their own choices to do it. There is no simple why. What each one shared was a lack of respect, for their community, for other people, for other people's property, for the police and for themselves.

KerranJast

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Laminations wrote: »

Is this a trick question?

The rioters

Ok let me rephrase

Why did they riot?

They wanted free stuff and it was clear there werent enough police to stop them. Simple really.

Slideshowbob

Laminations wrote: »

There were thousands of rioters, they each had their own reasons and they each made their own choices to do it. There is no simple why. What each one shared was a lack of respect, for their community, for other people, for other people's property, for the police and for themselves.

Yes

So how did this lack of respect come about?

Slideshowbob

KerranJast wrote: »

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Laminations wrote: »

Is this a trick question?

The rioters

Ok let me rephrase

Why did they riot?

They wanted free stuff and it was clear there werent enough police to stop them. Simple really.

That's oversimplistic in my opinion.

I'd would never say no to free stuff. There may not necessarily be enough police around 100% of the time. That does not automatcally equate to me carrying out such acts.

If it was as simple as you suggest what would be there to stop a gang of 5 or 6 raiding their local hmv or jd sports or whatever right now as an isolated incident?

Jonny7

Slideshowbob wrote: »

That's oversimplistic in my opinion.

I'd would never say no to free stuff. There may not necessarily be enough police around 100% of the time. That does not automatcally equate to me carrying out such acts.

If it was as simple as you suggest what would be there to stop a gang of 5 or 6 raiding their local hmv or jd sports or whatever right now as an isolated incident?

Many youth workers offered pretty despairing answers in the TV interviews I saw, saying many of the kids they work with have been raised in a culture of blame, blaming others that is. Just leading an entitled life of "me me me".

The key thing - no respect.

And respect is generally taught at home, in schools, etc. A lot of it comes down to bad parenting, no discipline.

I've lived in some pretty bad areas in Ireland, had gangs of kids take out all the windows in the house, etc - but never seen this same attitude elsewhere in continental Europe (lived in several countries)

AlekSmart

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Ok let me rephrase

Why did they riot?

Most likely a combination of events,a bit like events in the night-sky such as Lunar Eclipses which only happen every x years/centuries/millenia.

The constellations,the weather,no footie,no x-factor, and an abundance of communication bruvva

Only a very tiny number of the original protesters (Not Rioters mind-you) had any real definable grievance,the remainder was simply muppetry being acted out by people acting the Muppet.

With the Premiership back on,the weather turning colder and damper and the Universities slowly returning to normal (:p) I'd say the 2011 rioting season is now over (Football Stadia and environs excepted).

Oddly enough I came across an article someplace which outlined the History of Rioting in London,and it's a VERY long history indeed...mostly in the summer months too...

Jonny7: I've lived in some pretty bad areas in Ireland, had gangs of kids take out all the windows in the house, etc - but never seen this same attitude elsewhere in continental Europe (lived in several countries)

As Jonny7 sez,rather than minutely inspecting the UK's Social Belly Button,we/they should be looking further afield to those places where the general attitude and demeanour of youth is different.

lagente

This is really hard to know. It did bear very significant resemblance to the LA riots, where a man was beaten. But in this case a man was killed. The reaction of the black rioters was of extremely swift (and of course, of high intensity). It didn't seem to be organised by any intellectual leaders, who would have a least waited to verify if the situation required rioting to such a degree. (the investigation of the killing lasted a few days into the riots).
Why the looting was done so many white thieves, was quite extraordinary. There was no political motivation there for almost all of them to do so.

Was any of the thrust behind the riots a lack of opportunities for the young people? In a strange way . . a little bit, but far more than say any riots in USA in the last 25 years. There seems to be a lot of mollycoddling of the youth in schools in disadvantaged areas of England. Eg. They are given rewards (actual presents) in schools for good behaviour or a tiny bit of effort put into whatever. So they are unlike, well anywhere else I can think of in the world in that regard.

