Is everyone OK? I see all the violence and have to wonder...
See what happens when Jason goes on Holiday!
(https://th3core.com/chat/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.huffpost.com%2Fgadgets%2Fslideshows%2F40799%2Fslide_40799_324062_huge.jpg&hash=ec05b638eef24c77cfdb1a3a4ba3006e50cf9a27)
I suspect everyon's OK Heather, considering whats been happening there seem to be very few injured people, although obviously quite a few have damage/fire issues to deal with.
Adam is/used to be in Clapham where they did have problems, so would be nice to hear from him - but it does seem to be quite localised so even people who're in London aren't necessarily caught up in it directly. In one street houses may be burnt to the ground, in the next all is (relatively) normal.
My God. The destruction looks much worse than you're talking about.
What started this? I saw something about a police officer...is this similiar to the LA riots with the Rodney King fiasco?
its almost impossible to tell the real reasons. A man was fatally shot during an arrest. A non police gun was found at the scene. A police radio has a bullet in it but the bullet is police issue. Everything else on that is unknown/unreliable/supposition so I'm not going to speculate!
On Saturday night a peaceful vigil was held for him which seems to have been somewhat hijacked by people who didn't want to be peaceful. In Tottenham there's a history of police and the public having issues, so how things happened is again supposition unless you were there - everyone seems to say something different. The last couple of nights have seen rioting (well, appears to be more 'looting' to me) in seperate areas of London by people who have no obvious connection with either the original shooting or the area it happened in, and the areas targeted are both rich and poor, the shops range from charity to high end and the people range from 10 year olds up. I doubt they're all doing it for the same reasons, and some of them may just be doing it for a laugh (yeah I know, but they interviewed 2 17 year old girls earlier and one of them was saying "well its fun innit"). Personally I wonder if some of them think
It is crap and the looting is massive but greater London covers 607 square miles, and most of that's not burning or trashed or patrolled by mobs. Its kicked off in a few other cities too but in Bristol its 150 of the usual suspects (out of a population of half a million) taking the opportnity to nick mobile phones. I don't mean to belittle it, its bloody horrible to watch, but its not some type of Arab Spring moment, imho.
Have you seen police academy? It started like that with a discarded apple.
.....actually no it didn't , it was just scum suckers looking for a reason, any reason based on a police shooting.
There is an article on telegraph online that explains that the riots are the result of Cameron's Big Society initiative. Apparently Big society gave the disenfranchised a taste of control and ownership which went to their heads. Horseshit of the highest order.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/movers-and-shakers/sports/
This can't be linked? right?
It's ok!
After standing about observing the rioters the police have finally swooped on the ringleaders.
Here we see the police stopping 3 scumbags, but looks like they're not sure what to do with them
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/09/uk-riots-police-tough-lockdown
I heard an article today on the radio news (CBC Canada) that the police have been posting pictures that were taken during the disturbances and there has been a steady stream of people phoning and writing in to identify people who were caught on camera.
Social media can work in more than one direction!
@ Paul ;D
The rioting could cost taxpayers £100m, according to the Association of British Insurers, with police authorities having to pick up insurance costs. The Riots (Damages) Act 1886 specifies that if damage is caused by people "riotously and tumultuously assembled", local police authorities are required to compensate victims
Oh dear the police force was over stretched and short of cash before this started
@buckworks
and rightfully so too, this is nothing to do with social issues, unemployment or government cutbacks, this is just pure criminal damage and theft carried out by mindless scumbags and the police are powerless to arrest them unless they are caught in the act
http://www.twitvid.com/DWZPW
This is England shit!
Worth a read....
Dear America - Regarding the London Riots.
http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/jedlz/dear_america_regarding_the_london_riots/
Good quote, but I wonder if views really change much (other than those directly traumatized). My experience says "not really."
"I predict a lot of those people, as they cower behind their sash windows, are revising their views tonight. The hardening of liberal opinion in London is palpable"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8692429/London-riots-Bleeding-I-called-999.-A-tired-man-told-me-to-go-home.html
QuoteOn Thursday 4th August, Mark Duggan is carrying an illegal firearm. Yes, an illegal firearm. He's a drug dealer. The police shoot him. (don't scream "but he didn't shoot first," the fact he had a firearm, and sold drugs is enough to suspect that he may have used it in the past; or may have if a deal went wrong etc.)
