|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: London Riots - The Root Cause
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daron:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
Ah, I see... well surely the police can tell the difference?
This is the same police that once pulled over Bishop John Sentamu because he happened to be driving a rather nice car while also being black, right?
If they can't tell the difference between a Bishop and a joyrider I don't hold out much hope of them telling the difference in this instance either.
There's a qualitative difference between being stopped for driving a car while black and a black man being arrested for driving a piece of scaffolding through a shop window.
Read a bit further up the page there son: that's right, that's right... we're discussing Muslim women's facial coverings right now. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
I think people are talking about slightly different property rights. I think what Dafyd means is that to acquire property (above and beyond basic necessities of life) isn't a natural right. I think what some others mean is that if you do have property, then it is a natural right to expect that that property will not be taken from you by theft and violence.
With the proviso that it's totally academic in discussing looting, I think property is a socially acquired right rather than a natural right for at least two reasons:
a. It's possible to imagine a society with no property, and therefore no concept of theft. It's not possible to imagine a society in which being kicked in the head doesn't cause me harm.
b. All property claims must derive ultimately from claims to own natural resources, and it's not clear how anyone can inherently own a resource provided by nature.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Boogie, I wasn't saying that 'Grand Theft Auto' in and of itself was a contributory cause. Of course it isn't. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
All I was doing was using that as an example of a cultural artefact that CAN, given the right circumstances, contribute to the kind of malaise we're talking about here. And there's no single, simplistic factor. Of course there isn't.
To be honest, I find the kind of Ken flavoured, 'Ah well, they mostly targeted the big chain stores ...' to be as wrong-headed in a faux Robin Hood way as calls by Matt Black to bang them all up and throw away the key. Sure, there are times when a robust response is the right one ... and I'd suggest that this is one of them ... but it doesn't deal with the underlying causes.
As for Frater Frag's contribution ...
I'm surprised no-one's called him to Hell. If that's the level of debate he can muster then he deserves to be roasted.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Even so, Dafyd, if you deny that "property" is a natural right, I don't think you can deny that food, clothing and shelter are natural rights: and those are precisely what people have been deprived of, having their homes burned to the ground around them.
As I understand it, the argument does something like this:
angelicum: why should I consider myself responsible for other people unless it aligns with my own self-interest?
me: if so, then you need a better argument as to why people shouldn't loot than that looting is selfish and inconsiderate.
We're agreed that looting is selfish and inconsiderate: should you accept the premise that other forms of selfish and inconsiderate behaviour are acceptable then the fact that looting is selfish and inconsiderate no longer becomes a sufficient argument against it.
The position that so long as you mind your own business/property rights you're not responsible for other people's business is inconsistent, because your property rights only exist when other people mind them. If I'm under the impression that I own Buckingham Palace, that's just tough: I'm deluded. If everyone else is under the same impression, then I'm not deluded: I actually own Buckingham Palace. Property is a social institution, like driving on the side of the road. Once there's an agreement to drive on one side of the road, it becomes criminally reckless to drive on the other side. But if the social contract is set up so that the arrangement disadvantages someone more than they benefit from it, you need to give them some other reason for them to go along with it.
As I think we are responsible for other people, I do think looting is wrong. And indeed worse than selfishly minding your own business. But that's because selfishly minding your own business is not as bad, not because selfishly minding your own business is ok.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelicum
Shipmate
# 13515
|
Posted
quote:
The position that so long as you mind your own business/property rights you're not responsible for other people's business is inconsistent, because your property rights only exist when other people mind them
But that's the dispute of the argument. Your right to your property exists whether or not other people mind them precisely because I (and evidently Catholic social teaching) believe it to be a natural right, and not as you think it to be - solely a legal right. If I steal your property, it's still "your" property.
In any case whether or not it is solely a legal right, or a legal and natural right I still fail to see your point. Property is still a legal right regardless, whereas expecting me to be concerned for the well-being of someone else whom I don't particularly know (or like) is not a legal right.
Posts: 364 | From: Full in the panting heart | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
As I understand it, "cutters" are thought to be motivated by a need to have some sort of physical expression of their inner pain/turmoil.
That's not what I've heard from cutters I have known and/or talked to personally, although of course they could be an unrepresentative minority. They said they were emotionally numb and unable to feel anything, and giving themselves pain at least was feeling something, even if it was negative. It was better to feel pain than nothing at all. After some point I imagine the endorphin rush caused by pain could become addictive as well but that wasn't mentioned, perhaps because they were unaware of the science on that and thus weren't able to explain it in those terms.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
As Ammon Hennacy said, trying to create a society where it's easier for people to be good. Not that it's ever easy, but it's possible to make it harder. Or not.
Because it's so hard to not make the choice to go out and destroy/steal what belongs to others. I have no problem managing to not make that choice.
Sure, but you have a stake in the system. Whereas I'll bet a lot of the rioters really don't, and don't have much to lose.
