Tottenham Riots

[hindle8907]

I think this is a good read.

[MisterTommyH]

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Would I sound like a complete c*ck to suggest that we won 2 world wars by doing more with less and getting on with the job, and to suggest that people try being a little British about it and apply a stiff upper lip and a resolutely cheerful attitude?

No you wouldn't. The threat just isn't as obvious.

[MisterTommyH]

Originally Posted by Stingo

A few short weeks ago a senior member of the armed forces made statement about how long operations could be maintained in Libya. The primeminister made a statement with words to the effect of "you do the fighting, I'll do the talking". It is possible some of you may recall this. Source linky here... http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassi...-talking.thtml
As I understand things, the current levels of police manning are about to be reduced as part of the current round of spending cuts on public services. I for one would like to see the chief of police say to the PM "You do the talking, let us do the policing".
I know this is a simplistic view of things and the whole issue is certainly far more complex, however wouldn't it be nice to see someone bite back at those who constantly seem to be of the opinion that we should all do more with less?
just my two bobs worth.

With regard to the police cuts.....I very much support our police, and think that the actual officers try very hard, but are sometimes tied up in red tape.

I've heard many coppers moan about the amount of paperwork thats come in in the last 10 years. Would it be possible to get rid of some of the pointless paperwork so that these cuts can be made by allowing them to be more efficient rather than by cutting the number of officers?

By more efficient, I don't mean that any PCs should have to do more work, but rather that they'd spend more time out on the street instead of the office?

[TamSV]

Originally Posted by Sid Squid

You may have noted in my prior scribbles that I have not mentioned Socialism, always 'socialism', there is a a chasm of difference, they are not the same at all.

You're right, I missed the nuance, but I absolutely take your point. I'm not sure Blair would honestly describe himself as a socialist - the Labour Party was a vehicle of convenience for him. Brown perhaps used to be a genuine socialist but he gave it up around the same time he started to pretend he wasn't a Scot.

There's no doubt you're right that various incarnations of socialism have been perverted by selfishness, fear, greed and sloth but it's far from the only political system that can claim that. These are all very human characteristics and they are exactly what we've seen on the streets this past week IMO.

Disorder always bolsters the right. The narrative of this week from the right seems to be that the welfare state is the cause. The assumption that all the rioters/looters are in receipt of state benefits is made without the need for evidence. It may well be true, I've no idea, but it could well be the case. However, I've also seen the assumption that their parents must also be on benefits and I think that's a bit shakier.

I wouldn't describe myself as a socialist, possibly a liberal (you'll note the small L ), but I do believe in a hand up to the unlucky and the unfortunate. I think that's what many Labour voters have in mind and that particular party is their least worst credible option.

However, it won't be surprising if the voters shift to the right on this issue and I would be concerned that the deserving suffer from the actions of a small minority. That's not to say that I don't believe a large slice of benefit reform is required, but I'd rather it wasn't made quickly and in the shadow of recent events.

Policing is the other area where we may now swing too far to the right (too far for me that is, for others there seems to be no limit).

As I've said before, what we've seen is the worst of human nature in action. These scrotes have always been with us and always will. They weren't created by socialism and they won't disappear with its abolition.

Whether our current weakness in dealing with them, or the heavy-handedness that might now follow, is the greater provocation time will tell. A lurch too far to the right now may, in the future, produce some "proper" riots.

[Sid Squid]

Originally Posted by TamSV

I'm not sure Blair would honestly describe himself as a socialist.

I'm significantly more of a Socialist than Mr Blair is, and I'm pretty sure he'd describe himself as Waffen SS if he thought it would appeal to the electorate, politically speaking I also rather doubt he's too often troubled by honesty, and realistically has little or no personal political affiliation, whatever was the useful vehicle - as you so rightly say.

Originally Posted by TamSV

There's no doubt you're right that various incarnations of socialism have been perverted by selfishness, fear, greed and sloth but it's far from the only political system that can claim that.

Very true, but Socialism is doomed by it's very nature always to become 'socialism', and 'socialism' is the problem that has hurt us for the last four + decades with absolutely no hope of redemption or rehabilitation. At the risk of repeating myself, the thirteen vile, self serving, wasted years from '97 on may be the most extreme and obvious example of what Socialism inexorably becomes, but it's that only by degree, not fundament. It's the left that blights us now, and it's that which we must wake up to and deal with.

Originally Posted by TamSV

These are all very human characteristics and they are exactly what we've seen on the streets this past week IMO.

Human nature? Hmmmm... seems more Pavlovian response.

Originally Posted by TamSV

The narrative of this week from the right seems to be that the welfare state is the cause. The assumption that all the rioters/looters are in receipt of state benefits is made without the need for evidence. It may well be true, I've no idea, but it could well be the case. However, I've also seen the assumption that their parents must also be on benefits and I think that's a bit shakier.

The welfare state is not in itself the cause, the administration therof however has a large part to play. Are all the looters in receipt of benefits? I couldn't possibly be say. Look at if differently; are the looters, generally, in/from areas of our country where the local authority is Labour controlled, where unemployment is high and that 'socialism' has inculcated with feelings of absolute right, disaffection and resentment? That's not so difficult to answer.

