Riots on the streets of London

  • News
  • Thread starter cristo
  • Start date
In summary: WTF. At least in the '70s there was a reason to protest. What can we do to stop this sort of thing? It's giving the internet a bad name.Last night I was out celebrating with friends that we had handed in our masters thesis. We went from Hamstead (up market, quiet place) towards Euston (central) to get some food. Along the way all the restaurants and shops had closed up early. We eventually went into a fast food place and in 10 minutes yobs on the street started hurling bottles at the windows, some of which flew through the open door and smashed. They ran off quickly and we decided to call it a night, at that point though I got a
  • #141
arildno & mheslep

*sigh* I'm thankful neither of you are from the UK... you're entitled to your views but please keep them in your respective countries. :P
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #142
JesseC said:
arildno & mheslep

*sigh* I'm thankful neither of you are from the UK... you're entitled to your views but please keep them in your respective countries. :P
Back at ya.
 
  • #143
Apparently 33% of the people in a survey said that they should use live ammunition to stop the riots, with slightly more saying that tasers and plastic bullets should be used.

I am being stopped and searched practically everywhere I go now.
 
  • #144
arildno said:
Noone forces them to be thugs; it is their own choice to be despicable scum.
I wouldn't be too sure of that. If they have denied a livelihood (jobs, infrastructure) to acquire for themselves the basic necessities of life - food, shelter - then, not only are they forced to turn to violence, they are - at least in principle - right to do so since, for them, society has effectively disintegrated.I would not have expected anyone over the age of 20 would suggest shooting them as an institutionalized solution.
 
Last edited:
  • #145
FeDeX_LaTeX said:
Apparently 33% of the people in a survey said that they should use live ammunition to stop the riots, with slightly more saying that tasers and plastic bullets should be used...
I think that sentiment is a natural consequence of the failure by the cops to use the normal, forceful but non-lethal riot control methods such as water cannons and rubber bullets. Take away the sense by society that there are consequences for running riot, that there is a system in place, and vigilantism comes next.
 
Last edited:
  • #146
DaveC426913 said:
I wouldn't be too sure of that. If they have denied a livelihood (jobs, infrastructure) to acquire for themselves the basic necessities of life - food, shelter - then, not only are they forced to turn to violence, they are - at least in principle - right to do so since, for them, society has effectively disintegrated.


I would not have expected anyone over the age of 20 would suggest shooting them as an institutionalized solution.
1. They DO have money. It is called social benefits.
2. They have not "been denied" jobs, they have chosen to be unemployable, and it began back in their school days, where they showed utter contempt for learning etc.
3. As a last resort in riot control, using sharp weapons is indeed, the correct solution.
Defensible measures to prevent ONGOING crimes are wholly other than punishments dealt out by court for PAST crimes.
That is why, for example, a shop owner is allowed to kill an armed robber, rather than handing over to him his goods.
That is why you as an outsider has the right to prevent a man from committing a rape, even if the situation means it entails killing him.
 
  • #147
I'll go further and ask where in the developed Western world is anyone forced to go without survival food and/or housing through no fault of their own?
 
  • #148
mheslep said:
I'll go further and ask where in the developed Western world is anyone forced to go without survival food and/or housing through no fault of their own?
However, what we DO have to struggle with are deeply immoral people actively encouraging "poor" people in their ideas that these are somehow "equally entitled" to the life of a millionaire..

This group of riot-inducing rabble equates quite nicely with..LEFTISTS.
 
  • #149
arildno said:
2. They have not "been denied" jobs, they have chosen to be unemployable, and it began back in their school days, where they showed utter contempt for learning etc.
Contempt?

Or hopelessness?

Is it your contention then that the country's problems only exist for those who have not completed basic education? That those who did complete it have a significantly good chance of finding work to support them and their families?

If I understand the current mood correctly, there is little hope to be had.
 
  • #150
DaveC426913 said:
Contempt?

Or hopelessness?

Is it your contention then that the country's problems only exist for those who have not completed basic education? That those who did complete it have a significantly good chance of finding work to support them and their families?

If I understand the current mood correctly, there is little hope to be had.
They have social benefits and have nothing whatsoever to complain about.
They are not "entitled" to anything more than means for physical survival, because life IS a human right, that others are obliged to help them with.
Neither happiness or prosperity are qualities of life others are obliged to help them with.
 