[ 12. August 2011, 02:27: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
... I wish this was political, because if it was something could actually be done about it - there would be a genuine grievance to settle or need to provide. But it's not. It's the end point of a culture of apathy and avarice that doesn't care about facilities, or education, or opportunities, it just cares about getting what you can while the getting's good. And how the hell do you fix that? What good is educating someone who doesn't care about learning? What good are job opportunities to someone who doesn't care about working?
(latter italics mine) Yet that is exactly the ethos of the corporation and our capitalist system that looks no futher than next quarter's results and acts accordingly, with no concern for its effects on anyone or anything else. That too, is a culture of apathy and avarice. But when individuals do it, it's apparently a crime and we're all shocked and appalled.
Why bother educating people when you can poach already-educated people from other countries? It's more profitable to create job opportunities in call centres in Bangladesh or assembly plants in Malaysia, and not have to worry about workplace health and safety or pesky unions. Corporations "loot" on a daily basis - they pollute our clean air and water, pillage and destroy ecosystems, and relentlessly squeeze their workers like a lime at a crappy bar, but it's all ok because it's reported on the financial pages.
We're all living in the same culture, so why expect citizens to act any differently?
quote:
... How can you get people to actually give a shit?
By making sure everyone has something to give a shit about. People who aren't benefitting from a set of rules have no incentive to follow them. OliviaG
PS Economics is political.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Frater_Frag:
The only solution to big riots like this one is to let the military solve the problem.
When we see a big riot maybe we'll call you. This was a handful rather small riots - tiny compared to the student demonstrations last year, nowhere near as violent or as destructive as the riots in 1981-85 - that were followed by hundreds of separate acts of looting spread all over the whole country. Not something the army would be much use for.
One of the reasons that Tuesday was much less dangerous than Monday in London was that the police to some extent went back to policing tactics instead of crowd-control - visble presence on street corners and at public transport, chasing looters down the street, snatching hold of suspects, escorting dodgy-looking groups away rather then kettling them in one place. They did better by behaving less like troops and more like police.
On Wednesday a group of around 50 kids walked down the road I was in making a row (this is by report I didn't see them though I heard the noise, I was in a back room). Some police vans went down the street slowly keeping up with them and keeping an eye on them. That seemed to work. No shooting or water cannon necessasary.
And yes, obviously that is not the case if there are large numbers of people attacking other people or if buildings are being set on fire. But most - the vast majority - of the incidents were not like that.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
As someone who lived in Lambeth until 3 years ago I think Exclamation mark is right. There are tensions between Asian and Black residents ....
If you had read the thread instead of just saying what was on your heart to tell us all you would have realised that what Garden Hermit and Exclamation Mark were saying was that looters hard been targeting Asian shops in London. This was not in fact true. Tensions or no tensions.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
As I understand it, "cutters" are thought to be motivated by a need to have some sort of physical expression of their inner pain/turmoil.
That's not what I've heard from cutters I have known and/or talked to personally, although of course they could be an unrepresentative minority. They said they were emotionally numb and unable to feel anything, and giving themselves pain at least was feeling something, even if it was negative. It was better to feel pain than nothing at all. After some point I imagine the endorphin rush caused by pain could become addictive as well but that wasn't mentioned, perhaps because they were unaware of the science on that and thus weren't able to explain it in those terms.
Misattribution alert: the words quoted by mousethief are originally from cliffdweller, not from me. Not that I mind.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Frater_Frag:
The only solution to big riots like this one is to let the military solve the problem.
When we see a big riot maybe we'll call you. This was a handful rather small riots - tiny compared to the student demonstrations last year, nowhere near as violent or as destructive as the riots in 1981-85 - that were followed by hundreds of separate acts of looting spread all over the whole country.
Maybe in terms of numbers, then, it wasn't that big a riot. But I for one found it a good deal scarier than the student protest riots that went on in the City and the West End earlier this year - partly because it came a lot closer to residential premises.
As for your point about crowd control, I think it needs to be pointed out that it's a lot easier to kettle a crowd that's all in one place than a crowd that is dispersed over a large area - and, in particular, the narrower a street exit is, the easier it is to kettle a crowd in that area. It's a lot easier to kettle people into Threadneedle Street than it is to kettle them into Hyde Park.
I grant that Tottenham High Road isn't quite Hyde Park, though. But I suspect that Tottenham High Road is a lot wider, and has wider exits, than Threadneedle Street.
So I'm not convinced that it's for want of trying.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Back to OP topic - this web page actually makes some interesting comments about gentreification and exclusion and demonisation. If you read past the Dave Spartist jargon that both the blogger and many of the commentators fall into. (I wish the Left didn't do that so often)
And no she is not saying she approves of the looting, or that people ought not to defend themselves against it, or clean up after it
And FWIW yes the blogger is almost certainly using a pseudonym.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Yet that is exactly the ethos of the corporation and our capitalist system that looks no futher than next quarter's results and acts accordingly, with no concern for its effects on anyone or anything else. That too, is a culture of apathy and avarice. But when individuals do it, it's apparently a crime and we're all shocked and appalled.
Interestingly, Iain Duncan Smith made a similar comment about people who choose to live on benefits.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
this web page actually makes some interesting comments about gentreification and exclusion and demonisation.