My guess is the killing of the man who had a gun, and a big response from gangs, followed by, well once it took off it was a showcase for power and respect for all gangs, and even individuals. And then respect within those groups/peers and between gangs. And a chance for them to loot also, in what may have appeared at that time to some of them to maybe be a worthy pursuit(vengence for killing of the man).

Son Of A Vidic

Did you not notice the pattern? Dixons, Currys, music shops, clothes shops, electronic goods and I.T. retailers were mainly targeted by looters. Which would seem to indicate that greed was the prime motivator behind the lawlessness. Mob rule, pack mentality, call it what you like but the initial incompetent policing strategy left a lot of rich pickings for the mob.

Maybe I'm the last of the generation that was raised on the principles of earning what you want. If you can't afford an object of desire you want, you have two options. Either get yourself into a position where you can afford it, or if not, then forget about it and be realistic. We now have the 'I want it now generation', respect, discipline and a work ethic seems to be sadly missing from many of them. They think they have a right to have whatever they desire, which of course they have. Just as long as they're are willing to earn it legitimately like the rest of us.

scooby2791

Protests begun after the police shot dead Mark Duggan, he was a local criminal drug dealer and the likes. Police claimed he shot at them so they returned fire, turned out that didn't actually happen at all they just shot him dead in a taxi. He may have brandished a weapon but I don't think anything has been confirmed 100%. Protests ended up turning nasty as in around those area's of Tottenham are pretty impoverished and crime ridden ( have a friend living in the are). Its very similar to what happened in the mid 80s when similar riots occured from the Broadwater Farm area which ended up with one policeman dead.

There is alot of factors that mix together to form such potent situations, between how the area's have been built up and handled and the mentality of the people that live in the area. Not all are bad, that seems to be sparked by a minority and then mob mentality takes over.

paul71

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Yes

So how did this lack of respect come about?

Lack of respect came about from being given something for nothing in return, ie. a cardle to grave social welfare system which means no matter how little effort you make to contribute to you own future, the expectation remains that society has an obligation to maintain you rather than you contributing to maintainance of your society.

NTMK

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Did you not notice the pattern? Dixons, Currys, music shops, clothes shops, electronic goods and I.T. retailers were mainly targeted by looters. Which would seem to indicate that greed was the prime motivator behind the lawlessness. Mob rule, pack mentality, call it what you like but the initial incompetent policing strategy left a lot of rich pickings for the mob.

+1
the hardest hit places in Manchester were the Nike, Adidas and phone shops if they attacked banks and government buildings,the people responsible for crushing their prospects id have respect for them instead of looting and generally giving people my age a bad name

Chuck Stone

Jonny7 wrote: »

The key thing - no respect.

And respect is generally taught at home, in schools, etc.

A lot of it comes down to bad parenting, no discipline.

I view respect as something to be earned myself. I respect no one who has not earned it from me. I try to be mannerly with people if they're mannerly with me but that's as far as my deference goes.

Could we just as easily turn the tables in this situation and say that parents, teachers, police, politicians etc have not given young people any good reason to respect them?

People say 'oh it's just wanton violence and greed' but young people (who are naturally rebellious imo) see the wanton violence and greed of people in authority so then what are we to expect?

lagente

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Could we just as easily turn the tables in this situation and say that parents, teachers, police, politicians etc have not given young people any good reason to respect them?

This.
In terms of parenting or the lack of it, in England and in Ireland too:
There are so many parents out there who are, far more than ever, basically children themselves. If some kind of disaster happens they will have no bearing on how to react, or help out.
The huge divorce rate is evident of serious societal change. We are over-sexualized, and the result is kids being bred by idiot couples , resulting in a decaying society.

And this kind of thing is not mostly in the lower classes. The middle classes are increasingly breeding idiot children who behave like brats, in their neighborhoods for instance. A lot of the rioters, especially the white ones, I reckon were middle class, at least until they left their homes.

Inverse to the power of one!

