The Great British riots

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Muslims riot when they feel their beliefs/religion has been attacked

. Whether that be injustice in the middle east, the banning of the burkah, or any other such thing.

 

Because there'll be angry muslims. Not known for restraint.

 

Aye, like when someone writes a book they don't like.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

My mam's 58 year old. She's worked most of her life, paid her taxes and brought up 2 tax paying lads, and now she's disabled.

 

Is she black?

[Renton 17746]

carolinecheese Caroline Cheese

BBC says 1st person in dock at Highbury Mag Ct today was a 31-year-old teacher. She pleaded guilty to looting of Richer Sounds in Croydon

 

Yet most are being told the magistrate courts dont have the power to sentence. They should set up a special court and make some examples and broadcast that 24/7 on sky news for the copy catters.

 

I fear a bit for Newcastle city centre on Saturday. Hopefully there will be enough grown ups around to clip a few ears if people get silly.

Won't happen here for reasons I've discussed. Shola's family aren't going to start owt on their own. Won't happen in Scotland neither.

 

As you said, you were a kid at school at the time, but the Meadow Well riots were sparked by some joy riding scum wrapping their car around a lamp post after they were chased by police. Their parents claimed they were 'professional' car thieves 'murdered' by the police. Given that context, it almost makes the London riots seem laudable in comparison. It's got fuck all to do with race and all to do with a lack of morality or empathy present in the under class.

Well that's all fine, but explain the figures to me then. Why are 80% of these people black, when there are perhaps three times as many white poor people in London as there are black people. It's alright offering in my opinion non existant similarities between 1991 and 2011, but explain those figures to me, and try and look at it from a neutral view point for a change, rather than some George Galloway type figure.

 

First of all I'd need evidence that 80% of the rioters were black, because it doesn't look that way to me. Yes, they're over-represented, but as has been pointed out they're massively over-represented in terms of poverty. Add in the gangster culture and the lack of role models in black families, and the fact that the initial purported 'victim' was black, then I'm not surprised they're over-represented in these riots.

 

Why is 1991 not relevant to the discussion but the Jarrow marches in the 1930s are? What about Manchester?

 

It would be really good for you to give an honest assertion as to why so many people were involved, like I and others have.

[Happy Face 29]

Why are 80% of these people black, when there are perhaps three times as many white poor people in London as there are black people.

 

You clearly missed my post earlier...

 

over half of all people in poverty in London are from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) backgrounds.

 

http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/in...ncome-and-work/

[JawD 31]

If you look at the scenes from London, majority of them are Black. If you look at Manchester the majority are white.

[Happy Face 29]

My mam's 58 year old. She's worked most of her life, paid her taxes and brought up 2 tax paying lads, and now she's disabled.

 

Is she black?

 

When writing that post I actually deleted the last line...which would have been...she's not black.

 

[McFaul 35]

First of all I'd need evidence that 80% of the rioters were black, because it doesn't look that way to me. Yes, they're over-represented, but as has been pointed out they're massively over-represented in terms of poverty. Add in the gangster culture and the lack of role models in black families, and the fact that the initial purported 'victim' was black, then I'm not surprised they're over-represented in these riots.

 

Why is 1991 not relevant to the discussion but the Jarrow marches in the 1930s are? What about Manchester?

 

It would be really good for you to give an honest assertion as to why so many people were involved, like I and others have.

80% is conservative.

 

So many people were involved because of reasons you have touched on, lack of morality, poor upbringing, lack of willingness to get out of a life of crime.

 

I'm not talking about his past, but the statements he makes in the first minute and a half, his accent, and his demeanour should be an example to any black Londoner. None of this "bredren" pish.

[Phil 6]

Problem with CT's theory is that the government has cut public sector jobs and the private sector taking up the slack, the increase in exports by UK companies and so on that was predicted by the government hasn't materialised and shows no sign of doing so at present.

 

There will always be an excuse Alex, no matter what the economy is like or which government is in power. With regard to imigrants, how many times have we heard the line that they do the work the english wont. The english wont because they can get by on benefits.

 

Available work and excellent benefits are the reason imigrants come here. Less benefits for the people already here and making the avaialable work the option will reduce claimants and imigrants, both which will benefit an already overcowded island particularly with a bleak economic outlook for decades to come.

 

That "nice" TORY, whose name escapes me, that has been looking at the benefit system for years and is trying to change it is spot on.

 

(not a racial point btw).