  • #151
arildno said:
They have social benefits and have nothing whatsoever to complain about.
It's so easy to sit back and judge others about how they ought to feel about their lives.

And then decide they should be shot if they don't like it.

Whatever. This attitude occurs a million times an hour on the internet.
 
  • #152
DaveC426913 said:
It's so easy to sit back and judge others about how they ought to feel about their lives.

And then decide they should be shot if they don't like it.
.
1. Correct. We SHOULD condemn people on social welfare who begin whining and complaining, and demand of them to be grateful, under the threat of reducing the handouts they're getting.
Not to condemn them is deeply immoral, and..inhumane.

2. Where have I said that people should be shot if they don't "like" their lives??
 
  • #153
I concede. Everyone is certainly entitled to their opinion and, it being rhetoric, there is nothing to be gained by arguing those opinions. So I have unsubbed, at least until such time as the thread wanders back to facts and actions.
 
  • #154
Implying that these social benefits doesn't exist, and aren't factual, is deeply dishonest of you.
THey DO receive welfare hand-outs, and THAT is the incontrovertible fact you have tried to suppress with your insinuations.
 
  • #156
Greg Bernhardt said:
The moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/p...r-society-is-as-bad-at-the-top-as-the-bottom/
I read that piece, Greg.
It is excellent in that without giving any sort of justification for the rioters it points out that there are a lot of the high&mighty who have no reason to regard themselves as sitting upon the moral high ground. Including David Cameron.
That, obviously, do not take away Cameron's duty or right to put down these riots.
 
  • #157
arildno said:
Implying that these social benefits doesn't exist, and aren't factual, is deeply dishonest of you.
THey DO receive welfare hand-outs, and THAT is the incontrovertible fact you have tried to suppress with your insinuations.

The fact that you reduced the whole problem to wealth (the haves and haves-not, and their relation) might well be what is wrong at the heart of the problem.
 
  • #158
arildno said:
Implying that these social benefits doesn't exist, and aren't factual, is deeply dishonest of you.
THey DO receive welfare hand-outs, and THAT is the incontrovertible fact you have tried to suppress with your insinuations.

This topic keeps popping up on the New Posts list. I don't mind walking away, but I don't like walking away when there are misunderstandings afoot. So I'll clarify.

It was not my intention to imply that the social benefits do not exist.

What is not factual is the opinions that they "gave up in school" and that "they have nothing to complain about", and that handouts are enough.

Those statements are unfounded and indefensible. I'm not claiming they're false, I'm claiming they're neither true not false - they're simply beliefs. And I have no reason to argue your beliefs. Nor do I have the inclination to demand that you defend them or retract them.
 
  • #159
MarcoD said:
The fact that you reduced the whole problem to wealth (the haves and haves-not, and their relation) might well be what is wrong at the heart of the problem.

No, I have not.
I have directly pointed my finger at one particularly despicable group:
Leftists who encourage these louts to criminality by blathering on and on about that these louts "ought" to get their "fair share".

Those leftists are actively destroying the social fabric with their dangerous, and deeply immoral, nonsense.
 
  • #160
arildno said:
No, I have not.
I have directly pointed my finger at one particularly despicable group:
Leftists who encourage these louts to criminality by blathering on and on about that these louts "ought" to get their "fair share".

Those leftists are actively destroying the social fabric with their dangerous, and deeply immoral, nonsense.

Leftists? Like in a conspiracy? Are you paranoid?

As far as I saw so far you reduced it to that these are the social lower class which should just be grateful for receiving their gifts. I find that an enormous materialistic oversimplification and it looks to me that you just changed the topic.

Moreover, I have no idea who the leftists are, and what their immoral nonsense is?
 
  • #161
DaveC426913 said:
I wouldn't be too sure of that. If they have denied a livelihood (jobs, infrastructure) to acquire for themselves the basic necessities of life - food, shelter - then, not only are they forced to turn to violence, they are - at least in principle - right to do so since, for them, society has effectively disintegrated.


I would not have expected anyone over the age of 20 would suggest shooting them as an institutionalized solution.

So this was justified?: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...of-a-shy-quiet-quirkylooking-man-2336865.html

Nobody was, "right to do so...". This line of reasoning makes no sense. There is no level of soceity disintegration to make murdering innocent people "right".
 
  • #163
MarcoD said:
Leftists? Like in a conspiracy? Are you paranoid?

