London riots: Violence erupts for third day

Like I said, people saw it kicking off and decided to join in. The fact that it kicked off in other areas was just opportunity, it doesn't actually take many people in any town or city to set fire to something and set off larger events. These were not hard done by poor people.

The poor in the UK do not live a hard life. We have a generous welfare state, jobseekers allowance and free medical healthcare for everyone. And if you have kids, theres even more help. I've been there too, its 1,000 times better being unemployed here with little money than it is in many countries. You don't go hungry unless you spend your dole money on other stuff, and you never get charged for medical treatment. Schools are free, libraries are free. Its only once you become a University student that you suddenly have to consider any kind of debt.

What they are upset about is that they don't have the material things that apparently people need to be happy. Hence there was more looting than simply mindless destruction. More grabbing of iPhones, gadgets, TVs, ripping off tescos etc. No-one burned down Government offices or local council property. No trashing of bank buildings, no burning down of JSA offices, no attacks on local civic offices. Just shops/businesses with big shiny windows with lovely objects of desire on display...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Difficult to tell without truly looking at each individual case properly, however we aren't talking about science in a world events section are we, we've never ever used REAL statistics have we?

Perhaps I drive Mini-cabs in Essex (they are kind of van like) of course it's more likely I don't.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Mayor positions are not as great as you might think, I remember when my old high school geography tutor dumped our year to be a mayor, he obviously wasn't that good at Geography, he never put the local town on the map.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A Solution To The Chav Problem​

Thirty years after Britain stopped sending its children overseas to other commonwealth countries, an investigation gets underway into the practice. It follows a legal battle by what became known as the 'child migrants'.

British officials have been involved in a "top level cover-up" over the forced migration of vulnerable children, a Labour MP claimed on Wednesday.

David Hinchliffe, chairman of the Commons Health Select Committee, told the House of Commons that 150,000 children in care had been shipped to Australia and New Zealand as part of an experiment in child migration which he called "Britain's most shameful secret".

The practice of shipping orphans to Britain's former colonies began in 1618 and only ended in 1967.

Mr Hinchliffe said it was "ostensibly" to give the children better lives, but many had ended up physically and sexually abused or used as cheap labour.

He claimed the policy had clear racist undertones in that it aimed to take children from orphanages and increase the proportion of white people in the former colonies.

Mr Hinchliffe said he had heard "tale after tale" of brother being separated from sister and never seeing one another again, particularly in Australia.

"The reality was years of suffering, years of degradation, years of denial of the fact that most actually had parents.

"For the natural parents who were often persuaded to part with their off-spring on the pretext of them being adopted in good circumstances, the reality was frankly of years of lies and deceit," he stated in a Commons debate on the subject.

Calling the policy "one of the most shameful secrets of Britain's recent past", he said Britain had effectively washed its hands of responsibility for its own citizens with often horrendous consequences.

He added that the scheme was supported by local agencies and successive central government administrations.

The child migration programme left thousands of people with no knowledge of their background and family history. Many children left in homes, due to broken marriages or family pressures, were shipped overseas.

The reasons behind the scheme were practical. It helped populate the Commonwealth with white children and it relieved Britain of the burden of looking after them. At the time the organisations involved also thought that the children were likely to have a better life abroad.

Classified as orphans, although the majority were not, many children were often sent away without the knowledge of parents or relatives, and were denied details of their family. Brothers and sisters were separated and some children faced appalling conditions in large institutions or were forced to work for long hours and little pay. ​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

Margaret Humphreys CBE OAM (born 1944) is a social worker, author and whistleblower from Nottingham, England. In 1987, she investigated and brought to public attention the British government programme of Home Children. This involved forcibly relocating poor British children to Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the former Rhodesia and other parts of the Commonwealth of Nations, often without their parents' knowledge. Children were often told their parents had died, and parents were told their children had been placed for adoption elsewhere in the UK. According to Humphreys, up to 150,000 children are believed to have been resettled under the scheme, some as young as three, about 7,000 of whom were sent to Australia.

Saving money was one of the motives behind this policy. The children were allegedly deported because it was cheaper to care for them overseas. It cost an estimated £5 per day to keep a child on welfare in a British institution, but only 10% of that, ten shillings, in an Australian one.​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

 

London Mayor is like New York Mayor.
They have decisions about Billions of Pounds worth of spending.