I think that is key to why it is so difficult for Yanks to "get it"...in order for you to determine if the firearm is illegal here in the States is that you have to actually look at the firearm and the license to determine that. In Britain, you're illegal just for carrying one.
And...if that is one of the poorer areas of London, I am struck by how *clean* it is. No trash ANYWHERE on the street or in the gutters. It's ... rather nice looking.
re: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8692429/London-riots-Bleeding-I-called-999.-A-tired-man-told-me-to-go-home.html
bold added by me:
QuoteThe big black boy rode his bike straight at me, crashing me off my own and leaving us both tangled up on the ground. Then four more of them were racing towards me, clawing at my legs to get them off my bike, kicking me in the head as I tried to hold on.
If that guy said that in the States, he'd be b###h slapped so fast by a big black woman it'd make his head spin. And he'd have no idea why...
Hell, I'd be tempted to slap him. Actually, I'd probably pull him aside and tell him why that kind of talk AIN'T OK. What a racist fuck.
No, I'm not saying it's ok for what happened to him to happen, but really, his language, for a public newspaper is absolutely inexcusable.
>http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/jedlz/dear_america_regarding_the_london_riots/
- My impression of the situation seems to be in agreement with his interpretation of what happened, so I don't see why he thinks I don't get it.
- It seems Americans are keying in on the 'Class' tone that we as Americans are kinda hypersensitive to, in regards to skin color and race, but that is more of a side issue.
- The issue of the shooting seems possibly justifiable to me.... he's a bad guy, probably doing something shady, and he has a gun in a country that outlaws them... hell, I might shoot him if he sneezed wrong:) It's not like it turned out to be a fake gun, or widget that looks like a gun.... it was a gun. Those cops had reason to be in fear for their life.
- plus, having a concealed carry permit in this country is not like the 'diplomatic immunity' scene in Leathal Weapon it just means you can carry a concealed weapon and disclaim that you have a permit before they put their knee in the back of your neck.
I think you're suffering from being overly politically correct, G. Substitute "white" for "black" and boy seems an appropriate description. "Young man" seems out of place describing a looter.
>black boy
But this really is an American hangup. Over there, they don't have the same history as we do, so saying someone is a 'black boy' is just a description and nothing more.
I think there is an undercurrent of a class snobbery thing going on as well, but that is just one of those endearing British traits, but has nothing to do with skin color:)
Quote from: grnidone on August 10, 2011, 08:18:17 PM
re: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8692429/London-riots-Bleeding-I-called-999.-A-tired-man-told-me-to-go-home.html
bold added by me:
QuoteThe big black boy rode his bike straight at me, crashing me off my own and leaving us both tangled up on the ground. Then four more of them were racing towards me, clawing at my legs to get them off my bike, kicking me in the head as I tried to hold on.
If that guy said that in the States, he'd be b###h slapped so fast by a big black woman it'd make his head spin. And he'd have no idea why...
Hell, I'd be tempted to slap him. Actually, I'd probably pull him aside and tell him why that kind of talk AIN'T OK. What a racist f###.
No, I'm not saying it's ok for what happened to him to happen, but really, his language, for a public newspaper is absolutely inexcusable.
I think that sentance probably reads very differently from the other side of the atlantic. Assuming it was a young man on the bike it reads absolutely fine from my safe middle class part of England. I don't think "boy" has the racial connotation here at all. If he was large, black, young and male it seems like a fair description. If the others were boys the same applies to the "them". In fact the article doesn't say or suggest the race of the others in the group - just the sex.
What's the old saying? Two nations divided by a common tongue?
>Two nations divided by a common tongue?
yeah, I think we all posted this at the same time:)
yup, and I almost made the same point again!
>> endearing
Andrew Gillighan isn't especially endearing though, to be honest :)
Some nice stuff happening: http://somethingniceforashraf.tumblr.com/
ack. I must be a horrible cynic. Tell me I am not the only one wondering whether that somethingnice site is genuine.