As far as I saw so far you reduced it to that these are the social lower class which should just be grateful for receiving their gifts. I find that an enormous materialistic oversimplification and it looks to me that you just changed the topic.

Moreover, I have no idea who the leftists are, and what their immoral nonsense is?


I've been watching this London riots from the outsides, and i have never been in England but one thing i can say is that i don't believe that people who started and did this should have their fault taken away by then!

As i understood most people who had been in riots are from the minorities neighborhoods, therefore 2nd and 3nd generation of immigrants!

As i believe , this people only went to England to look for a better life, better job and so on!
When this happens we clearly got one problem in hand!
If this people, some as I've read here receive welfare, should be in England to work, other than that and their situation should be re thinkable for the people in power because a population, specially in times of crisis, should have a strong sense of unity between them and not to separate themselves!

The problem of England and most of Europe, specially the cultural western Europe, including Greece in here, is that they have been putting themselves in a bad path as most of the people in their governments can't really get a hold in their countries!

Problem with Europe is the mass capitalism that has swept from about the seventies till today!

Both that and the lack of moral values and lack of strong governments in Europe is making this kind of things to happen more and more!

Also the police is constantly being threatened with excessive use of force, and of killing criminals (seems the case here) that crime just spreads on and on!

Anyway i hope thing go for good because wars are bad things and we should just live in peace, even if that peace only lasts a small moment!

Best regards for everybody!
 
  • #164
kalakoi said:
Anyway i hope thing go for good because wars are bad things and we should just live in peace, even if that peace only lasts a small moment!

Great, a hippie. :biggrin: Namaste! :tongue:

I don't agree with some of your analysis, but do agree with some of your sentiments. I am just pointing out that any oversimplification from any side will not solve anything.
 
  • #165
MarcoD said:
Leftists? Like in a conspiracy? Are you paranoid?

As far as I saw so far you reduced it to that these are the social lower class which should just be grateful for receiving their gifts. I find that an enormous materialistic oversimplification and it looks to me that you just changed the topic.

Moreover, I have no idea who the leftists are, and what their immoral nonsense is?

As for despicable leftists, you probaby fit that bill precisely, not the least since you ridicule the basic idea that the primary moral obligation of this scum is to be deeply grateful for the handouts they receive.

Furthermore, I haven' changed the topic at all, rather you charged that I "only" reduced it to these scum and their basic lack of morality.
And then, I simply pointed out that I have already said that there are other groups as well who ought to be ashamed ofthemselves.
 
  • #167
If you don't think police can acquire advance knowledge of a protest and then react before trouble starts, shutting down cell service, it has been done already, on August 12th in San Francisco.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/12/bart_polioce_cut_mobile_phone_service/"
The statement also noted that although mobile phone service was curtailed during the expected protest period, train intercoms and courtesy telephones remained available for riders
and
Apparently the Bay Area Rapid Transit District is one step ahead of Cameron's efforts, at least when it comes to using prior restraint to prevent communication over the public mobile phone system.

BART's shutdown of mobile phone service is, at best, troubling. Although the system's electronic message boards had warned during the day of a possible demonstration during Thursday's commute, those warnings made no mention of a mobile-phone service shutdown.

As a result, tens of thousands of transit passengers were deprived of their expected service without warning. As is often the case when police clash with demonstrators – or, in this case, possiblle would-be demonstrators – it was the general public that was adversely affected.

The BART situation was a trivial inconvenience when compared with the savagery of the English rioting, but the response to it by some authorities raises the same spectre of prior restraint and unannounced limitation of individual freedoms

Rhody...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #168
Life isn’t easy, you have to study and do your homework... or you could become a thug.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOpKc-kN3Bg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #169
Hurkyl said:
I am rather contemptuous of people who pretend to be responding to one topic, but in reality just want to soapbox on some unrelated topic.