IMO, everything was in the mix here:
Greed and criminality on the part of the youth.
Poor parenting and social environment.
A growing divide between the boom generation and the recessionary generation.
Education cuts.
Disillusionment.
Lack of opportunity.
And a whole lot more.

Just like the 80's all over again and we're just getting started. The current generation of 15 - 25 are going to be jobless, destitute, and angry with no gainful employment to keep them occupied. A key indicator for me was to see the Anarchists joined for the first time ever by youth from socially disadvantaged areas at the student riots.

There is a demographic shift here, not the first time it's happened, but as in the past we'll have the older generation fail to recognize it, as having secured their jobs and social position they'll be out of touch with what it is like to be starting at the ground up with little in sight to get you going.

Same as it ever was......

On the other hand, it should be a good decade for music and youth culture

JustinDee

Being of a subjective 'class', unemployed or even (diddums) disillusioned is no excuse for being a useless, irresponsible and undeserving parent that teaches their kids nothing and represents no role-model whatsoever for them.

There are many people who have the worst lot in life yet manage to bring their children up to respect themselves and others around them.

walshb

The rioters started it, but the lack of action and efficiency by the police saw it escalate needlessly. They needed police action, swift and forceful. That did not happen and that is when it became so so bad.

Davidth88

What you are seeing is the result of two generations of people that have no stable home life with decent parenting.

So you have parents who had no values at all instilled into them bringing up kids. The result is kids that truly just don't care or know what decent behaviour is , they see normal society as ' the enemy '.

I would wonder how many of those have an adult male role model ( ie proper father ). I have no facts to base this on , it's a pure hunch.

What shocked me is how fragile normal life is , it appeared to me that parts of the UK were only a footstep away from total anarchy.

It was lucky it rained TBH !!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

irishh_bob

Jonny7 wrote: »

Many youth workers offered pretty despairing answers in the TV interviews I saw, saying many of the kids they work with have been raised in a culture of blame, blaming others that is. Just leading an entitled life of "me me me".

The key thing - no respect.

And respect is generally taught at home, in schools, etc. A lot of it comes down to bad parenting, no discipline.

I've lived in some pretty bad areas in Ireland, had gangs of kids take out all the windows in the house, etc - but never seen this same attitude elsewhere in continental Europe (lived in several countries)

in terms of this problem being less of an issue in europe , britian is an agressive country , always has been , beit from raiding other countrys to football hooligans causing trouble on terraces , the britts like to kick off and stamp thier feet

as for why theese rioters have no self respect , lack of authority figures at home , the liberals ( who dictate policy on almost everything nowadays ) have waged war on traditional family values for fifty years in the uk , i heard a millitant feminist on bbc the other day react in rage when someone suggested the nuclear family was the ideal setting to bring up kids , journalist peter hitchens has written extensivley on this subject

sarumite

It started with a group of people complaining against a police. Though once the organised gangs noticed that the police weren't doing anything they saw it as an oppurtunity steal. By the fourth day, the police were out in force and the oppurtunity was gone and they went home.

According to the BBC today programm on radio 4, many of those now going to the courts are older people with a long history of criminal activity.

ethical

Ireland is not far away from similar riots.There are far too many handouts in this country and as it would now seem the present Gov.have no option but to put austerity plans into action.The freebies of yesteryear will have to be found elsewhere.......a bit of rioting will ensure that young Chantelle and Jonnie will have the latest consumer gadgets without too much effort!:P

Laminations

Slideshowbob wrote: »

Yes

So how did this lack of respect come about?

Possibly a lack of discipline and a tendency to blame society for the mistakes of individuals.

Is this going to turn into a 'why spiral' like a Louis CK conversation with his daughter? Are you aiming to dissect the 'reasons' to a point where we get to an event so divorced from the rioters actions (like the beating of a butterfies wings in Asia) that we all forget to blame the rioters? It's been this reluctance to blame people, this tendency to make excuses that have led people to dissociate the consequences of their actions from their actions. A similar reluctance to fail people in our education systems has led to a decline in standards there. Tough love is gone, to many people now disciplining your child (and I dont mean beating, I mean not simply giving them what they want or letting them do what they like without it being contingent on their behaviour) is seen as cruel and backwards.