Pedants corner time again :)
As I understand it, there is a historical reason for why 'boy' has racist connotations in the US, and none in the UK.
Slavery was abolished in Great Britain in 1772, (although abolition was only extended to the Empire in 1833).
Even before that comparatively few slaves were based in the UK, they were mostly used overseas on the plantations etc. Same 'crime', but less visible to the UK based 'brit on the street'. The opportunity to use 'boy' in a racist manner was somewhat more limited than in the US. That isn't to say that we don't/didn't have plenty of racism, just that the word 'boy' never really became part of it.
The black population of the UK is mostly descended from immigrants 'welcomed' into the UK after the war to help with the manpower shortage. Although many are originally descended from those forced to work as slaves in the Caribbean, they have a different history, and a different set of grievances compared to those in the US - same obstacle of 'racism', of course, just a different background.
> 'boy' has racist connotations in the US
I don't know about origins, but I don't think it's necessarily 'racist' here, but it definitely can be condescending, depending on the situation and tone. I think it's partially because most of the time, the speaker is the proverbial 'man' in charge ...and in the 'rock, paper, scissors' of American family life, 'boy' actually loses to 'girl' at this age because boys are supposedly more able to do more hard work... which obviously means, statistically speaking, the phrase that comes after 'boy...' is usually going to be a menial task no one else wants to do.
But, if the man speaking has a Southern drawl, and it comes out sounding kinda like 'boyahhh'... and the the guy he says that to happens to be black... well, if we were in a crowd, I bet most heads would turn quick in that direction to see what happened next:)
Honestly, I think the confusion is simply that Americans hear the class issue and red flags are going up. The author of that article excuses something he said earlier (that apparently pissed off some yanks) by classifying scum into a bunch of different classes and it was obvious there was an unstated hierarchy to argument he was trying to hide like a pink elephant under the coffee table. The more he explained, the worse it sounded. He says its about scum, they hear its about class. Then they look for the proverbial black sheep (which happens in this case to be a 'black boy') and they run for the touchdown, blind to any further argument.
here in the UK I was of the understanding that he is not a man due to his age so he is called a boy........that simple !!!
also called
lad
sprog
kid
bin lid (cockney rhyming slang for kid)
and as many swear words there are available if he had just trashed anything I own
You know after watching the videos, that could just as easily be here. I keep thinking how little it takes to spark people into riot. Imagine if they really had a reason. Imagine what life would be like in a city. Wow, don't get me going...
Old spice riot advice.
http://adland.tumblr.com/post/8776192184/hello-rioters-look-at-your-friend-now-back-to-me
oh well, if enough time has passed for jokes to start may I add: http://photoshoplooter.tumblr.com
No it is not a con.
http://www.justgiving.com/somethingniceforashraf/
You can trust some people.
A bit of good old fashioned satire - http://nathanieltapley.com/2011/08/10/an-open-letter-to-david-camerons-parents/
> http://www.justgiving.com/somethingniceforashraf/
£7k raised for him... better than any justice he'd get at a court. hope he wasn't too shaken up by it.
>that could just as easily be here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States#1960s
Well, I've not seen any boys in the riots white or black...teenagers, yes, but not BOYS...that word is reserved for a kid under 12.
THAT is what I was getting at.
The word "Boy" for a black MAN is VERY racist. (And that's not being politically correct...that just is.) Look at some of the images in the 60's of full grown black men wearing signs that said "I am a man"...and you'll get it.
I was absolutely surprised that a journalist would miss that point...but it must be something over here and not on your side of the Atlantic.
http://www.miamiherald.com/multimedia/news/iamaman/Photos/jones01.jpg
yes it is on your side of the Atlantic as its not an issue over here so the journalist has not missed any point as far as the UK is concerned :)
there has been plenty of boys under the age of 12 rioting, this is one who has been charged so far
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8693701/London-riots-11-year-old-boy-appears-before-magistrates.html
QuoteThe word "Boy" for a black MAN is VERY racist.
Only within the context of US history - although in a lesser way it might be seen that way over here because of our exposure to US culture.
Quotethat word is reserved for a kid under 12
Again, not over here - most people would not see there as being defined age limit when 'boy' stopped and 'teenager' began - we are quite happy to entertain the concept of a teenage boy. Legally, childhood ends at 18 (with just a few minor legal exceptions), and a boy is defined as a male child.