 

Boris Johnson is responsible Billions of Pounds worth of spending? Horror!!!!

 

Mayor of London's responsibilities


The Mayor has a duty to set out plans and policies for London covering transport, planning and development, housing, economic development and regeneration, culture, health inequalities, and a range of environmental issues including climate change, biodiversity, ambient noise, waste disposal and air quality.

http://www.london.gov.uk/who-runs-london/mayor/role

 

No wonder the place nearly burned down.

 

Don't really see a problem with shipping Chavs around, so long as they are thoroughly beaten and intimidated first. In fact, that seems like the sort of employment I'd like. You know: punishing idiots.

 

Why is it that the people who know the least about the civic responsibilities of their government representatives who most loudly echo their opinions about the people?

I consider not being able to afford school or being kicked out of an old people's home a hard life.

 

I suspect, that Livingstone's manifesto will include syphoning money into the poorer areas of London.

 

I'm not familiar with the candidates so I don't know what they will do, however, I did find this interesting bit of information

And then there is this:

http://www.economywatch.com/economy...ic-factors-behind-the-london-riots.19-08.html

 

The rate of unemployment for 16-24-year old blacks in Britain is around 48%

Trouble is. You are not allowed to say there is a problem.
The BBC recently had to apologise for asking the question "Is there a problem with Black Youth in Britain".
See the reaction below.

http://www.voice-online.co.uk/article/bbc-forced-apologise-again-over-riot-coverage

One problem of course, is that racists jump on statistics like this, not to try to find solutions, but to say that black people are inherently unemployable, violent etc.


Re the Hackney woman who tackled the rioters.
Can't find the interview unfortunately, but this is from the Daily Telegraph, and it explains what she said, minus the choice language:


Pauline Pearce who is also jazz singer and community radio activist, shook her walking stick at youths, told them they were looters without a cause and said it made her ashamed to come from Hackney.
The clip, which was filmed by a Telegraph journalist near the heart of disturbances on Clarence Road, has become an internet sensation.
In the video, Ms Pearce asked the rioters: "Why are you burning people's shops that they have worked hard to build up?
"And for what, just to say you are warring and a badman? This is about a man who was shot in Tottenham, this ain't about busting up the place.
"We're not gathering together to fight for a cause, we're running down Foot Locker and thieving shoes, dirty thieves."
Ms Pearce said it was "an adrenaline rush" and "strange anger" which caused her to confront the rioters.
She said she did not realise she was being recorded at the time but would do it again.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...riot-anger-at-seeing-community-destroyed.html

 

I've often wondered that, S.A.M.

One of the main things that was posed about politicians making decisions within the houses of parliament was that most of them (if not all) wouldn't know what was being discussed until they got a message from a phone, a tweet etc. This meant that there were two types of politician, those that would attempt to discuss something without any real clue about the subject and those that were just fed a "position" by another politician or aid for them to pull a "me too" (where they just agree with someone that's done a little homework)

It's not exactly the best way to run a country, however it does mean they can deal with emergency situations since they are use to bullshitting their way out of anything.

Thats understandable, but you have to take into consideration the hardlife these kids complain about is nothing compared to the Famines in East Africa, the devastation through tsunami's, hurricanes, earthquakes etc or even the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.

Compared to a majority of the world, these kids have been given a soft touch and that's what they don't understand. (I mean they used mobile phones and the internet to communicate when and where to riot, I doubt most of those starving Somalians have ever used a computer.)

 

What a bizarre outlook. Why should they look down? Isn't England good enough to provide them with a life better than that of Africans? The fact is that in a society where values are assessed by material goods, you expect people who cannot afford an education to overlook the fact that their politicians spend taxpayer money on big screen television, laptops and foreign holidays. When politicians start donating their salaries - and laptops, big screen TVs, iPods, clothes and homes - to East Africa, I'm sure the students will recognise the importance of assessing their needs alongside those of the worst afflicted in the world. Meanwhile, why not act as politicians and financiers do, take what you want and then avoid accountability for your crimes?

The politicians and financiers actually go to Africa, would they be satisfied with salaries and profits commensurate with Africans? Or a lifestyle akin to Somalians? Then why ask the poor to settle for what they are unwilling to settle for?