Really? I'm sorry, ken, but any reasonable point she might have had is utterly lost to me in the sanctimonious and vitriolic rhetoric with which she lambasts the very people who are trying practically to make an immediate effort to make things better - the broom-wielders. Just some snippets from the link above to give the impression I was left with:
quote:
The strikingly middle-class, broadly white efforts to sweep issues of inequality under the carpet of a simulated big-society photo-op [...] This doughty bunch of volunteer cleaners, the substitution for a non-existent community, appeared right on cue to fill the media narrative all day following a night of London’s most extensive social unrest in decades. Even Mayor Boris had leisurely returned from holiday to be snapped with the broom-wielding bourgeoisie of Clapham as they amassed for a bit of symbolic social cleansing.
[...]
Art and brooms isn’t going to fix this particular problem however, only the radical redistribution of wealth and a society not defined around the individual accumulation of property is going to do that.
[...]
Behind the thinly veiled symbolism of social cleansing/cleaning up the area – for which read gentrification and further exclusion/segregation ... [a]ll of the twitter commentary that supposedly organised the clean-up events (or was it the Young Conservatives Clapham branch?) parroted the same ideological soundbites – this is the ‘real London’, this is the ‘true London’ blah, blah, yawn, blah.
[...]
If [community] does exist, as this episode illustrates, this community certainly appears to be one that cannot operate other than by the exclusion of certain individuals, by the rhetorical and indeed physical expulsion of non-citizens and ‘feral rats’, from within its midst. Such a community, predicated upon exclusion, was how Carl Schmitt defined society (and he was a Nazi). This community therefore, that comes together over their dustpan and brushes only does so in the specific exclusion of their Other. This Other, the poor, often BME youths that have felt compelled to acts of nihilistic aggression against a society that marginalises them and offers no future, but amongst which and as part of which they live, are rhetorically excluded rather than be considered as equals.
By the symbolic cleaning, cleansing and casting out of the rioters from the community, the sweepers appear to enact the closest thing to popular fascism that we have seen on the streets of certain ‘leafy’ bits of London for years.
What I was left with was the nasty sound of a political axe - and some foam-flecked teeth - being ground. And she has the cheek to talk about dismissing and excluding people on the basis of class/origin?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Goodness! It was funny when that blog said quote:
It's not 1940.
You'd never think, from the posturing Old Marxist ivory-tower rhetoric. Sounds like something written by a redbrick academic historian who's been locked in their cobweb-strewn office for 40 years, and accidentally resurrected when a cleaner went in and dusted them.
I could almost see the tie-dyed flares and big hair.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jahlove
Tied to the mast
# 10290
|
Posted
I think the micro-analysis *feral chav underclass take opportunity to get STUFF for free and have a bonfire into the bargain* AND the macro- *UK societal systems are totally fucked up so you shouldn't be surprised (politicians whinge *Something Must Be Done* and hey, looky, looky, Something IS being done - but not by the favoured means of Special Committees but by direct action, oh dear we don't like it) - are both correct.
While I doubt that 1% of people on the streets are motivated by purely political reasons, that isn't to say that even the Naughty Looters'n'Burners aren't somehow responding to the Zeitgeist of revolution and change that, to date, we've mostly seen in the Middle East and North Africa.
Remembering the Toxteth and Brixton riots (1981) and Broadwater Farm (1985) - similar looking on the surface but didn't really lead to major change - I wonder if, in tandem with the unrest in other places and the global financial meltdown + a weak government, there may be a Kuhnian paradigm shift in the not-too-distant future.
--------------------
“Sing like no one's listening, love like you've never been hurt, dance like nobody's watching, and live like its heaven on earth.” - Mark Twain
Posts: 6477 | From: Alice's Restaurant (UK Franchise) | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, absolutely, which is partly why people are losing faith in ideology (and probably also religious dogma) because it so easily lends itself to parody by adopting such ludicrously unnuanced positions.
I concur with ken's views on the policing issue. The Met were policing quite effectively on Tuesday evening it seemed to me - and those I spoke to were in good spirits. This begs the question as to why they didn't police so effectively earlier in the week ... but I suspect they were wrong footed to a large extent and it took them a while to adapt and respond.
This wasn't like the student protests or any other organised march or rally and, as ken says, what they were up against for the most part were relatively small and apparently spontaneous outbursts of looting and criminal damage. A very different situation to police to an organised march with advance warning and plenty of potential flash-points that could be considered in advance.
I think there are questions to be asked as to why some areas were left apparently unpoliced for so long - allowing looters to rob, burn and destroy with impunity. No wonder some groups took recourse to vigilante action ... and it's very fortunate, in London at least, that these didn't lead to serious casualties. The media have made much of Turks and Sikhs seeing off mobs by brandishing kitchen knives and baseball bats. I can understand why they'd do this but is this really the sort of 'big society' that Cameron envisages?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
This wasn't like the student protests or any other organised march or rally and, as ken says, what they were up against for the most part were relatively small and apparently spontaneous outbursts of looting and criminal damage. A very different situation to police to an organised march with advance warning and plenty of potential flash-points that could be considered in advance.