FWIW, there were plenty out in the riots that were younger than that though - one that was taken in to custody was apparently 7.
Thinking it through, if it had been me, I would probably used the word 'Lad' - not much different, just has less of the 'child' association.
re: class issue
I get your point, just not sure we would interpret it that way over here - 'scum' is reserved for the worst sort of lowlife - gang members - drug dealers etc.. and you are just as likely to hear them being described that way by people from their own communities as by middle-class types.
Interesting snippet from the Yahoo article:
QuoteThose who have appeared at courts around the country so far have come from a wide range of ages and backgrounds.
They include an 11-year-old boy, a millionaire's daughter, a teaching assistant and a lifeguard.
If true (big 'if' I guess) it deals a bit of a blow to the 'its all down to poverty' argument.
>re: class issue
yeah, I think it's another American hyper-sensitivity. Three or four times now watching BBC news and reading British journalists, I ran into things that sounded 'class-ist', if you will, and it made me uncomfortable enough to question the bigger picture to make sure I understood the underlying tentions.
Actually, it's one of the more interesting things I think about this whole thing. I think Americans really like a 'middle class', and they like it very big. When you look at our least fortunate citizens, we call them 'poor', 'uneducated', and in some cases even 'trash'.... but funny enough we don't call them 'low class' as often. It seems to go beyond a description of what 'is', and adds a hierarchical component, which seems in some ways in opposition the whole 'equality' thing, which American's tout so much.
I think Americans like to think it's all a big spectrum where the individual has the power to influence his position up or down, based on their own efforts. I'm not saying it's really like that, but I think it's what we like to believe. Brits, on the other hand, seem more preoccupied with status and privilege in comparison to others, and there always seems to be that there is a small (unnecessary) element of 'aloofness' involved with whoever happens to be on top. I don't mean to make it out to be a big deal, but it is noticeable if you are American. And I think that what has everyones' panties in a bundle.
For example, Jason retweeted something that the Queen was supposed to have said comparing Americans to kids that have grown up, gone off to school, and ran up a huge debt... and while it is undoubtably true, that came off as profoundly 'British'. There always seems to be a little twist of the knife to add just a hint of insult to injury, but not so much that it causes a a backlash... just something to keep in the back of your head to p##s you off as you try to reconcile the truth of what was said and the voice that said it.
...at least that's my opinion.
I'm not sure how this thread has turned into a dialogue about national stereotypes, but I don't think its particularly helpful to continue along this road (as he says sitting down in a pin stripe suit, with a bowler hat, sipping tea)...
Sorry about that, I was just trying to get to the bottom of the issue from a few thousand miles away. News is coming from many different sources and everyone has a unique perspective on the situation so disclaiming stereotypes is not a bad place to start, IMO.
Yeah, just re-read everything I said in a different tone and it sounded pretty bad:)
Since I don't have time now to cleverly edit it, how bout give me pass for now. I was just drinking coffee and in a playful mood. I can see how easily it could come off wrong.
I just was trying to explain Heather's initial response was very similar to other Americans in that we are trying to make sense of something that sounds very similar to our civil rights protests and so we are looking through a certain set of glasses, you know?
Anyway no offense to Brits or Americans ... I was only talking for myself.
No problems dogboy ;) I was being a little playful anyway.
;D
...but if it's not 'racial' or 'class' oriented, or age related, what then are the root causes? It sounds like a disenfranchised crowd of undereducated, underemployed group of 11-35yr olds deciding to just break the rules known to be in society's best interest.
Just thinking out loud but societal issues surrounding the riots seem (in my mind) to stem from greed and a dismissive attitude to the legal repercussions of ones actions by a fairly large section of society.
When the people I know seem to have a fascination and aspiration towards the the likes of Jordan and the Kardashians who have entirely manipulated media personas of no merit whatsover with their only intention being the vast acqusition of fame and fortune I know we are in trouble. The only way young girls can be like these vacuous media morons is to get the bling. How would a kid with no money, no job and no future get the bling? They'd steal it, and the recent riots were an excellent opportunity to get some free stuff. Notice that a shop like Claire's Accessories was being pilfered by looters, but a few doors down a Waterstones bookshop was left entirely unharmed. Says it all.