But at the end of the day the rioters made choices.
For them (or people defending them) to complain about lack of opportunities when many of them didn't bother to take the opportunities given to them, like free secondary education, is a joke. The opportunity of a job is contingent upon you capitalising on the opportunities in school, it's contingent upon your good character and how you present yourself.

So don't come crying after you've looted up the place because you can't get no job handed to you, when your stood there in your hoodie with your face masked and your hand down your pants cupping your balls.

JustinDee

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Parenting doesn't just affect the dysfunctional kids from dysfunctional families. These kids grow up themselves and start their own families, and since their parents couldn't be arsed in bringing them up with an ounce of decency about them, they just won't know any different. Decency and community awareness has f*** all to do with what the government, schools or police dish out.
It starts at the home regardless and isn't exclusive to any one demograph out there.

dr.bollocko

There's a question now about the tough sentences being given to those convicted of rioting.
I'd agree with it myself. Strikes me as a more positive solution than punishing all young people because of the violent actions of a minority.
However as regards a pro-active response; I guess beginning to understand why they did it or the contributing factors that caused it is the only way to try and prevent it in future.
"They're just scumbags" would be a reasonable way to dismiss the behaviour...

Laminations wrote: »

But at the end of the day the rioters made choices.
For them (or people defending them) to complain about lack of opportunities when many of them didn't bother to take the opportunities given to them, like free secondary education, is a joke. The opportunity of a job is contingent upon you capitalising on the opportunities in school, it's contingent upon your good character and how you present yourself.

I'd agree with the above personally however that brings it down to a level of an individual making bad choices. There were many individuals and gangs making bad choices. All at the same time as a response to the possibility that they could get away with the looting.
The question is why did they make these choices, then go publicise it and organise rioting on social media sites and glorify the bad behaviour.
I certainly don't think it's lack of opportunities. I would think it has more to do with the environment they're brought up in, bad parenting etc. and where their bad decisions did not have negative consequences for whatever reason.
Do you just chalk it off and write off the generation of people from certain areas or try and do something about it?
Giving these people more opportunities is not a method that is working. A harsh crackdown could provoke a further negative reaction.

Davidth88

JustinDee wrote: »

Parenting doesn't just affect the dysfunctional kids from dysfunctional families. These kids grow up themselves and start their own families, and since their parents couldn't be arsed in bringing them up with an ounce of decency about them, they just won't know any different. Decency and community awareness has f*** all to do with what the government, schools or police dish out.
It starts at the home regardless and isn't exclusive to any one demograph out there.

Tha'ts sort of what I was trying to say , children are ' wild animals ' that need to be trained , if you don't train them then they have nothing to base values on . Then these ' wild animals ' have children of their own etc etc etc .

AlekSmart

lagente wrote: »

This.
In terms of parenting or the lack of it, in England and in Ireland too:
There are so many parents out there who are, far more than ever, basically children themselves. If some kind of disaster happens they will have no bearing on how to react, or help out.
The huge divorce rate is evident of serious societal change. We are over-sexualized, and the result is kids being bred by idiot couples , resulting in a decaying society.

And this kind of thing is not mostly in the lower classes. The middle classes are increasingly breeding idiot children who behave like brats, in their neighborhoods for instance. A lot of the rioters, especially the white ones, I reckon were middle class, at least until they left their homes.

A sobering post Lagente,but very close to the home-truth.

Although use of the term "Idiot-Children" will doubtless cause affront to some,it remains quite an accurate descriptor for a significant number of cases.

There is quite often a relatively simple reason for,apparently random or odd behavioural tendencies.

In the case of many larger cities and their densely populated housing estates,would what largente describes as the "idiot-child" syndrome be a case of pidgeons returning to roost,as the now fertile children of the 1980's and 1990's start coupling with their own siblings and near blood relations ?