I'm not sure what you think I'm making an excuse for. I was pointing out that a economic climate with less jobs around means that more unemployed is inevitable. Ignoring party politics it's not really the time to decrease the amount of people on benefits, in fact it's absolutely inevitable that the amount of people on them will increase. To get back to party politics the government's policies clearly aren't working in the way they are because the economy hasn't responded to their policies in the way they said it would. Hate to say I told you so...

 

I was basically saying that there will also be an excuse not to get going with necessary reforms, particularly benefits. It should have been addressed by Labour in 97 when the world went through a boom period but better late than never.

 

And we will always need a main benefit safety net but its way past a safety net.

 

Re the economy, I think its fairly evident the world is pretty fucked and there will be no quick fixes. I cant really see it getting any better in my lifetime. I think there is a massive worldwide correction going on and things will never return to the way they were unless something unknown at present comes along.

 

It will be difficult for those who have lived through prosperous times, but as always in life, future generations will just adjust to that enviroment.

 

I compare it to NUFC under SJH. The likes of me and you know we will probably never have it that good again and it will always taint our enjoyment of NUFC to some degree. Kids who are just getting into football now dont have that baggage.

 

I also believe borrowing more money to try and prop up the "good times" in the hope they will come back is not the answer. It wasnt for Fred and it isnt for Dave.

As I'm sure the Tory you were on about (I know who you mean but can't remember either) will discover, it's virtually impossible to get it anywhere near perfect. The necessary reforms you're on about will, imo, turn out to be rhetoric, as with every other plan to get tough on scroungers etc. HF is right in many ways, the bank bail out makes the amount of people on benefits as a whole (not just those who are taking the hit and miss) look like a very small drop in the ocean. If you accept that the banks had a huge role to play in the current economic climate (and I think it's impossible not to share that view) then perhaps we should question why the reforms on financial institutions aren't top of the agenda. The reason is because, like Chez said, we're being peddled a lie.

 

To claim this has anything to do with anything other than 24/7 news showing people walking out with TV, trainers and laptop is laughable. There is no deeper political meaning in any of this.

 

And in case you Labour lot missed it Americas credit rating is being down graded. So if you cant see you were wrong on spending there's no debate to have. I'd get more sense out of a mop.

[McFaul 35]

Why are 80% of these people black, when there are perhaps three times as many white poor people in London as there are black people.

 

You clearly missed my post earlier...

 

over half of all people in poverty in London are from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) backgrounds.

 

http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/in...ncome-and-work/

Black AND ethnic minority backgrounds. So more than half of the others are more than likely not to be black. So you're looking an even smaller figure.

[NJS 3977]

Well that's all fine, but explain the figures to me then. Why are 80% of these people black, when there are perhaps three times as many white poor people in London as there are black people. It's alright offering in my opinion non existant similarities between 1991 and 2011, but explain those figures to me, and try and look at it from a neutral view point for a change, rather than some George Galloway type figure.

 

Have you been to Hackney Stevie?

 

I went there once for a gig (Ash - fuck knows why they played there) and the only white people I saw were those at the gig.

 

London is a big place but at the same time some of the areas are very segregated.

[Guest alex]

Problem with CT's theory is that the government has cut public sector jobs and the private sector taking up the slack, the increase in exports by UK companies and so on that was predicted by the government hasn't materialised and shows no sign of doing so at present.

 

There will always be an excuse Alex, no matter what the economy is like or which government is in power. With regard to imigrants, how many times have we heard the line that they do the work the english wont. The english wont because they can get by on benefits.

 

Available work and excellent benefits are the reason imigrants come here. Less benefits for the people already here and making the avaialable work the option will reduce claimants and imigrants, both which will benefit an already overcowded island particularly with a bleak economic outlook for decades to come.

 

That "nice" TORY, whose name escapes me, that has been looking at the benefit system for years and is trying to change it is spot on.

 

(not a racial point btw).

I'm not sure what you think I'm making an excuse for. I was pointing out that a economic climate with less jobs around means that more unemployed is inevitable. Ignoring party politics it's not really the time to decrease the amount of people on benefits, in fact it's absolutely inevitable that the amount of people on them will increase. To get back to party politics the government's policies clearly aren't working in the way they are because the economy hasn't responded to their policies in the way they said it would. Hate to say I told you so...

 

I was basically saying that there will also be an excuse not to get going with necessary reforms, particularly benefits. It should have been addressed by Labour in 97 when the world went through a boom period but better late than never.