There was a claim made elsewhere that over the last few years Police tactics have evolved to checking and holding the line against mass protests (students etc), via tactics such as kettling.
Such tactics work less well against a small group intent on causing mayhem. I'm guessing it took a few days for them to adjust to those techniques.
Plus for the first few days it seemed as if there were highly mobile rioters popping up here, there and everywhere. Which would have involved large numbers of police being everywhere a mob was likely to form (which is obviously impossible).
By Tuesday, it was large numbers of people in a few places.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
I think the micro-analysis *feral chav underclass take opportunity to get STUFF for free and have a bonfire into the bargain* AND the macro- *UK societal systems are totally fucked up so you shouldn't be surprised (politicians whinge *Something Must Be Done* and hey, looky, looky, Something IS being done - but not by the favoured means of Special Committees but by direct action, oh dear we don't like it) - are both correct.
Well yes.
Things can have more than one cause. Almost everything does. And the personal and polictical are not distinct. Our actions - criminal actions jsut like any other actions have personal causes and they also have political causes.
All of these things could be true at the same time (and they probably all are):
- authoritatian policing won't help
- black people do get treated worse by British police and government than white people do (and Muslims get it even worse)
- civil disturbances almost always happen in large European cities when government spending is cut. It is almost inevitable, and ought to have been predictable. And in fact was predicted.
- further impoverishing the family of a poor criminal is unlikely to make them any more law-abiding
- if our problems are going to be fixed they need political change, not just policing
- It is almost always better to be brought up by two parents than one.
- its probably a really bad idea to cut funding to the Metropolitan Police - and if they do the chances are that our next Old Etonian toff Prime Minister will have a fat and jolly public image rather than a smooth and synthetic slightly sinister one.
- London needs police
- looting is wrong
- most of the "rioters" probably had no political motive
- no, all of this is not about race
- people have a right to defend themselves and their homes whatever the police say
- people ought not to be afraid of the police
- plenty of poor people don't steal
- right is different from wrong, and everyboidy ought to know the difference
- the main function of police and government in our society is to defend the privileges and interests of property owners
- the police are not hamstrung by red tape
- the police do not have too few powers
- the police do not have too few weapons
- the threat of riot is one of the guarantors of our liberal representative democracy. Without it government gets too powerful
- there are far too many people with no "stake in society".
- there isn't really a large socially isolated underclass in Britain, but there are millions of desperately excluded individuals and families and a disproportionate number of them are black
- this does have political causes. As well as personal causes.
- we don't need more armed police, we don't need stronger sentencing, we don't need the army in the streets, we don't need the EDL pretending to organise white vigilantes, we don't need to abolish the Human Rights Act, we don't need to ban Blackberry or censor Twitter, we don't need to drive immigrants out of London, we don't need to evict thousands of people from council estates, we don't need to take away their benefits, we don't need water-cannon.
- when someone robs someone they are a criminal and they are to blame and they ought to be caught and tried and if appropriate punished
- yes it probably would make things better if we increased government spending on the poorest districts of our large cities
- yes, some of this is about race
And it would be great if the present prime minister (who is dropping his liberal camouflage like a whore stripping), and the right-wing press, and useless pomopus turds like Michael Gove would either shut up or acknowledge that these things are not mutually exclusive. And stop this crappy bitching at anyone who tries to suggest understanding what is going on or fixing some of the problems. I'm bored bored bored with ritual demands to "condemn criminality" or whatever.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I agree with ken. As usual.
But the blog he quoted turned my sympathy off somewhat. Apart from the fact that AFAIK the scenes depicted were at Clapham Junction, ie Battersea, and not Clapham (quite a different demographic), what is the evidence for concluding that the clean-up brigade were a group of bourgeoisie acting as poster boys and girls for the Big Society? If (as everybody admits) the rioters were a tiny minority of local people (and probably included many others from outside the area) then isn't it likely that those wielding the brooms were representative of the (very ethnically and socially mixed) area? It certainly was like that here in Liverpool.
Such ill-informed rants are as counter-productive as the violence itself.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
redderfreak
Shipmate
# 15191
|
Posted
Well I can't see how you could blame religion for this riotous behaviour. As a religious person I'm relieved about that, because we seem to get blamed for most of the world's woes these days.
Always look on the bright side of life!
--------------------
You know I just couldn't make it by myself, I'm a little too blind to see
Posts: 287 | From: Exeter | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, the coppers I spoke to would probably broadly agree with most of your points, ken, except that they did say that they felt hamstrung by the courts, lenient sentencing and a concern that the politicians and the media weren't allowing them to get on with their jobs properly. No, they didn't want water cannon, no, they didn't want rubber or plastic bullets.
But what they did want was the freedom, as they saw it, to go in with appropriate severity in those instances where there were substantial threats to life, limb and property. They wanted to be able to rough up the ringleaders a bit in order to deter the others. They felt that they couldn't because it'd be captured on film and they might lose their jobs. They didn't want to find themselves on assault charges.
This worries me somewhat as it demonises the liberal media and civil liberties types.
It's a tricky one though, as we clearly don't want repetitions of the incident which led to the death of Chris Tomlinson nor the various examples of inappropriate force that have emerged over the years.
