Totting Ham Riots

[La_Dolce_Vita]

It makes me smile when NS is mentioned as a "fix" for a lot of these ills.

I know. I don't know where the silly idea comes from. Mental laziness? It's the same with reliance on prison as the answer to crime. I think people don't use their brains and just look lazily to what already exists.

 

I suspect that one reason why all these feckless scrotes have no respect for law and order, property, decent folk living decent lives etc etc is because they simply have no respect for themselves.

Agreed. But I also think they have no consideration and feeling for others, because they have been given little reason to have it. They haven't been brought up to have it.

[ballaughbiker]

Those who need to earn a wage or salary.

I agree. Now what if they own property? Does that change anything?

[renruf]

Send them all to military camp.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Those who need to earn a wage or salary.

I agree. Now what if they own property? Does that change anything?

Change what? I don't know if have no idea what I am talking about, a bit muddled or just tiring me out. But I can explain better in private or refer to you to sources to read on the matter.

[Amadeus]

Haven't we established by now that LDV's fantasy citizen smith theories are so far removed from any kind of workable system that they really aren't worth debating?

 

It would still be a good thing and can form an important step towards being a more responsible adult. I'd hazard a guess that NS would mean many of those kids out looting the others days would for the first time experience what a structured life and responsibilities are and that there are other ways to lead your life rather than hanging out with mates and playing X-box while not really being arsed about finding a job'n stuff.

 

 

It probably could have some benefits, but it's not a solution to the current problems, it's far too late in life to make a difference to the people we're talking about here. The culture these people are raised into needs fixing as far back as their conception.

I'd say it's clear that some people have views that are far removed from real life, yes.

 

Agree that NS wouldn't be a blanket solution but it would most likely help to address some of the problems. Usually they get you on your 18th birthday or shortly after, so still young enough to make a difference, even if life until then was spent in a less than ideal environment. It's an opportunity for a break, time away from your usual environment and sometimes that is enough to show that there are other ways to live your life and other opportunities out there.

 

I guess a radical benefits shake-up is also needed, one that really changes the game plan and makes living a certain kind of lifestyle undesirable and not worthwhile. Again, won't be the solution to it all but sure would help.

 

I guess ultimately there is a real danger that it turns into a ghetto-mentality, a "Us and them", "Normal People and That Looting Scum Over There", which can't be healthy. The UK government has already shown that they are willing to consider drastic measures to stay popular - funny how they hailed social media as great tool of freedom during recent uprisings in other countries and now want the power to switch it off if there's trouble closer to home. Smells like panic stations and you have to ask yourself What Next?

 

Maybe a mixture between incentives and opportunities as well as making it clear that the easy life on the state is over would be the way forward. The UK also needs to review its asylum policy and stop being seen as the land where milk and honey flows - it causes unrest within the population and ultimately can't be sustained. More funding for schools and education would also help, but with the mess the whole place is in, I'd say there won't be much change anytime soon - hardcore policing has to do the job until then, and even that lot is overstretched. Not looking good for Blighty...

[ballaughbiker]

Change what? I don't know if have no idea what I am talking about

I think you do but as you seem to need it to be spelled out, I'll continue (although I really should know better by now).

 

1) You are OK with working class people stealing off so called big business who you allege have no title to the goods they 'own'.

2) You are against working class people stealing off their own.

3) You are against property ownership and big business (are you getting the connection yet?)and I therefore have to assume assume you don't think property owners have real title to the said property either so....

4) How does someone working class who owns property fit into these beliefs?

 

Of course as usual I expect loads of semantic wriggling , use of phrases "you don't understand xyz" and general obfuscation but I am not having a go at all. I just want to know . You have in the past avoided such related inconvenient questions like "what do you do for a living" alleging irrelevance. I think the relevance is obvious to many of us avid readers but it would help understanding if we knew whether you were say, an Athol St professional or someone living off the state or anything in between.The vested interest in your source of income would obviously have an impact on such oddball views of society.

 

Rather than giving me sources to read on the matter I really would like to know an answer to this simple question. Oh that's 4) above by the way in case you say "what question? I don't know what you're talking about".

[pongo]

an Athol St professional or someone living off the state or anything in between.

 

Is there really such a distinction? Much of Britain is living off the state, either directly or indirectly. Including many at the top of society. In Britain lots of very well paid people are living comfortable easy lives thanks to the state, indirectly. The Bank of England keeps tipping huge amounts of borrowed money into the British economy, for example, in order to keep people in otherwise unsustainable employment - including many people on huge salaries. It's the same.

 

Many of the problems in Britain are down to personal middle class debt. Many of the stresses in society are to do with people being borrowed to their limits. You cannot blame the poor for that. It would be utterly hypocritical to oppose spending money at the bottom of the economy whilst simultaneously ignoring the huge amount of liquidity being poured in at the top to keep an unsustainable system rolling.

 

@Amadeus. The riots have nothing to do with UK asylum.

[Chinahand]

Pongo, I think you have to ask about the difference between payments for goods and services and social transfers.

 

Certainly there are issues of value for money in both of these, but there is I think a difference between someone who is paid for a service by the state and someone receiving a benefit due to their particular circumstances.

 

They may both be living off the state, but the underlying nature of the exchange is very different.

[ballaughbiker]

You cannot blame the poor for that

I sincerely hope that my passing interest in LDV's parallel universe and the questions that this interest provokes is not seen as blaming the poor! Far from it, thousands and thousands are on state benefits through no fault of their own. It would be highly arrogant and dismissive of anyone who has good life chances to look down on and judge someone who hasn't. That having been said, there are those who live off the state as a life choice who others in work support. It is unfortunate that 'they' all get mixed as the same group.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Of course as usual I expect loads of semantic wriggling , use of phrases "you don't understand xyz" and general obfuscation but I am not having a go at all. I just want to know .

Maybe not, but it sounds as if you'd be better doing some reading on the matter considering that you don't expect a decent response. I don't feel inclined to talk about when you already dismiss any explanation that I will give. And like I have said, time and time again, I have already discussed this issue and explained it. Go and trawl through previous posts if you are genuinely interested.

[pongo]

you have to ask about the difference between payments for goods and services and social transfers.

 

The borrowed liquidity which is continually poured into the economic system has nothing to do with rewarding service. It is about providing support for otherwise unsustainable businesses and sectors. Just like British Leyland in the 1970s.

[Terse]

You cannot blame the poor for that

I sincerely hope that my passing interest in LDV's parallel universe

In the interests of clarity: it is not parallel, it is tangential - at best.

[ballaughbiker]

I was trying not to be too dismissive Terse. Don't know why I bothered though, a simple question if inconvenient doesn't seem to ever be answered.

[Bobbie Bobster]

I was trying not to be too dismissive Terse. Don't know why I bothered though, a simple question if inconvenient doesn't seem to ever be answered.

Au contraire, eventually I got an answer to the John Lewis question at the third or fourth time of asking (including other threads) and as I suspected it highlighted one of the many basic logical flaws in the argument.

[Amadeus]

An Open Letter to David Cameron’s Parents

 

http://nathanieltapley.com/2011/08/10/an-open-letter-to-david-camerons-parents/