Jump to content
✨ STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE WORLD TOUR ✨

Riots on the Streets of UK


Black Rose

Recommended Posts

I don't know, it's not been reported on the news I just heard from somebody on tumblr who lives there so I can't really verify it.

 

You wrote that you have just come back from Liverpool. Are you living there and /or going back soon?

 

I cross my fingers for you and your friends in Liverpool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 219
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

...The only difference is that the Labour party at the moment believe in doing it differently. In fact Alistair Darling, the last Labour chancellor was proposing cuts of pretty much the exact nature as George Osborne's. So cutting is a view point shared on the left and the right although it is most heavily supported on the right.

 

Labour were forced onto the back foot over cuts, because you're quite right, they had wasted a lot of public money when times were better. And Gordon Brown has to take responsibility for that. But the pledges to make cuts were political promises, designed to win votes and keep them in power. There would have been cuts had they won, but not like this.

 

Nurses and other hospital staff, police, social workers, youth workers...Labour would never have cut these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest howyousawtheworld
Labour were forced onto the back foot over cuts, because you're quite right, they had wasted a lot of public money when times were better. And Gordon Brown has to take responsibility for that. But the pledges to make cuts were political promises, designed to win votes and keep them in power. There would have been cuts had they won, but not like this.

 

Nurses and other hospital staff, police, social workers, youth workers...Labour would never have cut these things.

 

I agree. It hardly seems though that the Tories are doing the job of cutting the needless bureaucracy they said they would.

 

 

 

There's just not enough police to cope with them so I really don't know how long it will last it could be days.

Some guy phoning in from Camden right now saying there's fires and looting and no Police.

 

Just heard that only 10% of the Met force were trained as riot pleace to deal with these sort of situations. Ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chuck, I'm sure you will agree with me, NO economic or humanitarian crisis has EVER been solved by the government retreating into itself and cutting money (supplies, support, medical care, social care, etc) from the people. And the crazy thing is we can afford it, we have the money!!

 

Some good analysis on the TV just now. The last time there were widespread city riots in the UK was the early-to-mid 80s (I remember it well, I grew up with it). Then we had:

 

- cuts in government spending

- high unemployment

- a stern Conservative government

 

Right, back to watching the live stream. Take care everyone, and let's hope this finishes soon.

> Yes, I agree Pete - and yet, we're apparently repeating history, or at least the people in power didn't pay attention in their history classes. And when basic needs are not met and things are unfair, some cope, others turn violent or criminal. And much the same, we can afford to ensure the workers get what they deserve here as well, but we instead shifted it all to the top 1%, and their answer is to starve the working class citizens who struggle daily to stay afloat, while exempting the bloated billionaires. Here, it was the 60's and early 70's, I recall seeing it on TV, many of our cities were lit afire, with rampant looting. And in the 80's too - Los Angeles had riots, and by then we a conservative government as well. I can only imagine growing up with it - that's got to be scary! Glad your analysts on whatever you're watching are on to the problem so precisely, that's a good sign not all is lost.

Take care Pete, be safe wherever you are.

-from Chuck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wrote that you have just come back from Liverpool. Are you living there and /or going back soon?

 

I cross my fingers for you and your friends in Liverpool.

 

Apparently there's been riots on Lodge Lane/ in the Toxteth area. My friend saw gangs in the street when she was on her way home from work and there is a lot of police presence too.

 

I've read plenty of rumours on Facebook, no idea if it's true.

 

I was supposed to go for an interview in London tomorrow but I don't think I'll be leaving the house. It's all quite scary, it feels like nowhere is safe anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest howyousawtheworld
> Yes, I agree Pete - and yet, we're apparently repeating history, or at least the people in power didn't pay attention in their history classes. And when basic needs are not met and things are unfair, some cope, others turn violent or criminal. And much the same, we can afford to ensure the workers get what they deserve here as well, but we instead shifted it all to the top 1%, and their answer is to starve the working class citizens who struggle daily to stay afloat, while exempting the bloated billionaires. Here, it was the 60's and early 70's, I recall seeing it on TV, many of our cities were lit afire, with rampant looting. And in the 80's too - Los Angeles had riots, and by then we a conservative government as well. I can only imagine growing up with it - that's got to be scary! Glad your analysts on whatever you're watching are on to the problem so precisely, that's a good sign not all is lost.

Take care Pete, be safe wherever you are.

-from Chuck.