That said, when there are mobs setting fire to properties and endangering life, setting upon innocent bystanders and terrifying entire communities then some kind of robust response is clearly necessary. I agree that police tactics were exemplary on Tuesday night and that once they'd recovered from the initial outbreaks earlier in the week they were quickly able to deploy effective solutions. No need for the Army, no need for watercannon, no need for rubber bullets, just good, old-fashioned policing.
Rightly or wrongly, the police do feel hampered and the threat of cuts isn't going to do them nor anyone else any favours. Sure, black people and Muslims can feel themselves singled out more than other sectors of society for police scrutiny - but the Muslims and Sikhs of Birmingham who came out to defend their neighbourhoods and where, tragically, three men lost their lives through no fault of their own - did want the police to be there to protect them. The clips I've seen show some complaining that the police were in the city centre defending the big stores rather than defending them and their property. The police can't be everywhere at once and whatever they do they'd be criticised. If they'd deployed their officers to the residential areas they'd have then been criticised for leaving the city centre unprotected ... it's swings and roundabouts ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
the main function of police and government in our society is to defend the privileges and interests of property owners
If by "property owners" you mean "everybody", then yes. Otherwise, this is the kind of inflammatory bullshit that... let's just say doesn't help.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
tomsk
Shipmate
# 15370
|
Posted
I wonder, Gamaliel, whether you have to take the rough with the smooth with the Police. Sometimes their job is to put the boot in. If they become too concerned about doing the wrong thing, they end up being ineffectual.
Posts: 372 | From: UK | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Yes, of course, one can quite see why being told not to chop people down from behind when they are strolling across the road would lead to your average police officer feeling unsure about whether or not they were allowed to try to stop (or even arrest) someone trashing and looting a shop.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
the main function of police and government in our society is to defend the privileges and interests of property owners
If by "property owners" you mean "everybody", then yes. Otherwise, this is the kind of inflammatory bullshit that... let's just say doesn't help.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:
Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery;
None but ourselves can free our minds.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
...I find it strange that you seem to think that knowing that your son or brother or husband is a criminal means that you would no longer want to defend them. That's an attitude I find un-natural and a bit creepy. I think I prefer a world like the one most people actually live in where they are more loyal to their own friends and family than they are to the state, and sometimes do not abandon them even when they are doing evil things.
This comment was buried on page six, but it bothered me so much I had to drag it back into the light of day.
No, you would not actually prefer to live in such a world. The attitude of "protect your own, even when they are doing evil things" is a great medium in which to develop crime. It means that crimes cannot be investigated because of uncooperative witnesses, criminals have impunity, injustice rolls on like a polluted river.
The attitude may be understandable, given past relations between the police and [insert oppressed group here]. But even those oppressed groups eventually get tired of protecting criminals and fostering crime, which usually affects them most directly. It takes particular courage to break the group's silence for the sake of justice, for the sake of an unknown neighbour from outside the group.
Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jerry Boam
Shipmate
# 4551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
No, you would not actually prefer to live in such a world. The attitude of "protect your own, even when they are doing evil things" is a great medium in which to develop crime.
Maybe it has something to do with a recognition that people can learn lessons and change.
They may do terrible things in blind range or despair and then see the damage they have done and have a change of heart and mind.
Seeing a loved one caught in the kind of place that often leads to crime may result in an intense desire to help them change.
The attention of the state rarely helps. The mechanisms of "justice" tend to grind people up and spit them out. Rehabilitation is not an actual goal. The rough embrace of that system is not something we want to see for our loved ones even if they are thoroughly guilty.
Ken did use the word "sometimes" and it makes a difference. I think he is quite right.
--------------------
If at first you don't succeed, then skydiving is not for you.
Posts: 2165 | From: Miskatonic University | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Leaf,
a real life argument I got into yesterday around the riots had the person who I was tangling with telling me that he would report everyone for wrong-doing whenever he heard about it. That's really not a good way forward working with people. If you just report everything then:
- you've lost any relationship with that person because they won't tell you anything ever again;
- you're disempowering them, infantilising them, not allowing them to make their own decisions and deal with the consequences;
- you're standing as judge and jury for everyone you meet
Standing by someone doesn't mean that you don't encourage them to do the right things, and make reparation, but it also means that you try to help them make the right decisions for themselves.
As school professionals, working with a family, you are trying to move the situation on, support and educate the children. We really did not need to alienate the family for things that weren't related to education.
There are so many things tangled into these situations that you really don't want to remove any stabilising influences, however flawed.
But, yes, some of the support from families is less than helpful, but maybe the solution is to work with the whole family and the whole community.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
My thought was the opposite, Curiosity killed.
I was thinking that the best people to shop these mindless looters would be their teachers. As 50% of them (So far) have been under 18.
I certainly would - how does getting away with violent burglary help anyone?