I’m sorry Hurkyl if I am missing the ‘bleedin’ obvious’ as it were, but I don’t want to make any false assumptions about your meaning. Are you suggesting that Peter Oborne was soapboxing on some unrelated topic? Because if you were I am not sure that is fair. I certainly see the connection that he is making. At least, I could not agree with an argument that sought to justify the actions of the rioters and looters on the basis that they were only helping themselves in the way the MPs had over their expenses. And I’m not entirely sure that that I could agree with an analysis that held that the moral decay at the bottom of British society was caused by the moral decay at the top. It would seem more likely to me that both were symptoms of the same fundamental malaise. But what I certainly do agree with, and is how I read the piece, is that all of the comments about the criminality of the rioters do have a certain hollow ring in the light of the expenses scandal and the phone hacking scandal and all of the other symptoms of moral decay at the top of British society. Again, there are two distinct response required – that to the immediate problem of restoring order, protecting individuals, small businesses and their property; and the longer term response to a moral decay that pervades all sections of British society, not just the underclass. That seems to me to be a valid point to have raised.
 
  • #170
I think Osborne had an excellent article.
Of course, the "alienation" from societal obligation for the upper crust has very much to do with the democratization of POLITICAL and socially defining power for the last century:
Previously, being rich gave ample opportunities to build a personally rewarding power base, say through making yourself as a Benefactor through charity, or effectively buying a parliament seat.

I.e, the road from mere riches to satisfying wielding power was much shorter than it is today.
Thus, for many rich today, it makes more sense to invest energy&capital in getting even richer, rather than trying to become more powerful.
 
  • #171
Oh dear arildno, now we are in real danger of getting off topic. But the point is worth making that the ‘upper crust’, the aristocracy, the landed gentry, as it once was, really doesn’t exist anymore. I can anticipate some of the responses that assertion might engender, but the truth is, whatever anachronistic vestiges of it that might linger, as what it was when it mattered, when it made any difference, it does not exist anymore. When we talk about the top of British society we are talking about the politicians, the business leaders, the power brokers, the senior members of the legal profession, the owners and managers of the media and such like. These are the ones of whom it might reasonably be suiggested that they should be setting a better example than they actually are.
 
  • #172
Ken Natton said:
Oh dear arildno, now we are in real danger of getting off topic. But the point is worth making that the ‘upper crust’, the aristocracy, the landed gentry, as it once was, really doesn’t exist anymore. I can anticipate some of the responses that assertion might engender, but the truth is, whatever anachronistic vestiges of it that might linger, as what it was when it mattered, when it made any difference, it does not exist anymore. When we talk about the top of British society we are talking about the politicians, the business leaders, the power brokers, the senior members of the legal profession, the owners and managers of the media and such like. These are the ones of whom it might reasonably be suiggested that they should be setting a better example than they actually are.

I specifically said "a century" ago.
To narrow it down, I would say that the development of the welfare state post WW2 finally eroded the selfish rationale behind the "noblesse oblige" mentality, that also infused the higher bourgoisie.
The local social power and status of the rich as benefactors eroded as their "social services" were no longer needed. And thus, they themselves stopped bothering about the society at large, and focused their energy on maximizing private profit instead.
Whatever else was left for them to spend their fortunes on?
 
  • #173
arildno said:
As for despicable leftists, you probaby fit that bill precisely, not the least since you ridicule the basic idea that the primary moral obligation of this scum is to be deeply grateful for the handouts they receive.

Furthermore, I haven' changed the topic at all, rather you charged that I "only" reduced it to these scum and their basic lack of morality.
And then, I simply pointed out that I have already said that there are other groups as well who ought to be ashamed ofthemselves.

I hardly consider myself to be leftist, I also doubt that a classification like that makes sense. You did change the topic in my perception since you want to blame 'leftists,' whoever they are.

I pointed out that you oversimplified the riots beyond what is a credible analysis. As far as we know, this was a heterogenous group of mostly young social lower class, but also working people and even the daughter of a millionaire.

What is interesting about these riots is that mostly, in cases of social unrest, people riot against the government, whereas here people turned to looting shops. Criminality, recreational violence, gangculture, materialism, the financial crisis, social tension, lack of moral guidance - take your pick. But to reduce it to 'people who aren't grateful for hand-outs' -a materialist argument- fed by a leftist conspiracy? Horsedung.
 
  • #174
The intervew on BBC with writer and activist Darcus Howe about riots in England.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn_XZ2ttCMo
 
  • #175
vici10 said:
The intervew on BBC with writer and activist Darcus Howe about riots in England.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn_XZ2ttCMo
OH MY! This is why you want to pre-screen interviewees to make sure they are coherent enough to be interviewed. :bugeye: That made absolutely no sense. It reminded me of an SNL news skit. Of course the subject is not funny, but I think they should have found another person to interview.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top