In a significant number of areas,the population remains incredibly static throughout time,single mothers tend to wish to remain close to their mothers,often pressurizing Local Authorities or Social Services to facilitate this on the gounds of it being easier to manage their fatherless families.

Equally,the youthful itinerant Fathers spend their most productive years wandering a slightly wider patch,mating with a wider group of,not always younger,females.

The common denominator is a single male producing multiple issue by several different mothers within a very localized area thus increasing the risk of subsequent inadvertent inbreeding by a significant amount.

It's rarely spoken about in gentrified society,but Lagentes description does go some way towards directing a,perhaps reluctant,gaze in that direction.

What happens to the offspring of these relationships (I use the term relationship advisedly) is the real nub of the issue.

In a great many cases these children become lost to society,lost as children,lost as individuals and meaningful only to their own peers...it's a sad and dangerous phenomon,but one readily visible and audible to anybody visiting a local shopping centre or any public facility in modern Ireland

It's a raw,emotive issue but one which I feel has been allowed to creep up on us until it's effects are now being seen and felt by most.....as for answers....at this stage are there any ???

paddyandy

The Entertainment business feeds ideas into Peer thinking and behaviour is cued from it largely.

Chuck Stone

On the parenting aspect (which is only one aspect) I think we should consider how the tax code and benefit system seems to reward familes with informal partnerships and parents living seperately.

Within low-earning couples, a mother can sometimes be better off financially by leaving her partner. This is especially the case in the UK. In the case of a two-earner couple on minimum wage, the mother would actually increase her standard of living (both BHC and AHC) by 5-12% (depending upon the number and age of her children). (p14)

The UK’s welfare regime has three indirect but negative consequences. First, it provides financial incentives for many couples with children, especially those at low incomes or on jobseeker’s allowance, to break-up or to keep their relationships informal and ‘off-the books’. Second the UK’s welfare regime favours poor children who live with lone parents over those
living with two parents. Third, it ‘evens out’ the changes in standard of living for low earners, but provides little cushion for average and higher earners who experience life changes, such as having a child (p20)

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/OneillFiscalPolicy.pdf

Clearly they need to look at how fiscal policy impacts family life in the UK. (I'd hazard a guess the same factors are in play here in ROI.)

vellocet

So kids living in a consumerist and corrupt society take their opportunity to help themselves in the same way the MP's and bankers have, albeit with violence, and amateur psychologists queue up to put forward their agenda. These kids are no different to any number of sectors of British society.

The cops lost control of a protest that turned violent, some scuts took advantage and helped themselves. Its not complicated.

anymore

vellocet wrote: »

So kids living in a consumerist and corrupt society take their opportunity to help themselves in the same way the MP's and bankers have, albeit with violence, and amateur psychologists queue up to put forward their agenda. These kids are no different to any number of sectors of British society.

The cops lost control of a protest that turned violent, some scuts took advantage and helped themselves. Its not complicated.

Kevin Myers has more words of wisdom on the matter today :
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-riots-herald-new-era-of-mass-surveillance-2855063.html

Obivously not every one agrees with him.

vellocet

anymore wrote: »

Kevin Myers has more words of wisdom on the matter today :
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/kevin-myers-riots-herald-new-era-of-mass-surveillance-2855063.html

Obivously not every one agrees with him.

One thing he is bang on about that the baying mob are chosing to ignore is that rioting has a long and proud tradition in the UK. Which does tend to directly contradict the moral panic that it is due to the recent acceleration in the rates of single parent families and that it is 'the blacks' at fault.

bullpost

Morelike England, as opposed to Britain. Scotland and Wales unaffected by this?

irishh_bob wrote: »

in terms of this problem being less of an issue in europe , britian is an agressive country , always has been , beit from raiding other countrys to football hooligans causing trouble on terraces , the britts like to kick off and stamp thier feet

Laminations

vellocet wrote: »

So kids living in a consumerist and corrupt society take their opportunity to help themselves in the same way the MP's and bankers have, albeit with violence, and amateur psychologists queue up to put forward their agenda.