 

And we will always need a main benefit safety net but its way past a safety net.

 

Re the economy, I think its fairly evident the world is pretty fucked and there will be no quick fixes. I cant really see it getting any better in my lifetime. I think there is a massive worldwide correction going on and things will never return to the way they were unless something unknown at present comes along.

 

It will be difficult for those who have lived through prosperous times, but as always in life, future generations will just adjust to that enviroment.

 

I compare it to NUFC under SJH. The likes of me and you know we will probably never have it that good again and it will always taint our enjoyment of NUFC to some degree. Kids who are just getting into football now dont have that baggage.

 

I also believe borrowing more money to try and prop up the "good times" in the hope they will come back is not the answer. It wasnt for Fred and it isnt for Dave.

As I'm sure the Tory you were on about (I know who you mean but can't remember either) will discover, it's virtually impossible to get it anywhere near perfect. The necessary reforms you're on about will, imo, turn out to be rhetoric, as with every other plan to get tough on scroungers etc. HF is right in many ways, the bank bail out makes the amount of people on benefits as a whole (not just those who are taking the hit and miss) look like a very small drop in the ocean. If you accept that the banks had a huge role to play in the current economic climate (and I think it's impossible not to share that view) then perhaps we should question why the reforms on financial institutions aren't top of the agenda. The reason is because, like Chez said, we're being peddled a lie.

 

To claim this has anything to do with anything other than 24/7 news showing people walking out with TV, trainers and laptop is laughable. There is no deeper political meaning in any of this.

 

I wasn't. We were discussing a wider issue. You could have realised that by reading our posts though.

Edited August 10, 2011 by alex

[Happy Face 29]

Why are 80% of these people black, when there are perhaps three times as many white poor people in London as there are black people.

 

You clearly missed my post earlier...

 

over half of all people in poverty in London are from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) backgrounds.

 

http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/in...ncome-and-work/

Black AND ethnic minority backgrounds. So more than half of the others are more than likely not to be black. So you're looking an even smaller figure.

 

How does that equate to 3 times as many white?

 

Don't lie to the forum Stevie.

[McFaul 35]

Well that's all fine, but explain the figures to me then. Why are 80% of these people black, when there are perhaps three times as many white poor people in London as there are black people. It's alright offering in my opinion non existant similarities between 1991 and 2011, but explain those figures to me, and try and look at it from a neutral view point for a change, rather than some George Galloway type figure.

 

Have you been to Hackney Stevie?

 

I went there once for a gig (Ash - fuck knows why they played there) and the only white people I saw were those at the gig.

 

London is a big place but at the same time some of the areas are very segregated.

Aye I have been to Hackney, I've played in a national 5 a side tournament on Hackney Marshes, and it's got a lot of black people, but no more than Lewisham.

[LoveTheBobby 1]

It's about time that right-minded individuals took the streets back from these low-life scum. Stand up and be counted. Organise a call for blokes 30 - 60 and surely enough would come to the fore to stand up to these hoodlums. These twats are frightened of one thing only - physical violence. It's about time we gave it to them.

 

Not see the kids going about in Enfield last night ?

 

More EDL than anything else, but the right idea nontheless

 

Sikhs were ready to roll too

[McFaul 35]

Why are 80% of these people black, when there are perhaps three times as many white poor people in London as there are black people.

 

You clearly missed my post earlier...

 

over half of all people in poverty in London are from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) backgrounds.

 

http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/in...ncome-and-work/

Black AND ethnic minority backgrounds. So more than half of the others are more than likely not to be black. So you're looking an even smaller figure.

 

How does that equate to 3 times as many white?

 

Don't lie to the forum Stevie.

It's you who's lying figures man. You couldn't even answer why you told lies yesterday and still can't.

 

Obviously your pish above is saying about half of all people living in poverty are black or some ethnic minority. So that's 50%, AT LEAST half of them will be Asian or not black, meaning less than 25% of people under the poverty line in London are black, while AT LEAST 50% are white.

[Ketsbaia 0]

It can't come as any surprise that the store they're looting are Currys, Jessops, JD Sports etc. We live in a nation that is wrapped up in consumerism. You can't turn anywhere without being battered by aspirational messages - buy this, shop there, wear that etc. No matter how misplaced the anger and pointless the looting knicking a pair of Nike Airs is their political statement. Listen to them when they're interviewed - hardly the most eloquent people in the world but when they're not talking about "fuckin' da feds, innit" there does seem to be a degree of understanding of both the political and social implications of what has happened and what's to come.

