Riots in Birmingham/London/Manchester etc

[Flamingo]

Would be taken to the European Court (at our expense on Legal Aid) for "cruel and degrading punishment" or some such.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would be taken to the European Court (at our expense on Legal Aid) for "cruel and degrading punishment" or some such.

Is there any European Court that upholds the rights of those who were victims of the recent mass criminality....or is everything slanted in favour of the criminal fraternity?

 

[NSEFAN]

The European Court of Human Rights isn't just for criminals. The victims could equally turn around and point out their own human rights.

I think it's good that the law is being seen to deal with the people who committed these awful acts, but that should not be the only step. The reasons as to why these riots happened need to be addressed too, so that rioting on this scale doesn't happen again.

 

[LE Greys]

Another possible reason is something that has affected society. People see deference as wrong and often view the establishment as bad. That goes right through society, including some people who are the establishment now. So as well as all the stuff I mentioned earlier, perhaps some people are worried about cracking down too hard because they don't want to see themselves in a negative light. I'm applying my own version of psychology here (meaning it's probably a load of cobblers).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The reasons as to why these riots happened need to be addressed too, so that rioting on this scale doesn't happen again.

I think there will be a real problem here, as sheer opportunistic looting is going to be a difficult matter to address to prevent it happening again.

It is strange how co-ordinated the situations were, with their ablity to develop strategies to attack certain nominated areas where the police presence was low, until you realise that some of the telecommunication devices used messages that were sent as encrypted messages that pose real problems for tracking by the law-enforcement agencies.

 

[NSEFAN]

I think there will be a real problem here, as sheer opportunistic looting is going to be a difficult matter to address to prevent it happening again.

It is strange how co-ordinated the situations were, with their ablity to develop strategies to attack certain nominated areas where the police presence was low, until you realise that some of the telecommunication devices used messages that were sent as encrypted messages that pose real problems for tracking by the law-enforcement agencies.

Indeed. With modern communication it is easier to cause large riots and flash mobs, and unless we end with some kind of thought police, it is impossible to track everything as it happens. My point was more about why people would need to cause so much damage in the first place, i.e seeing riots taking place and deciding to join in on the spot. The underlying reasons as to why people rioted could be cultural, social, economic or political, or any combination of these.

Then again, perhaps it is just swarm-like behaviour; the dramatic reporting of the riots and the use of mobile communication mean that people just got involved to be part of the scene, both in large numbers and very quickly.

It could well have been that the looting itself was actually planned out by certain gangs waiting for such an opportunity to arise. Once they had a trigger (a police shooting of a black man), they could spread rumours and fan the flames. Then, when they knew that the police could do little to catch them, they could grab as much as possible and drive off. Certainly there were reports of groups of people turning up in vans and doing this. Random members of the public joined in too, (the likes who then went and posted about their haul on Facebook! ), but these were more likely people who saw what was happening and jumped on the bandwagon. That's my theory on the matter!

 

[table38]

...some of the telecommunication devices used messages that were sent as encrypted messages that pose real problems for tracking by the law-enforcement agencies.

Apparently the police were able to intercept some of these messages from smartphones that had been confiscated from those arrested earlier.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Apparently the police were able to intercept some of these messages from smartphones that had been confiscated from those arrested earlier.

Sounds like the Police are at last trying to move with the times in terms of the world of modern technology. I am sure that the MI5 and MI6 departments also have their own telecommunication experts in order to carry out their surveillance correctly.

 

[90019]

The underlying reasons as to why people rioted could be cultural, social, economic or political, or any combination of these.

The underlying reasons were simple;

• I want that, but I'm not prepared to pay for it.
• I'm entitled to more things than I can afford.
• The world owes me a living, and I deserve free stuff.
• I like smashing things up and destroying other people's stuff for fun.
• I like setting things on fire.

Any combination of the above.

Any real reson behind the rioting was lost very quickly after the initial protests were hijacked by scum, who were just out to loot and destroy things for fun.
There is no reasoning with these people, they are not interested in people trying to help them, they just want 'respect', though for them that only means other people should respect them, and they should be allowed to do whatever they want.

 

[jon0844]

I've thought for some time that the problem is that people don't have enough money to buy all the materialistic goods we all crave, hence the jealousy and desire to get these things at any cost.

However, I am not beginning to think something else; Why are we allowing society to get to the point where everyone wants these goods that we don't actually need? Sure, it's nice to own an iPhone, iPad, MacBook (sorry they're all Apple products!), drive a BMW and wear nice clothes with big name labels - but we don't NEED them.

We don't need to sit at home worrying about how we can afford to have these luxuries.

Except, the problemis, we feel we do need them. We're going to be seen as complete failures and miss out on life if we don't have them.

If people weren't so interested in all of these things (hard, I'll admit as I'm probably one of these people too) then most of us would be able to survive on a lot less money.