I'm a professional psychologist thank you very much. The problem with your first sentence is that it wasn't just kids. Secondly, all kids (and Brits) live in this 'consumerist and corrupt society' yet not all Brits went a looting. So it is something distinct about these Brits, something that distinguishes them not only from other Brits but other Westerners in general as we all live in a similarly oriented society. I'd imagine that given the opportunity for destruction and theft we could find a similar cohort willing to engage here in Ireland or in America etc. so I'm not intimating that this is a specifically British phenomenon.

vellocet

Laminations wrote: »

I'm a professional psychologist thank you very much. The problem with your first sentence is that it wasn't just kids. Secondly, all kids (and Brits) live in this 'consumerist and corrupt society' yet not all Brits went a looting. So it is something distinct about these Brits, something that distinguishes them not only from other Brits but other Westerners in general as we all live in a similarly oriented society. I'd imagine that given the opportunity for destruction and theft we could find a similar cohort willing to engage here in Ireland or in America etc. so I'm not intimating that this is a specifically British phenomenon.

So you agree with me. There is a percentage of people in any society that will take something for nothing if the opportunity arose. They can be bankers, MP's or inner city youths. Principal is the same. We have created a mé fein culture in the west and this is an extreme example of a quick buck attitude.

Even the cops slick lobbying after they left England burn was to protect their patch and try and have proposed cuts reversed. Me Me Me.

What the family situation or social status of these looters has to do with it is anyones guess.

Jimmy Carr made a cutting remark on Twitter recently. "A number of the rioters were saying 'everyone else was at it' and 'I need the money / stuff'. Sounds exactly like the justifications the MP's gave in the expenses controversy". Are we asking were they breastfed or whatever we are over the rioters?

Laminations

What are you saying? That it is the rioters fault or the me fein cultures fault? We all live in this 'me fein' culture so why aren't we all rioting and looting? Given the opportunity I still wouldn't do it so it is something specific about these people. And it is not simply a reaction or reflection of the behaviour of MPs. We have TDs here who are shystering self-enriching cheats. But that hasn't made me (or the majority of Irish people) turn into same.

vellocet

Laminations wrote: »

What are you saying? That it is the rioters fault or the me fein cultures fault? We all live in this 'me fein' culture so why aren't we all rioting and looting? Given the opportunity I still wouldn't do it so it is something specific about these people. And it is not simply a reaction or reflection of the behaviour of MPs. We have TDs here who are shystering self-enriching cheats. But that hasn't made me (or the majority of Irish people) turn into same.

I 'blame' the rioters.

But I put them in the context of a materialist culture where too many people are out for themselves.

Using your logic on yourself, if not everyone from a single parent family rioted, single parent families cannot be a cause.

Laminations

vellocet wrote: »

I 'blame' the rioters.

But I put them in the context of a materialist culture where too many people are out for themselves.

Using your logic on yourself, if not everyone from a single parent family rioted, single parent families cannot be a cause.

No it cannot be the cause. It may be a contributing factor but there are countless contributions all with very small coefficients of determination I'd imagine. Let me ask you this, at what point does an effect size become large enough that it can be considered a cause? Plenty of variables go into us deciding upon an action but at the end of the day none of them cause that action (unless it is direct coercion), we weigh up our choices and we decide.
I was raised by a single mother. While the likelihood of me ending up a certain way or acting a certain way is effected by that the effect size is likely small and it's a probability, not a certainty.

vellocet

Laminations wrote: »

No it cannot be the cause. It may be a contributing factor but there are countless contributions all with very small coefficients of determination I'd imagine. Let me ask you this, at what point does an effect size become large enough that it can be considered a cause? Plenty of variables go into us deciding upon an action but at the end of the day none of them cause that action (unless it is direct coercion), we weigh up our choices and we decide.
I was raised by a single mother. While the likelihood of me ending up a certain way or acting a certain way is effected by that the effect size is likely small and it's a probability, not a certainty.