 

It's interesting. While I agreed earlier that cuts to these areas is a probable cause of these riots I'm now not so sure. Angry youths "uprising" as a direct cause of government cuts do not target Ladbrokes bookies or JD Sports to make a point. They don't burn down an old furniture store in Croydon. They'd attack council buildings or even the police stations themselves! In all honesty these youths probably know nothing about what is going on in government or in the economy. Many of them are 13/14 year olds. I doubt many of them know who David Cameron is. While I agreed with Peter's assessment of government cuts being an indirect cause of this earlier I am now not so sure after hearing accounts from local figures in and around the area. A Tottenham local youth worker just said on Newsnight that this has absolutely nothing to do with politics. This is more of a social problem than a political one and indicates a massive failure of government of the last 20 years (Tory and Labour) in dealing first hand with these deep rooted social issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting. While I agreed earlier that cuts to these areas is a probable cause of these riots I'm now not so sure. Angry youths "uprising" as a direct cause of government cuts do not target Ladbrokes bookies or JD Sports to make a point. They'd attack council buildings or even the police stations themselves! In all honesty these youths probably know nothing about what is going on in government or in the economy. Many of them are 13/14 year olds. I doubt many of them know who David Cameron is. While I agreed with Peter's assessment of government cuts being an indirect cause of this earlier I am now not so sure after hearing accounts from local figures in and around the area. A Tottenham local youth worker just said on Newsnight that this has absolutely nothing to do with politics. This is more of a social problem than a political one and indicates a massive failure of government of the last 20 years (Tory and Labour) in dealing first hand with these deep rooted social issues.

>I read some of the comments on BBC news from some of the area residents in those parts of London affected, and it sounds more like the motivations behind the riots in LA after the Rodney King beating incident by police. Anger over citizens, especially citizens of color, being categorically mistreated by the police, that was enough to push some to riot, but I think economic conditions create dry tinder for violence to erupt as well, so it may have been a combination of factors.

But many take advantage of a situation to break things and loot or rob stores & shops, apparently that was the majority of the incidents then? Scenes from LA as well were of that - looting and robbing stores. But it does say something about our modern culture where individual worth is so closely tied to individual possessions, and those without don't care how they get the goods, so to speak.

Thinking about those social issues here, one problem is how funding for assistance creates dysfunctional families, forcing fathers away from their families in order for mothers with children to get more benefits, which encourages all the wrong dynamics, and since jobs and job training were more expensive than just sending checks, politically motivated budget cutters decided to "save money" and forgo the expense of providing job training and ensuring jobs for people on assistance. Does a similar dynamic exist in the UK? People with descent employment, mutual respect from officials, stable healthy families, and good self-esteem seldom turn to violence except when all other options fail, and then rarely so. But also when an idea gets going, and the odds of frustrated individuals goes up, then some will do what's in their minds, sans adequate policing of an area...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting. While I agreed earlier that cuts to these areas is a probable cause of these riots I'm now not so sure. Angry youths "uprising" as a direct cause of government cuts do not target Ladbrokes bookies or JD Sports to make a point. They don't burn down an old furniture store in Croydon. They'd attack council buildings or even the police stations themselves! In all honesty these youths probably know nothing about what is going on in government or in the economy. Many of them are 13/14 year olds. I doubt many of them know who David Cameron is. While I agreed with Peter's assessment of government cuts being an indirect cause of this earlier I am now not so sure after hearing accounts from local figures in and around the area. A Tottenham local youth worker just said on Newsnight that this has absolutely nothing to do with politics. This is more of a social problem than a political one and indicates a massive failure of government of the last 20 years (Tory and Labour) in dealing first hand with these deep rooted social issues.

 

Well some of them are obviously taking advantage of the situation. It's rather easy to loot stores if the police are busy in other parts of the city. They might not be making a political statement but the government's still responsible for the social injustice in this country and the lack of opportunities for young people from deprived areas. This has been an issue for many years so I kind of agree with you but I do think the current government made the situation worse (eg cutting funding in the youth sector, education etc).

 

 

In other news, Liverpool is now on Sky News. I'm proper scared. :embarrassed:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it sounds counter-intuitive, but stimulating the economy increases the economic output through a multiplication effect, and the increased revenues generated then allow a country to repay its debts. That stimulation needs to come in a form that actually increases the economic activity within the nation which needs it, so instead of giving it all to the super wealthy who just reinvest wherever the biggest payoff is or stash it away, it needs to go to the actual consumers and broad majority of citizens, so they can purchase and stimulate the economy, which in turn increases the economy to allow for debt repayment. Otherwise, it's like starving a starving animal that's slowing down because it's hungry and has no energy. The answer is to feed the animal so it can pull the plow and bring in the crops.

Austerity in a time of economic recession results in a deeper economic recession, and less money to repay debts.

 

Ugh.

 

There is no such thing as the "multiplier effect" in economics. It's an illusion.

 

Saving is deferred consumption. Not printed money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well some of them are obviously taking advantage of the situation. It's rather easy to loot stores if the police are busy in other parts of the city. They might not be making a political statement but the government's still responsible for the social injustice in this country and the lack of opportunities for young people from deprived areas. This has been an issue for many years so I kind of agree with you but I do think the current government made the situation worse (eg cutting funding in the youth sector, education etc).