As for punishments, well if everyone gets to learn that stealing something small can get you six months inside, a significant number of opportunists will not do it again. Yes, we'll have full up prisons for a while - but may have fewer people going there later on. I'm glad we can now test out the theory that you have to be tough, after having been quite soft for so long. Now we can properly compare the two theories on how to deal with criminals.

 

[Greenback]

However, I am not beginning to think something else; Why are we allowing society to get to the point where everyone wants these goods that we don't actually need? Sure, it's nice to own an iPhone, iPad, MacBook (sorry they're all Apple products!), drive a BMW and wear nice clothes with big name labels - but we don't NEED them.

We don't need to sit at home worrying about how we can afford to have these luxuries.

The power of advertising is undoubtedly part of it. Magazines, TV, the internet and our peers all combine to tell us that absolutely everyone else has these things, and we are a failure if we don't have them.

Of course, this message is not explicit, but it;s the cumulative effect of the almost constant exposure to expensive labels and the latest technological wizardry.

 

[jon0844]

The thing is, we're powerless to stop this as we live in a democracy and have a free market.

It makes it rather pointless trying to address other issues, when you can't simply give people more money so they can buy an iPad. Nobody is going to be allowed to actually stand up and tell people they don't need one.

 

[Greenback]

You're right, we can't stop it. We certainly can't go back to the days when there were only two or three TV channels, with hardly any adverts!

It might be worth thinking if anything can be done to promote alternative messages to rampant conumerism though.

 

[passmore]

I agree we don't need such ostentatious products such as an Ipad or an Iphone, which is why I have a basic brick of a mobile phone as all I need is to make/receive calls.
The looters were just opportunists, looking to get an easy product in the midst of chaos and an overstretched police force. I don't think they cared if the product they got was an Ipad or the latest designer jeans. Yes there is that underlying jealousy and desire, but I doubt it was the prime motivation behind the looting that we saw.
Being much more materialistic than we were 40 or 50 years ago, I do notice that youngsters like to keep up with their mates. But you'll find that not everyone acts if they see Fred Jones with the latest Iphone 57 or whatever in such a brutal way by smashing windows to get into shops. They saw an opportunity to smash-and-grab and took it.
I was always jealous of my closest friend who bought a Jensen Interceptor (remember them?) back in the days were cars were as sought after as the latest designer clothes of today. But did I rob him of his car?

 

[jon0844]

It might be worth thinking if anything can be done to promote alternative messages to rampant conumerism though.

Well there are plenty of groups trying to stop us living in a materialistic society, including religious groups, but I'd say that 99% of them are only out to get a cut of the money that would be otherwise spent on material goods!!

Sadly in any capitalist society, you'll get everyone wanting to make us much money as they can and forget about ethics or morality. I've worked in an industry that has created loads of multi-millionaires at the expense of staff and often breaking a few laws along the way. But, history looks upon them as incredibly successful entrepreneurs we should all strive to be like.

I'm not a religious person at all, but I can see how you need to be honest. That's what stops you breaking a law even if you're 99.99% sure you'll never be caught.

Okay, so I do speed when driving at times, so that probably makes me a total hypocrite!

I was always jealous of my closest friend who bought a Jensen Interceptor (remember them?) back in the days were cars were as sought after as the latest designer clothes of today. But did I rob him of his car?

Of course not. I've been jealous of people too. But now we're all told we DESERVE to have what we want. Celebs, who themselves are just extracting money from gullible idiots (like those buying Jordan's latest biography that Katie Price never wrote) keep saying 'Don't let anyone put you down. Believe and you can have anything you want, just like me' and other such guff. As long as everyone keeps thinking they can have everything and deserve everything, then people run the risk of thinking that the only reason they can't get everything is the fault of other people.

Who wants to think that the reason you can't afford that nice new TV is because you have to actually work for it? The last Government (but, hey, the Tories would have quite possibly been the same) just wanted everyone to enjoy the easy credit to buy all those things and worry about the problem tomorrow (a great thing to teach people, is it not?). Now the bubble has burst, you can't go getting a nice easy loan or 50 credit cards to buy whatever you want - but you still want them!!

 

[passmore]

I agree Jon, there were people back in my day that were just like that, albeit not as numerous as today though. But I strongly believe that the looters were motivated by opportunity rather than because they deserved to have the flashy gadget in the shop window.
I knew several kids back then who wanted to have everything. But their parents told them were the line was. Nowadays, that line isn't there and the discipline at home has vanished.

 

[Greenback]

I agree Jon, there were people back in my day that were just like that, albeit not as numerous as today though. But I strongly believe that the looters were motivated by opportunity rather than because they deserved to have the flashy gadget in the shop window.
I knew several kids back then who wanted to have everything. But their parents told them were the line was. Nowadays, that line isn't there and the discipline at home has vanished.

There seem to be fewer parents these days who are willing to say 'no' to their children. It seems that the modern approach is to give your kids everything, perhaps out of a feeling that it;s child abuse not to!

 

[90019]

I've thought for some time that the problem is that people don't have enough money to buy all the materialistic goods we all crave, hence the jealousy and desire to get these things at any cost.