You don't say. Every rioter and looter is a rational actor who weighed up the risk/reward of turning over Curry's for a new tv.

What is the one overarching factor that made people loot when the circumstances allowed? A desire for free stuff.

You remind me of one of the 'experts' who didn't see this coming suddenly knowing why people they never met acted like they acted.

Laminations

vellocet wrote: »

You don't say. Every rioter and looter is a rational actor who weighed up the risk/reward of turning over Curry's for a new tv.

What is the one overarching factor that made people loot when the circumstances allowed? A desire for free stuff.

You remind me of one of the 'experts' who didn't see this coming suddenly knowing why people they never met acted like they acted.

They don't need to be rational actors to be held accountable, the just need to not satisfy the McNaughten rule, which I doubt any of them do.

Why do you credit our materialistic society above other variables like poverty or family structure or prospects? What data are you basing that assertion on? Is it the largest effect size?

Your need (and it isn't just you) to apportion weightings to contributory factors in some hierarchical order is naive. If I made a machine with 10 hammers and each one hit you in the head, you couldn't apportion blame to any one hammer that killed you. And that's with simple mechanics. Here we have countless contributing factors that all influence our decisions but at the end of the day they are our decisions.

I don't know why they acted like they did, and I'll never know because with thousands of rioters there are thousands of reasons. But I don't need to know to apportion blame, once I accept that the rioters were free to decide whether to riot or not. I don't think society should be ruminating or self-flagellating over these people, it is rather these people that should be doing the reflecting

Chuck Stone

Laminations wrote: »

But I don't need to know to apportion blame, once I accept that the rioters were free to decide whether to riot or not.

Unsurprisingly reductive.

vellocet

Laminations wrote: »

They don't need to be rational actors to be held accountable, the just need to not satisfy the McNaughten rule, which I doubt any of them do.

Why do you credit our materialistic society above other variables like poverty or family structure or prospects? What data are you basing that assertion on? Is it the largest effect size?

Your need (and it isn't just you) to apportion weightings to contributory factors in some hierarchical order is naive. If I made a machine with 10 hammers and each one hit you in the head, you couldn't apportion blame to any one hammer that killed you. And that's with simple mechanics. Here we have countless contributing factors that all influence our decisions but at the end of the day they are our decisions.

I don't know why they acted like they did, and I'll never know because with thousands of rioters there are thousands of reasons. But I don't need to know to apportion blame, once I accept that the rioters were free to decide whether to riot or not. I don't think society should be ruminating or self-flagellating over these people, it is rather these people that should be doing the reflecting

Again, like the 'experts' you are over complicating a simple question:

Why do people steal consumer goods? Stuff they don't need.

Because they want them. So in a vacuum where the police have lost control they weighed up the rational choice theory equation and went for it or went home. There was probably a herd mentality element to a lot of the carnage, but it intrinsically isn't much more complicated than that.

If we want to examine issues around why they wanted these trinkets and the belief that the law wasn't a deterrent, by all means do so. But you are posting buzz words.

vellocet

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Unsurprisingly reductive.

Its all light with no heat from him.

Laminations

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Unsurprisingly reductive.

Eh, reductive would involve me trying to reduce the behaviour down to contributing factors or cause and effect or a smaller scale of analysis - like physiology. Your poor grasp of terminology aside, I'll take reductionism over naivety

I'm actually saying that people are more than the sum of their parts, that their actions can't be summed up and understood simply by looking at contributory factors

Laminations

vellocet wrote: »

the rational choice theory equation... But you are posting buzz words.

Eh, I'd imagine it isn't that simple. As we all obviously come to different conclusions using that 'equation'. If cops aren't around and Currys is wide open, I don't loot but someone else does...

Batsy

I reckon a lot of the rioters have never seen their fathers.

For years, the Left in Britain have, for some reason, been against marriage and, unlike other countries, there are therefore no measures in place in Britain to reward marriage, such as tax breaks for married couples.