Originally Posted by TamSV

possibly a liberal (you'll note the small L )

I did .

Originally Posted by TamSV

but I do believe in a hand up to the unlucky and the unfortunate.

Despite what certain people think of me, I too feel that a welfare system is a sign of a civilised and altruistic society, but let it be carefully constructed not to be too easy an option. Spoiled children's behaviour deteriorates - that's human nature.

Originally Posted by TamSV

I think that's what many Labour voters have in mind

Which is precisely what the charlatan left rely upon.

Originally Posted by TamSV

and that particular party is their least worst credible option.

But the reverse is clearly true, even if Labour weren't continually and intractably the victims of 'socialist' perversion, all there is after that is authoritarianism.

Originally Posted by TamSV

Policing is the other area where we may now swing too far to the right.

The Police are already out of control - the last thing we need is to bolster their sense of self-importance. The 'rioting', (it isn't), isn't the result of poor policing, but if there's little respect for the Police the blame for that lies squarely at the feet of the Police themselves.

Originally Posted by TamSV

These scrotes have always been with us and always will. They weren't created by socialism and they won't disappear with its abolition.

Created no, enabled yes, fomented certainly.

Originally Posted by Sid Squid

I'm significantly more of a Socialist than Mr Blair is, and I'm pretty sure he'd describe himself as Waffen SS if he thought it would appeal to the electorate, politically speaking I also rather doubt he's too often troubled by honesty, and realistically has little or no personal political affiliation, whatever was the useful vehicle - as you so rightly say.
Very true, but Socialism is doomed by it's very nature always to become 'socialism', and 'socialism' is the problem that has hurt us for the last four + decades with absolutely no hope of redemption or rehabilitation. At the risk of repeating myself, the thirteen vile, self serving, wasted years from '97 on may be the most extreme and obvious example of what Socialism inexorably becomes, but it's that only by degree, not fundament. It's the left that blights us now, and it's that which we must wake up to and deal with.

Human nature? Hmmmm... seems more Pavlovian response.

The welfare state is not in itself the cause, the administration therof however has a large part to play. Are all the looters in receipt of benefits? I couldn't possibly be say. Look at if differently; are the looters, generally, in/from areas of our country where the local authority is Labour controlled, where unemployment is high and that 'socialism' has inculcated with feelings of absolute right, disaffection and resentment? That's not so difficult to answer.
I did .

Despite what certain people think of me, I too feel that a welfare system is a sign of a civilised and altruistic society, but let it be carefully constructed not to be too easy an option. Spoiled children's behaviour deteriorates - that's human nature.

Which is precisely what the charlatan left rely upon.

But the reverse is clearly true, even if Labour weren't continually and intractably the victims of 'socialist' perversion, all there is after that is authoritarianism.

The Police are already out of control - the last thing we need is to bolster their sense of self-importance. The 'rioting', (it isn't), isn't the result of poor policing, but if there's little respect for the Police the blame for that lies squarely at the feet of the Police themselves.

Created no, enabled yes, fomented certainly.

I tend to agree with Sid's posts on this thread. I am not hugely educated in politics but I do know that I had a huge dislike for Mr Blair. He is a liar, and one without a backbone at that. Bush said jump and Our Tony said "how high?".

Out of interest Sid, in what way do you think the Police are out of control? Are you meaning more of higher up the ranks and the actual organisation rather than most individual cops? Or do you mean more the laws that are being enforced? Genuinely interested. I do believe that sometimes the Govts knee jerk reaction to everything is to introduce a new law or piece of legislation. I mean, ASBO's to me are a prime example. Most ASBOs basically are "don't commit crime" so it means they are committing the original crime and breaching their ASBO where as most normal people know not to do it in the first place!

The looting that has taken place does not require any new legislation. The legislation is already there to deal with that. What it needed, IMHO, was a Home Secretary with half a clue of what they should be doing and a bit of a back bone. The looting should have been stamped out MUCH quicker by calling for mutual aid from Forces quicker and over powering them quickly. But then again, I am rank and file. What do I know? I'm only trained in how to actually deal with it on the street, as opposed to watching it on TV and making a decision in my office and signing a piece of paper.

[21QUEST]

Not a random resurrection as such....I justI wanted to say this "I couldn't give a Gnats wotsit if he had fired first at the police or not. If he had a gun on him(correct?), that's good enough reason for me....that he got himself killed" .

The only thing I disliked, was the way the Police handled the aftermath...but having said what I said in the first paragraph, I'm not going to lose too much sleep, with regards to that.

As for those apparently protesting(leading onto rioting) because he was shot and killed, well, must either be a bit stupid really or hadn't realised, he was carrying a weapon. I certainly wouldn't hjave been doing any protesting on account of someone who was carrying a gun illegally....we have to assume, would have been prepared to use it on someone.

[Red Herring]

Personally I think 99% of those rioting couldn't give a fig about the police shooting, they just wanted an excuse to go on the rampage and they took it. If we want to get all deep and meaningful then we need to try and examine why there is so much frustration out there and the lack of any apparent willingness to do anything about it.