 

The number of people claiming benefits because they're out for an easy ride is pretty minimal, yet as this thread shows the scrounger stereotype pervades any discussion about those on the dole or disability. No wonder there's disenfranchisement amongst certain areas of society when they're constantly told that the 'career path' they're being forced down due to circumstances outside their control makes them second class citizens. It doesn't help that this message is being passed down by politicians who have stole more cash from the country than they have, the fans being flamed by the journalists who have wronged more people than they have and doors are being slammed shut in their faces thanks to the greediness of the bankers who are still being treated like the goose that laid the golden egg.

 

In school we remind kids that they're not quite good enough, so even if they do get out they're never going to have made it - don't get the grades and you're just another waster, get the grades and it's because the exams were easy. Go to university (if you can afford it) and unless you study a 'proper' subject you're derided for being a time waster. You're not meant to be learning, you're meant to be preparing yourself for the world of work. I mean who wants to learn in this day and age? Get out and start sweeping the streets. The only university you need to go to is the University of Life.

 

It may all seem pretty trivial, but piled one on top of another I can see why "da yoot" are fucked off.

 

And before anyone starts this isn't a justification, merely an attempt to understand why this has happened.

[Guest alex]

It can't come as any surprise that the store they're looting are Currys, Jessops, JD Sports etc. We live in a nation that is wrapped up in consumerism. You can't turn anywhere without being battered by aspirational messages - buy this, shop there, wear that etc. No matter how misplaced the anger and pointless the looting knicking a pair of Nike Airs is their political statement. Listen to them when they're interviewed - hardly the most eloquent people in the world but when they're not talking about "fuckin' da feds, innit" there does seem to be a degree of understanding of both the political and social implications of what has happened and what's to come.

 

The number of people claiming benefits because they're out for an easy ride is pretty minimal, yet as this thread shows the scrounger stereotype pervades any discussion about those on the dole or disability. No wonder there's disenfranchisement amongst certain areas of society when they're constantly told that the 'career path' they're being forced down due to circumstances outside their control makes them second class citizens. It doesn't help that this message is being passed down by politicians who have stole more cash from the country than they have, the fans being flamed by the journalists who have wronged more people than they have and doors are being slammed shut in their faces thanks to the greediness of the bankers who are still being treated like the goose that laid the golden egg.

 

In school we remind kids that they're not quite good enough, so even if they do get out they're never going to have made it - don't get the grades and you're just another waster, get the grades and it's because the exams were easy. Go to university (if you can afford it) and unless you study a 'proper' subject you're derided for being a time waster. You're not meant to be learning, you're meant to be preparing yourself for the world of work. I mean who wants to learn in this day and age? Get out and start sweeping the streets. The only university you need to go to is the University of Life.

 

It may all seem pretty trivial, but piled one on top of another I can see why "da yoot" are fucked off.

 

And before anyone starts this isn't a justification, merely an attempt to understand why this has happened.

I like the cut of your jib.

[Guest alex]

Why are 80% of these people black, when there are perhaps three times as many white poor people in London as there are black people.

 

You clearly missed my post earlier...

 

over half of all people in poverty in London are from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) backgrounds.

 

http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/in...ncome-and-work/

Black AND ethnic minority backgrounds. So more than half of the others are more than likely not to be black. So you're looking an even smaller figure.

 

How does that equate to 3 times as many white?

 

Don't lie to the forum Stevie.

It's you who's lying figures man. You couldn't even answer why you told lies yesterday and still can't.

 

Obviously your pish above is saying about half of all people living in poverty are black or some ethnic minority. So that's 50%, AT LEAST half of them will be Asian or not black, meaning less than 25% of people under the poverty line in London are black, while AT LEAST 50% are white.

White men can't count tbh

[Happy Face 29]

Why are 80% of these people black, when there are perhaps three times as many white poor people in London as there are black people.

 

You clearly missed my post earlier...

 

over half of all people in poverty in London are from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) backgrounds.

 

http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/in...ncome-and-work/

Black AND ethnic minority backgrounds. So more than half of the others are more than likely not to be black. So you're looking an even smaller figure.

 

How does that equate to 3 times as many white?

 

Don't lie to the forum Stevie.