However, the Left in Britain loves to reward single motherhood by lavishing a huge and unnecessary amount of benefits and subsidies to single mothers.

A lot of research by experts over the years has shown that young people, especially boys, who grow up with no father and therefore no proper male role model are more likely to join violent gangs. This is because males are tribal and need to belong to a tribe or family. Having a father in the picture gives them this sense of alliance. Studies show that with no father figure in their lives boys are likelier to join gangs because they have to look outside the family for social acceptance. These gangs then take to our streets every night of the year - not just during riots - and cause ordinary people in many neighbourhoods to be too scared to leave their homes at night. And boys in Afro-Caribbean families in Britain are likelier to grow up in single parent families than boys of other ethnic persuasions.

Despite this, the Left for too long in this country has seen marriage, and the normal nuclear family of two parents - a father and a mother - as unnecessary (they love to promote marriage of people of the same sex, though).

So it was good to see Cameron in Parliament just after the riots giving two fingers to the Left by saying the Conservatives are to bring in measures, already in place in a lot of other countries, which will encourage and reward marriage - such as tax breaks for married couples - to try and get the number of young people in this country with no fathers in their lives cut dramatically and therefore hopefully reduce the number of young people joining violent gangs.

http://thyblackman.com/2011/05/10/8-ways-black-dads-benefit-black-boys/

vellocet

Batsy wrote: »

I reckon a lot of the rioters have never seen their fathers.

For years, the Left in Britain have, for some reason, been against marriage and, unlike other countries, there are therefore no measures in place in Britain to reward marriage, such as tax breaks for married couples.

However, the Left in Britain loves to reward single motherhood by lavishing a huge and unnecessary amount of benefits and subsidies to single mothers.

A lot of research by experts over the years has shown that young people, especially boys, who grow up with no father and therefore no proper male role model are more likely to join violent gangs. This is because males are tribal and need to belong to a tribe or family. Having a father in the picture gives them this sense of alliance. Studies show that with no father figure in their lives boys are likelier to join gangs because they have to look outside the family for social acceptance. These gangs then take to our streets every night of the year - not just during riots - and cause ordinary people in many neighbourhoods to be too scared to leave their homes at night. And boys in Afro-Caribbean families in Britain are likelier to grow up in single parent families than boys of other ethnic persuasions.

Despite this, the Left for too long in this country has seen marriage, and the normal nuclear family of two parents - a father and a mother - as unnecessary (they love to promote marriage of people of the same sex, though).

So it was good to see Cameron in Parliament just after the riots giving two fingers to the Left by saying the Conservatives are to bring in measures, already in place in a lot of other countries, which will encourage and reward marriage - such as tax breaks for married couples - to try and get the number of young people in this country with no fathers in their lives cut dramatically and therefore hopefully reduce the number of young people joining violent gangs.

http://thyblackman.com/2011/05/10/8-ways-black-dads-benefit-black-boys/

1: Explain why there have been less and less riots in the UK as the 'nuclear' family became less frequent in the 20th century?

2: Are you seriously arguing that we should further reward 'happy' families with tax breaks and other incentives despite the problem not being with them according to you? On what planet will an unhappy couple remain together for a couple of hundred quid a year?

Laminations

Yes,lack of father figures. Many people have 'reckoned' this. Yet another piece of individual insight that people think will explain this behaviour. And if you piece all these insightful reckonings together like a big jigsaw puzzle people will think they have the rioters summed up - as if there is one single Rioter archetype....

And then people call me reductive

vellocet

Laminations wrote: »

Eh, I'd imagine it isn't that simple. As we all obviously come to different conclusions using that 'equation'. If cops aren't around and Currys is wide open, I don't loot but someone else does...

I'm sure you don't rape either. Different people make different decisions for different reasons. Usually this can simply be put in the risk v reward bracket.

A couple of thousand people in England decided to make like bandits when the opportunity arose. The rest is bluster and waffle.