We live in a society where people spend hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds on designer clothes and gadgets, yet complain about living in poverty.

 

[Greenback]

We live in a society where people spend hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds on designer clothes and gadgets, yet complain about living in poverty.

'Poverty' has a diferent meaning now. Whereas it used to mean not having enough food/clothing, living in unhealthy conditions and being at risk from disease, it now means not having a TV in every room, and being unable to take a holiday abroad every year.

 

[jon0844]

I agree Jon, there were people back in my day that were just like that, albeit not as numerous as today though. But I strongly believe that the looters were motivated by opportunity rather than because they deserved to have the flashy gadget in the shop window.

I agree. While some people planned where to 'strike' a lot of it was just opportunism and grabbing anything close by; no doubt the people who hadn't really done anything bad before, but figured it was time to join in.

I'd like to think that even if something like that was 'handed to me on a plate' I'd still refuse as I'd know it was wrong.

God knows how many people were career criminals taking advantage and people who just took a chance, though. I definitely don't think it was one OR the other though.

 

[LE Greys]

The underlying reasons were simple;

• I want that, but I'm not prepared to pay for it.
• I'm entitled to more things than I can afford.
• The world owes me a living, and I deserve free stuff.
• I like smashing things up and destroying other people's stuff for fun.
• I like setting things on fire.

Any combination of the above.

Any real reson behind the rioting was lost very quickly after the initial protests were hijacked by scum, who were just out to loot and destroy things for fun.
There is no reasoning with these people, they are not interested in people trying to help them, they just want 'respect', though for them that only means other people should respect them, and they should be allowed to do whatever they want.

Add to that "I don't have to play by your rules". That's a lot more widespread than we think (I'm guilty of it myself). The difference is that some people think they can do whatever the **** they like simply because they have never learnt otherwise. Frightening people feels good, breaking things feels good, stealing things feels good, all because it enhances a person's self-image. Combine that to believing that nothing they do is wrong, and that is what you have.

 

[Old Timer]

Add to that "I don't have to play by your rules". That's a lot more widespread than we think (I'm guilty of it myself). The difference is that some people think they can do whatever the **** they like simply because they have never learnt otherwise. Frightening people feels good, breaking things feels good, stealing things feels good, all because it enhances a person's self-image. Combine that to believing that nothing they do is wrong, and that is what you have.

Well judging by the number of people now jumping on the "too harsh sentences" bandwagon, I anticipate we will soon be paying the criminals for having done us a good turn.

Is it any wonder that the public have little regards for the Law anymore when it seems that apologists for practically every violation lurk around corners ready to rush to the BBC to defend the criminals and criticise the exercise of justice. :roll: :roll: :roll:

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I now wonder how many of the custodial sentences handed down will now be subject to an appeal. There was a case reported tonight where a woman who had been given a 5-month sentence for receiving stolen shorts from her lodger, had the custodial sentence revoked by a judge. He said that the sentence was too harsh for the offence and replaced it with "X" number of unpaid hours of community work. However, the lodger did receive a custodial sentence for the actual theft charge.

 

[jon0844]

If we suddenly go soft, it will all happen again as people who thought they could get away with it will. You may as well invite people back out to start rioting and looting all over again, and provide the petrol bombs and trolleys to help.

The best thing that could happen is the message is sent out that it won't be tolerated, so telling these people to 'just dare try again' because it's not just the police but people around you that will stand up to you.

One thing has happened though; I think everyone stopped thinking the police were trigger happy murderers after finding out more about Mark Duggan's 'connections' and the fact he had a loaded gun in a sock - whether fired or not (not as it turned out). I've not heard his name mentioned by anyone this week.. I wonder why!

 

[passmore]

Well judging by the number of people now jumping on the "too harsh sentences" bandwagon, I anticipate we will soon be paying the criminals for having done us a good turn.

Is it any wonder that the public have little regards for the Law anymore when it seems that apologists for practically every violation lurk around corners ready to rush to the BBC to defend the criminals and criticise the exercise of justice. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Quite. The days of justice being respected and not challenged are long gone.

Yes perhaps the sentences show that the justice system is disproportionate when it comes to the distribution of sentences, but these are handed down by judges who have seen the facts and thus have made an informed decision. Their decision should be accepted and respected.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Add to that "I don't have to play by your rules". The difference is that some people think they can do whatever the **** they like simply because they have never learnt otherwise. Frightening people feels good, breaking things feels good, stealing things feels good, all because it enhances a person's self-image. Combine that to believing that nothing they do is wrong, and that is what you have.

Your addition to the previous list of "attitudes" is well said. The normal mind-set of the understanding of the justice system does not appear to have reached maturity in the minds of some of the accused, who exhibit a childish belief of "I want it and and I want it now.".

With regards to the pressure of advertising, not only on the younger generation, but on all groups, there is total cynacism in the way advertisments are phrased. One particular phrase now often used that really does make me very angry when I either see it or hear it is MUST HAVE.