Our legal system in the UK is so soft that anyone taking part in the rioting and looting was probably of the opinion that even if they got caught, the loot that they got would far outweigh any legal ramifications of being nicked. A case in point, most of the looters didn't even bother to cover their faces eventhough they would likely know that cctv and the police were about.
FWIW DB, I didn't find much wrong with your post - in fact, stripped of any 'national identity' issue, the observations could just as easily have been made by a standard Brit and targeted at Cameron and his Eton buddies. There are still class issues here of sorts, although I recall seeing some research a year or so ago that seemed to suggest that almost everyone in the UK saw themselves as 'middle class' - even those who patently weren't.
Personally, I think the concept of class is as flawed as the concept of national pride - you can take pride and credit in what you do yourself, not what your forefathers did, and not what other people who just happen to live in the same country as you did.
Cause of the riots?
IMO there are lots of short term causes, parental issues, education issues etc... but I think the main long term cause is that there are no longer enough jobs for those people who are not 'clever' - I don't mean that in a judgemental way, it is just a fact that some people are not as clever as others, and in the past they would be employed in basic manual labour jobs - many of those jobs are gone now. This leads to a sense of hopelessness etc .. why bother trying if you know you will fail, and there is no job there for you anyway. That isn't the cause of the riots as such, but it will certainly create an 'us and them' mentality that makes riots more likely.
As I see it, the riots were started by 'the disenfranchised', (for want of a better word), and were then expanded by opportunistic anti-establishment rioters from all kinds of backgrounds.
Why? Who knows? maybe cos we have seen recent scandals involving MPs, the press, bankers and the police - ie. 'the establishment' has been caught with its hand in the till - so why not get what you can whilst the 'establishment' is off guard.
there's a very well written article in the Telegraph today which basically covers the reasons behind 4Eyes last para http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100100708/the-moral-decay-of-our-society-is-as-bad-at-the-top-as-the-bottom/
Many of the rioters probably do believe/justify their actions by a version of that, perhaps less articulated, but mentally they may well feel it provides a 'reason' to act as they do.
Combine that with having 'nothing to lose' (if you don't have a job and live on the breadline what does getting arrested take away from you?), with it being nice warm summer evenings when schools out and with the belief that the people being hurt are faceless corporates (and in that many people are guilty - how many of us exaggerate insurance claims or keep the wrong change in a shop? Its a different end of the same slope) and you have an atmosphere where a lot of people go along for the ride thinking what they're doing doesn't really hurt anyone important.
I don't believe any of the above is an excuse for what happened btw, but I can see how people might be on that slope. Its hard to tell whether people stopped rioting because the police got harsher or because they realised that the people they were making homeless, and the people who died, were no longer faceless and things had gone too far. I do think most people do have that 'switch', but perhaps not set at the same level, or perhaps just some people aren't used to thinking through what their own actions might result in?
T-shirt marketers here? (There used to be at least one.)
My friend went to London and all I got was this lousy 46" lcd tv. (courtesy reddit)
Please bow your heads and join me in this Chav prayer for England....
Our father, who art in prison, even mum knows not his name
thy rioting done, you`ll read it in the Sun, in Birmingham much as it is in London
give us this day our welfare bread & forgive us for being true wankers
as we forgive those who got ASBOS against us
lead us not to an employment situation but deliver us free housing
for thine is the petrol bomb, the plunder & its glories
forever and ever...I`m a dickhead.
Rofl:)
or.. The other rioters prayer .......Our father, who art in prison, my mum knows not his name, thy Riots come, read it in the Sun, in Birmingham, as it is in London, give us this day our Welfare bread & forgive us our looting, as we're happy to loot those who defend stuff against us, lead us not into employment but deliver us free housing, for thine is the tellys, the Burberry & the Barcardi, forever and ever...Innit !!!!