Show me a badly behaved boy and I'll show you a Mum who backs him up and enables his behaviour.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Boogie, I don't know where you work, but in the areas where I've worked the way that worked to deal with behaviour in school is to make it very clear that these are the rules in school and this is the expectation in school. Schools see children for 5 or 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, 38 weeks a year, that's 13% of their time. When the other 87% of their time they have other rules backed up at the end of a belt, the home rules are the ones that stick.
eta - and that's assuming they have 100% school attendance
[ 12. August 2011, 07:23: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
Yes - we see a lot of that. But most is ineffectual parenting. Quite a bit due to simple ignorance of the fact that children need boundaries.
(I teach in, statistically, the most deprived ward in the UK)
The first person out of court last night in Manchester was 11 years old - and his mother was still backing him up - no shame whatever.
Quite often when I call a Mum in to talk about behaviour their first words are 'What did the other boy do?' It takes ages to get them thinking about their own child's behaviour - they seem to see the child as an extension of themselves and take the criticism personally.
When they realise that I care about their son and want the very best for him then they begin to listen.
Teaching them to build walls and boundaries for their small children is a tough job. But it pays off - no boundaries at six = totally out of control by 14 imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
I work with the 14-16 year olds, the ones the schools don't want, and all the hope we've held out for those kids has gone.
- Go to college and get more qualifications? The EMA that pays for the bus and books has been scrapped. It's going to cost the family and if they are on benefits, it's going to be a struggle. My daughter worked out it cost £100 a month when she did it 5 years ago.
- college courses are less supportive, the rules they now operate under means less helping kids, more driving for results;
- University? It's going to cost a minimum of £40,000 for a three year course from this year - my daughter who has just finished has £28k debts from tuition fees and living expense loans
- Apprenticeship? What are they? They are as rare as hen's teeth - we turned one kid around this year with a brilliant supportive extended work placement which is going to continue to support him through an apprenticeship. And with fewer job options everyone downgrades their job expectations, so kids who would have gone on are now taking the jobs the kids I work with would have gone for
- a job? don't be silly! the Connexions service that supported 16-19 year olds has been cut
Evening courses to get the qualifications they missed, level 1 and 2 English and Maths, mean a trip to somewhere else and no bus back, no funding to provide them locally.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Avila
Shipmate
# 15541
|
Posted
Two radio 4 news clips -
Father of 16yr old in court - how am I supposed to know where he is and what he is up to? .... Throw the book at him
Today guest on a panel - pointed out how much coverage riots get from the media and the recall of parliment etc compared to the notice taken of 20 murders a year(?) in same communities. No excuses but saying this suggests to the young people that the property is more valued than their lives.
A lot of truth in that - Jo Public outside these areas doesn't feel at risk, its not my back yard so not on the radar. Rioting well that's crossing boundaries, might come to my city, might impact me - lets talk, lets find reasons, lets get something happening...
--------------------
http://aweebleswonderings.blogspot.com/
Posts: 1305 | From: west midlands | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Back to OP topic - this web page actually makes some interesting comments about gentreification and exclusion and demonisation. If you read past the Dave Spartist jargon that both the blogger and many of the commentators fall into. (I wish the Left didn't do that so often)
And no she is not saying she approves of the looting, or that people ought not to defend themselves against it, or clean up after it
And FWIW yes the blogger is almost certainly using a pseudonym.
That article is a complete joke probably written by some public-school educated wannabe.
When rioters were interviewed by the police it is they that condemn themselves with their own utterances. These morons have excluded themselves nobody else has had to lift a finger to do that.
I am still puzzled why the clean-up is considered by the writer as a form of fascism -though of course she does not condemn it.
Priceless.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
QLib - yes indeed. No-one here is defending the police action in the Tomlinson case. And if the manslaughter charge against the officer concerned deters others from chopping people down indiscriminately then that's fair enough.
But what about an instance where looters are using scaffolding to break into shops, trashing people's flats, setting fire to houses and shops with potential loss of life?
The police were wrong-footed and, in the initial stages at least, were using inappropriate tactics designed for marches and demonstrators rather than outbreaks of mass burglary.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Boogie
Quite often when I call a Mum in to talk about behaviour their first words are 'What did the other boy do?'
This seems, to me, to be a highly relevant question to ask in the situation to which you refer. I would certainly ask it. Not to do so seems, potentially, to me to offer, for example, a free pass to manipulative bullies who taunt children to such an extent that they eventually retaliate. And if your attitude to mums is how you descibe it, I think I might be able to see why they take these comments personally.
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by Boogie
Quite often when I call a Mum in to talk about behaviour their first words are 'What did the other boy do?'
This seems, to me, to be a highly relevant question to ask in the situation to which you refer. I would certainly ask it. Not to do so seems, potentially, to me to offer, for example, a free pass to manipulative bullies who taunt children to such an extent that they eventually retaliate. And if your attitude to mums is how you descibe it, I think I might be able to see why they take these comments personally.
Absolutely - and if this was the case I would already be dealing with it, having spoken to both children, and anyone else depending on the circumstances. I will have brought the mother in to talk about her child's unacceptable behaviour.
My attitude to Mums is that I'm very much on their side - I'm not sure why you think otherwise. It's totally in their interest to help them sort out their children's behaviour - especially as I teach 6 year olds and this is the best time to catch them.
eta - the letters of thanks after my parenting courses are a testimony to that.
