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.

 

...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.