Some of this is more complicated than any soap opera:
QuoteThe teenager, who boasted of having had "the best day ever", was arrested after her mother recognised her in footage of the disturbances in Enfield on Sunday night.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/17894/Riots-Dancer-and-wouldbe-lawyer.6817236.jp
yeah, I should have deleted that paragraph... it didn't come out right. Plus, I didn't really think the Queen would say that ... publicly, at least:)
... don't forget, our Royal Family are broadly speaking of German descent
True, they have been here a while, so, being as we are a tolerant nation, we accept them as British now - but they, and their hangers on and in-bred relatives aren't really representative of the rest of us :)
>German
Hang on a moment 4Eyes, what about all those Jutes, Angles and Saxons and the like that came to loot and then decided to stay and build a semi-detached? ;D
ah, I'd like to put you in a room with Nick Griffin and watch you explain that to him!
QuoteHang on a moment 4Eyes, what about all those Jutes, Angles and Saxons and the like that came to loot and then decided to stay and build a semi-detached?
I don't understand???
Why hang on a minute?
That is exactly my point.
They are 'us' in the main part - 'angle-land' = England.
Vikings, Jutes, Saxons, Angles all came over here and interbred with the local celtic 'british' that were here - starting from the when the Romans buggered off in the 5th c. AD. A good percentage of our older 'Nobility' are descended from the Normans (1066 and all that) - still newcomers, but I think we can make an exception as it is nearly a thousand years.
Angles, Saxons and Jutes could be described as 'Germanic', the Vikings as Danes, Norwegians and Swedes, the local Brits as a mixture of Celt and the previous original Brits (usually thought to be of Iberian origin). The Normans were not of French origin, but were of Scandanavian origin originally (Northmen became 'Norman' etc) so we can relax on that score :).
That mix became 'English' (and to a much lesser extent, Scots, Irish and Welsh).
The royal family, on the other hand, are not 'us' in the same sense, being far more closely descended from later 'proper' Germans (amongst other inbred European royalty). The family name was only changed from Battenberg to Windsor as a reaction to WWI.
Of course most family tree calculations ignore a whole load of relatively untraceable forefathers on the female line, and tend to focus on one or two exotic ancestors whilst ignoring the thousands of boring farmers, serfs, thieves and rapists.
Fortunately, in the case of the royal family, this is not quite as difficult, partly because there are better records kept for European Royalty, and partly because of the inbreeding. As a result, it is beyond any reasonable doubt that compared to most Brits, they are relatively un-british in their origins.
Its a historical fact and easily verified.
It matters little, of course, but is useful information to know whenever you have to deal with some pompous tit who thinks he is related to the Royal Family - you can just tell to f**k off back to Germany.
OTOH. if you want to talk to a real Brit, you want to seek out Adrian Targett.
QuoteCheddar Man is the name given to the remains of a human male found in Gough's Cave in Cheddar Gorge, Somerset, England. The remains date to approximately 7150 BC
QuoteAs a means of connecting Cheddar Man to the living residents of Cheddar village, he compared mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from twenty living residents of the village to that extracted from Cheddar Man's molar. It produced two exact matches and one match with a single mutation. The two exact matches were schoolchildren, and their names were not released. The close match was a history teacher named Adrian Targett.
Quoteah, I'd like to put you in a room with Nick Griffin and watch you explain that to him!
Happy to - would strongly appreciate if the room was sound proofed and without windows - I want the chance to describe what happens later as 'an unfortunate face-brick related accident' :)
Me? I'm of American mindset, Italian by blood, and Irish by Beer:)
£22k was raised for that Malaysian student in the end :) amazing.
Quote from: 4Eyes on August 15, 2011, 08:54:17 PM
Vikings, Jutes, Saxons, Angles all came over here and interbred with the local celtic 'british' that were here
And even the "original Brits" were settlers from Northern Europe. As were the Celts who came after and had themselves a few centuries of peace before the Romans came over.
An Englishman's veins are filled with Northern/Central European blood. :)
Thank you for that, 4Eyes. I never knew all of that!
I was told -- when I was married and my last name was "Reisig Windsor" that I should get great service at British restaurants due to having the Germanic + Windsor last name. I knew that the nobility changed their name to Windsor in the late 1800's from a German one, but didn't know all the "Norseman was once "Northman" and "Angles" = "English"...that's fascinating.