I am a facilitator for 1 2 3 Magic - a brilliant tool for such matters.
[ 12. August 2011, 10:53: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelicum
Shipmate
# 13515
|
Posted
quote:
civil disturbances almost always happen in large European cities when government spending is cut. It is almost inevitable, and ought to have been predictable. And in fact was predicted.
Legitimate civil disturbance is acceptable I think. Protests, sit-ins etc.
I think rioting, arson and looting is slightly different. But lets accept that this most recent riots are related to cuts to government spending, i.e. people are unhappy with cuts therefore they have decided to steal.
My question is - is this therefore an argument against cuts?
Because it seems to me, what they have demonstrated is that they never deserved the government funding going to them in the first place! So instead of being an argument against cuts, it should be an argument for more cuts. If these are people who could do such activity, then why shouldn't they be punished with more cuts?
For the record, I don't believe there is this causal relationship between cuts to govt expenditure and rioting, but some people do so I think its a legitimate question, considering these are the same people who speak of 'fairness'. Surely its fair to use the resources that we do have on people who are unlikely to take to these forms of activity?
Re. the association between govt spending and rioting. Could not there be reverse causality in play here? That is instead of cutting government expenditure leads to the creation of a criminal sub-culture that results in rioting, could it not be that the criminal sub-culture has existed, was being increasingly bloated and sustained with increasing government spending up to the maximum available spend which resulted in the necessity for greater cuts in that area of govt spend?
Posts: 364 | From: Full in the panting heart | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jessie Phillips
Shipmate
# 13048
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
While I doubt that 1% of people on the streets are motivated by purely political reasons, that isn't to say that even the Naughty Looters'n'Burners aren't somehow responding to the Zeitgeist of revolution and change that, to date, we've mostly seen in the Middle East and North Africa.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
I think it's a no-brainer. People in the UK see news reports of people in the Middle East and North Africa being unhappy with their lot, and having riots to change it - and everyone praises how brave they are. And the people who are unhappy with their lot think "Not fair! They get to smash the system - but we don't!" I can't pretend that I myself have not thought this from time to time as well.
So I don't think you can blame people for taking a leaf out of the book of the Arab Spring book.
Does this motivate the looting, though? Perhaps not. But it does at least temporarily break social conventions to the extent that is necessary to allow looting to take place.
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
the main function of police and government in our society is to defend the privileges and interests of property owners
If by "property owners" you mean "everybody", then yes. Otherwise, this is the kind of inflammatory bullshit that... let's just say doesn't help.
Well spotted.
Apologies if this is too much of a tangent - but real estate owners don't like having it pointed out to them - but if someone takes control of your premises in a way that can't be shown beyond reasonable doubt to be a criminal matter, then you do need to be prepared to pay the costs of enforcement to get them out again.
I grant that you can sue the squatters / tenants / uninvited guests for those costs if you want - but if those squatters have no money, then this won't help. If you're not prepared to pony up the money yourself, then the squatters stay. And if you take the matter into your own hands, then it's you that will be on the wrong side of the law - not the squatters.
Being a property owner does not give you an entitlement to the enforcement of your rights to your property at state expense. It never has done, and it never will do. You can rant about how unfair this is, but it won't make any difference. If you didn't understand that that's the way it is before you signed your mortgage agreement, then more fool you for actually buying real estate in the first place.
Too many property owners have a misplaced sense of entitlement, in my opinion. That doesn't make them bad people, though; it just means that they've been sold into a deal that isn't quite as good as they thought. It's obviously in estate agents' interest to hype up real estate ownership to be more valuable than it actually is, as though it confers more rights on you than it actually does - because they get more commission that way.
The purpose of the police is no more to protect property owners than it is to protect anyone else. Having said that, it is part of the purpose of the police to protect the state - and property owners rely on the continued existence of that state to be able to enforce their rights to their property at all - even though they still have to pay the enforcement costs anyway. If the state goes belly up, then your real estate title is worth diddly squat.
Posts: 2244 | From: Home counties, UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelicum
Shipmate
# 13515
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
the main function of police and government in our society is to defend the privileges and interests of property owners
If by "property owners" you mean "everybody", then yes. Otherwise, this is the kind of inflammatory bullshit that... let's just say doesn't help.
Well spotted.
Apologies if this is too much of a tangent - but real estate owners don't like having it pointed out to them - but if someone takes control of your premises in a way that can't be shown beyond reasonable doubt to be a criminal matter, then you do need to be prepared to pay the costs of enforcement to get them out again.
I grant that you can sue the squatters / tenants / uninvited guests for those costs if you want - but if those squatters have no money, then this won't help. If you're not prepared to pony up the money yourself, then the squatters stay. And if you take the matter into your own hands, then it's you that will be on the wrong side of the law - not the squatters.
Being a property owner does not give you an entitlement to the enforcement of your rights to your property at state expense. It never has done, and it never will do. You can rant about how unfair this is, but it won't make any difference. If you didn't understand that that's the way it is before you signed your mortgage agreement, then more fool you for actually buying real estate in the first place.