 

 

In other news, Liverpool is now on Sky News. I'm proper scared. :embarrassed:

> Probably a combination of things, I agree. But the lack of respect in return by police and those running the show can affect how people think of what they regard as a ruling establishment, and if they see themselves as being on the outside looking in, they can retaliate from built up resentment. The interviews suggest this.

A friend of mine grew up in the projects in Milwaukee, and when he and a friend of his decided to take his car to another part of town, the police officers didn't even have reasonable cause - the officers just stopped them, walked up to the car, and stuck guns to the backs of their heads. (the presumption was that a white kid and a black kid couldn't just be friends, the police assumed a drug deal was going down and they were involved). That pretty much ended my friends desire to join the police force! Just imagine how that makes young adults feel if they're in a minority and are profiled and treated in such a manner - can lead to a lot of resentment, and however wrongly, allow others to justify crimes against innocent people, citing their discrimination as a way to cover for their actions. So I think both economics and mutual respect, proper procedure and respect for individual rights are essential to reduce the odds of riots.

But driving the crime problems are often poverty and economic uncertainty, which destabilizes people and increases the odds of bad things happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest howyousawtheworld
>I read some of the comments on BBC news from some of the area residents in those parts of London affected, and it sounds more like the motivations behind the riots in LA after the Rodney King beating incident by police. Anger over citizens, especially citizens of color, being categorically mistreated by the police, that was enough to push some to riot, but I think economic conditions create dry tinder for violence to erupt as well, so it may have been a combination of factors.

But many take advantage of a situation to break things and loot or rob stores & shops, apparently that was the majority of the incidents then? Scenes from LA as well were of that - looting and robbing stores. But it does say something about our modern culture where individual worth is so closely tied to individual possessions, and those without don't care how they get the goods, so to speak.

Thinking about those social issues here, one problem is how funding for assistance creates dysfunctional families, forcing fathers away from their families in order for mothers with children to get more benefits, which encourages all the wrong dynamics, and since jobs and job training were more expensive than just sending checks, politically motivated budget cutters decided to "save money" and forgo the expense of providing job training and ensuring jobs for people on assistance. Does a similar dynamic exist in the UK? People with descent employment, mutual respect from officials, stable healthy families, and good self-esteem seldom turn to violence except when all other options fail, and then rarely so. But also when an idea gets going, and the odds of frustrated individuals goes up, then some will do what's in their minds, sans adequate policing of an area...

 

That's a good point and I would say it does exist. Interestingly this current government led by Cameron introduced a tax break for married couples back in October of last year set for 2015. They never said it at the time but it was clear that it was a motive for people to move in together and get married in order to try and create stable families which Cameron believed was essential to a "stable" society. Stigmatises single people though. Another problem being is that at the same time child benefits were cut.

 

edit: Violence has spread to Camden now. Imagine if they crashed the Coldplay studios there?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest howyousawtheworld
^ But we're talking about areas where many people are on benefits so they'd be better off if they didn't live with their partner, no?

 

I'm not sure what would be more beneficial. Saving money through a tax cut or gaining it from benefits? I would believe that because of these tax break decisions made and the reduction in benefits it would be quite marginal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Probably a combination of things, I agree. But the lack of respect in return by police and those running the show can affect how people think of what they regard as a ruling establishment, and if they see themselves as being on the outside looking in, they can retaliate from built up resentment. The interviews suggest this.

A friend of mine grew up in the projects in Milwaukee, and when he and a friend of his decided to take his car to another part of town, the police officers didn't even have reasonable cause - the officers just stopped them, walked up to the car, and stuck guns to the backs of their heads. (the presumption was that a white kid and a black kid couldn't just be friends, the police assumed a drug deal was going down and they were involved). That pretty much ended my friends desire to join the police force! Just imagine how that makes young adults feel if they're in a minority and are profiled and treated in such a manner - can lead to a lot of resentment, and however wrongly, allow others to justify crimes against innocent people, citing their discrimination as a way to cover for their actions. So I think both economics and mutual respect, proper procedure and respect for individual rights are essential to reduce the odds of riots.

But driving the crime problems are often poverty and economic uncertainty, which destabilizes people and increases the odds of bad things happening.

 

True. One of my friends got stopped by the police once and they claimed that they knew him. He's never committed any crime and the police haven't stopped him before either and they didn't apologise properly when they realised that they stopped the wrong person. He certainly felt that they were being racist and I heard similar stuff from the kids I was working with too. It's individuals rather than the police as an organisation but I can understand that people lose their respect for the police if they hear about those kind of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what would be more beneficial. Saving money through a tax cut or gaining it from benefits? I would believe that because of these tax break decisions made and the reduction in benefits it would be quite marginal.

 

You might be right actually. Only if one person is working though.

 

I just know that one of my friend's ex-boyfriend was no longer getting any benefits after they started living together. My friend was on minimum wage at the time so it made quite a big difference for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...