Do you eat everyday? There are Haitians who eat mud pies because they run out of food. Are you fully clothed? There are people in the world who have one set of clothes which they wash and wear everyday and others for whom even that is a luxury.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do you have shelter? There are millions of homeless in the world.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So why should you have everything that millions do not? Maybe you could eat only once a day, keep only two changes of clothes, move into a smaller place and give away the rest. You'd still be rich compared to the East Africans.

How disgusting that people are not suffering enough to meet your standards of poverty, which of course can only be rock bottom.

And in many parts of Africa, people kill the government if they are dissatisfied and piracy and looting is disregarded. So if you expect them to live like Africans don't be surprised if they act like them as well

What excuse will they have when poor white people also start rebelling against suppression in their own society? The problem is that the politicians are all in the pockets of the big thieves so they can only bully teenagers who take a television, not corporations who wipe out the country

 

Oh, that's coming SAM. And not just to poor whites, but the middle class too. White, Brown and Black.
The multinationals want to break down national borders so that they can have even more people competing against each other to work for the lowest price.
No conspiracy theory here, it is just capitalism bereft of any social responsibility.
Capitalism works, but when you strip it of any moral dimension it is a Juggernaut.

 

Ha yes!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What I'd like to see are the payroll and expenses sheets of all the government representatives for the duration of their candidacy as well the "donations" they receive. Then Londoners need to do an Anna Hazare on their government.

 

I try to. There has been the few occasions I haven't.

Currently, however I usually end up wearing rags.

Do I own or rent a shelter, "no". Am I living off the charity of others, yes currently.

Marginally richer, however I only view there suffrage to understand that no matter how bad my personal situation is, there is far worse.

I can understand that you might of assumed the absence of suffrage, however I have put up with poverty for a far greater time than a bunch of kids that have it handed to them. You could imply that perhaps it's laziness, stubbornness, perhaps event a mental affliction. I currently do not have any income either worked for or state given, so when I see snotty kids on someone else's television stealing from shops and claiming they are impoverish, I realise they and a good few others need "a smack upside their head".

This is a moot point, they don't live like Africans, if they did then their actions would be understandable, however they don't.

Notice the term here, "Corporation". most of those looted, vandalised and destroyed shops were not multinational conglomerates that's shareholders eat with silverspoons and only ever holiday at the most exclusive resorts, these were people running small shops on the local high streets, attempting to work and do a job, to pay taxes, pay mortgages or business loans, to afford to live themselves and support families and these snotty nosed brats screwed these people over. They didn't steal from the rich, they just stole from the marginally less poor, those potentially encumbered by an ever increasing debt margin through credit.

 

Which is actually distinctly better than corporations, politicians and financiers all of whom steal from those who are much poorer than them, while protecting the rich.

Its interesting how many demonstrations, riots, sit downs and what not are happening all over the globe at the moment. From the housing crisis in Tel Aviv to Anna Hazare's anti-grant demo all over India, to the demos and riots in London to the protests of the Arab spring, to the protests in France, to the protests in Libya and Syria to the protests in Athens. Notice what they all have in common?

 

Human Rights and Health and Safety Culture​

As we consider these questions of attitude and behaviour, the signals that government sends, and the incentives it creates, we inevitably come to the question of the Human Rights Act and the culture associated with it.

Let me be clear: in this country we are proud to stand up for human rights, at home and abroad. It is part of the British tradition. But what is alien to our tradition – and now exerting such a corrosive influence on behaviour and morality is the twisting and misrepresenting of human rights in a way that has undermined personal responsibility.

We are attacking this problem from both sides. We’re working to develop a way through the morass by looking at creating our own British Bill of Rights. And we will be using our current chairmanship of the Council of Europe to seek agreement to important operational changes to the European Convention on Human Rights.

But this is all frustratingly slow.

The truth is, the interpretation of human rights legislation has exerted a chilling effect on public sector organisations, leading them to act in ways that fly in the face of common sense, offend our sense of right and wrong, and undermine responsibility. It is exactly the same with health and safety – where regulations have often been twisted out of all recognition into a culture where the words “health and safety” are lazily trotted out to justify all sorts of actions and regulations that damage our social fabric.

So I want to make something very clear: I get it. This stuff matters.

And as we urgently review the work we’re doing on the broken society, judging whether it’s ambitious enough – I want to make it clear that there will be no holds barred and that most definitely includes the human rights and health and safety culture… ​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​