Too many property owners have a misplaced sense of entitlement, in my opinion. That doesn't make them bad people, though; it just means that they've been sold into a deal that isn't quite as good as they thought. It's obviously in estate agents' interest to hype up real estate ownership to be more valuable than it actually is, as though it confers more rights on you than it actually does - because they get more commission that way.
I think Chesterbelloc was pointing out that property owners actually mean everyone in opposition to Ken, whose phraseology could be read as indicating that the police and other authorities favoured the privilleged (at the expense of the poor).
Property as many understand it to mean, is the fruit of ones labour. It does not have to be restricted to real estate - intellectual property, etc. This is one of the arguments for property rights being a natural right, that is a person owns themselves and therefore their own labour - when a person works, that labour then becomes an object, and the object becomes the property of that person. He is therefore entitled to legitimate means of defending this property.
Posts: 364 | From: Full in the panting heart | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelicum:
For the record, I don't believe there is this causal relationship between cuts to govt expenditure and rioting, but some people do so I think its a legitimate question
Coincidentally, this paper just came out
http://www.cepr.org/pubs/new-dps/dplist.asp?dpno=8513.asp
So at least there is a claim that this connection goes beyond blind belief.
quote:
Because it seems to me, what they have demonstrated is that they never deserved the government funding going to them in the first place! So instead of being an argument against cuts, it should be an argument for more cuts. If these are people who could do such activity, then why shouldn't they be punished with more cuts?
In that case we are back to the question a number of people posed further back in this thread in connection with those who have effectively no stake in society. Doc Tor posed it best, unless you are going to posit a Final Solution, preventative measures need to be taken - if only for your own good.
There are too many potential rioters to send them all to jail, or to the army. Similarly, even if we assume that they are all work-shy today, and could magically be made models of the Protestant work-ethic tomorrow, there'd still not be enough jobs to go around.
So even at a purely pragmatic level you are going to have to work out how to keep a lid on things. If you think it's possible to do so while making people homeless and removing their only means of support, then you are more optimistic than I am.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angelicum:
Property as many understand it to mean, is the fruit of ones labour. It does not have to be restricted to real estate - intellectual property, etc.
How does labour convert into a claim on a particular bit of land? Additionally, 'intellectual property' doesn't operate in the same way as other property. If I own a field, you can't also own it, if I have an idea, there isn't anything to stop you having the same idea.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
quote:
Teaching them to build walls and boundaries for their small children is a tough job. But it pays off - no boundaries at six = totally out of control by 14 imo. (Boogie)
quote:
Jo Public outside these areas doesn't feel at risk, its not my back yard so not on the radar. Rioting well that's crossing boundaries, might come to my city, might impact me - lets talk, lets find reasons, lets get something happening... (Avila)
A couple of snippets of common sense...
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelicum
Shipmate
# 13515
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by angelicum:
For the record, I don't believe there is this causal relationship between cuts to govt expenditure and rioting, but some people do so I think its a legitimate question
Coincidentally, this paper just came out
http://www.cepr.org/pubs/new-dps/dplist.asp?dpno=8513.asp
So at least there is a claim that this connection goes beyond blind belief.
I never suggested that that was purely blind belief. There is anecdotal evidence, and as you have cited, 1 paper which attempts to demonstrate a positive association.
The paper cited shows a positive correlation - correlation is not causality.
They mention control for economic downturns as a potential source of counfounding. They do not (at least in their abstract) test for other confounding, nor do they account for residual confounding.
I can't access the full paper but it'd be interesting to see the magnitude of the effect size estimate, what the lower confidence limit of the effect size is (i.e. is it very close to 1), what the outcome measures were, the presence (or otherwise) of any dose-response relationship, consideration of reverse causality, etc.
I think at this point, its difficult to even ascertain what the strength of any association is, let alone that this association is a causal one.
Posts: 364 | From: Full in the panting heart | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelicum
Shipmate
# 13515
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by angelicum:
Property as many understand it to mean, is the fruit of ones labour. It does not have to be restricted to real estate - intellectual property, etc.
How does labour convert into a claim on a particular bit of land? Additionally, 'intellectual property' doesn't operate in the same way as other property. If I own a field, you can't also own it, if I have an idea, there isn't anything to stop you having the same idea.
The land itself is of little value. It is working the land that adds value - you can either do this work yourself, or hire people to do this.
You discount of course that capital is also property, as are items such as food, clothing, housing, etc.
Posts: 364 | From: Full in the panting heart | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelicum
Shipmate
# 13515
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
So even at a purely pragmatic level you are going to have to work out how to keep a lid on things. If you think it's possible to do so while making people homeless and removing their only means of support, then you are more optimistic than I am.
But there has been very little consideration on how this latter scenario can be achieved.
It may well be unachievable, but at least if this is the case, then when working on the alternative, acknowledge that this is a second-best response to the situation, because no one has yet worked out how to achieve the preferred outcome (i.e. increasing punitive measures, resource-allocation solely to the deserving, and national security concurrently) .
[ 12. August 2011, 11:57: Message edited by: angelicum ]
Posts: 364 | From: Full in the panting heart | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