It's you who's lying figures man. You couldn't even answer why you told lies yesterday and still can't.

 

Obviously your pish above is saying about half of all people living in poverty are black or some ethnic minority. So that's 50%, AT LEAST half of them will be Asian or not black, meaning less than 25% of people under the poverty line in London are black, while AT LEAST 50% are white.

 

I don't think your sums work out there (more than half, wher you say half etc)...but I'd be interested in working it out if you are too....

 

 

First of all clarity on the Black/white demographic...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London

 

By the census of '01 or the estimate of '07 London is roughly 70% White and 11% black

[Renton 17746]

And in case you Labour lot missed it Americas credit rating is being down graded. So if you cant see you were wrong on spending there's no debate to have. I'd get more sense out of a mop.

 

No debate?

 

It was a symbolic downgrading from a discredited rating agency. If not then how come the interest rates the US pays on it's debt fell immediately after S&P's latest joke?

 

The real problem is we (the UK and US) are facing a protracted period of stagnation or a double dip recession. Without growth, we can't reduce the deficit. Something you tory mopheads can't get your heads around it seems.

[Renton 17746]

It's about time that right-minded individuals took the streets back from these low-life scum. Stand up and be counted. Organise a call for blokes 30 - 60 and surely enough would come to the fore to stand up to these hoodlums. These twats are frightened of one thing only - physical violence. It's about time we gave it to them.

 

Not see the kids going about in Enfield last night ?

 

More EDL than anything else, but the right idea nontheless

 

Sikhs were ready to roll too

 

Pissed up EDL vigilantes added to the mix? Should sort everything out.

[Tom 13836]

Great post Kestbaia.

[Happy Face 29]

And in case you Labour lot missed it Americas credit rating is being down graded. So if you cant see you were wrong on spending there's no debate to have. I'd get more sense out of a mop.

 

No debate?

 

It was a symbolic downgrading from a discredited rating agency. If not then how come the interest rates the US pays on it's debt fell immediately after S&P's latest joke?

 

The real problem is we (the UK and US) are facing a protracted period of stagnation or a double dip recession. Without growth, we can't reduce the deficit. Something you tory mopheads can't get your heads around it seems.

 

Phil needs to read more Krugman.

 

He's gone so far as to suggest the downgrade was a political favour by someone or other....given their sums were out by $2trillion.

[McFaul 35]

Why are 80% of these people black, when there are perhaps three times as many white poor people in London as there are black people.

 

You clearly missed my post earlier...

 

over half of all people in poverty in London are from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) backgrounds.

 

http://www.londonspovertyprofile.org.uk/in...ncome-and-work/

Black AND ethnic minority backgrounds. So more than half of the others are more than likely not to be black. So you're looking an even smaller figure.

 

How does that equate to 3 times as many white?

 

Don't lie to the forum Stevie.

It's you who's lying figures man. You couldn't even answer why you told lies yesterday and still can't.

 

Obviously your pish above is saying about half of all people living in poverty are black or some ethnic minority. So that's 50%, AT LEAST half of them will be Asian or not black, meaning less than 25% of people under the poverty line in London are black, while AT LEAST 50% are white.

 

I don't think your sums work out there (more than half, wher you say half etc)...but I'd be interested in working it out if you are too....

 

 

First of all clarity on the Black/white demographic...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London

 

By the census of '01 or the estimate of '07 London is roughly 70% White and 11% black

Even more damning than I thought ONE IN TEN of London's population, making up FOUR FIFTHS of the people involved in this anarchy. Incredible. So lets break that down. 10% of 7m = 700,000, so there are 6.3m people in London who aren't black. So by my calculations you are 20 times more likely to be involved in this looting if you're black, compared to if you are any other ethnicity. All Cameron's fault this, in no way are any of those "communities" at fault.

[Happy Face 29]

First of all clarity on the Black/white demographic...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_London

 

By the census of '01 or the estimate of '07 London is roughly 70% White and 11% black

 

 

But you need to consider the average age of a looter. There's gonna be a lot more white 60 year olds in the leafy prosperous areas than there are black grandparents in Peckham.

 

In secondary schools in Brent, north-west London, which is one of the capital's most multi-cultural boroughs, only seven per cent of pupils were of white British origin last year, figures show. A further 36 per cent were classed as Asian and 24 per cent were black.

 

Across inner and outer London, black and Asian pupils outnumber white British children by about six to four.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/156...minorities.html