pap

I'm not making excuses for them rioting. I'm saying that society, by ignoring this problem, has helped to create it. You're saying that kids would rather rob than clean because it's cooler and not worth the effort. I'm saying that for many, it doesn't seem worth the effort. Poverty has a part to play, sure. But just because you're poor doesn't make you a rioter, and there are no excuses for the sort of criminality that have gone on in the past few days. There are reasons though, and unless we examine the causes, we're doomed to a repeat performance. So please don't mistake people looking for root causes as "making excuses". It's really not the same thing. At some point, some of our kids have decided that it's perfectly okay to wreak havoc on major population centres. To me, that says that society at large has failed - and that we should look at how we got here, with the firm objective of making sure that it never happens again.

Really depends on the employer, and fair play to those that do try to take a punt. Certain convictions, particularly theft or fraud, can pretty much throw your job prospects out of the window. On your second point, you're actually quite aligned with Verbal. People want instant gratification, or can't be a*sed with the effort. Tallies with his point on desire.

For the sake of argument, I'll take you on face value that there are plenty of jobs available, in London at least. I think you need to read my posts again tho. Where have I done a disservice to poor, working class kids from council estates? I'm one myself. That said, part of your analysis is correct. There are a lot of people who don't see the point in working, because it doesn't pay. Let's look at your cleaning and gym jobs, for example. Are they paying much more than minimum wage? Is minimum wage enough to make your way in London? If someone is one the dole, and their choice is between getting a massive rent paid by housing benefit, or doing a minimum-wage job for 40 hours a week on the bones of their ar-se, it's not a hard choice to make.

Well, if they're unspent, you have to declare them if asked about them. Depending on the nature of the offence, it could be a factor in whether you get employed.

Appreciate the sentiment, but doesn't that rely on there being enough work in the first place? Even if there is enough work, what about the effect on unspent criminal convictions? In theory, it's a great solution. In practice, the jobs need to exist and be attainable.

They are already talking about what happens next on the news this morning. Mad night last night in Liverpool. Had to pick my daughter up at 5pm. Place was tense and eerily quiet. We then experienced on of the quietest nights going ( probs quieter than Christmas Day, tbh ). Started going off at 10pm, mainly in areas where it had happened before. Despite the posts that I've made on root causes, I'm not condoning what is going on and I don't deny that there is a massive element of greed and criminality driving this. I suppose my worry is that now these people have seen how easily all this stuff can be procured, it'll happen again. That said, over 50 people have now been arrested in the city over the last two nights - other places have arrested more. Hopefully, the police have got the ringleaders.

Proper going off in Liverpool, according to Twitter. Mate of mine lives near the riots - says it is "f*cking scary". Reckon it's being underreported on The Indy's leading article is Britain has experienced its Katrina moment.

Sikh Temple on Smithdown Road, Liverpool on fire. Massed yobs trying to break into ASDA opposite. ^^^ not a response the the above question, just what's happening now.

Some unconfirmed twitter reports that the EDL are in Toxteth stirring up ye olde racial hatred.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I think we're poles apart in terms of resolution, so lets agree to differ.

Numerous reports of fires in Liverpool tonight. I've heard a few sirens so far. It is all kickin' off, la. Nothing around here yet, thank feck.

Interesting question, but a big part of it is the fact that for most people, that's the easiest way to get a property in the area they want. A lot of people buy because they believe renting is "dead money", an understandable opinion. Another factor is that social housing can take ages to come through, and people want to make a home sooner than that. There's also the bonus of having loads less outgoings once the mortgage is paid off - one aspect of life permanently sorted.

It was, and the amount of capital that flooded into the market pushed prices up higher. If you're lending money to people who can't really afford it, you're asking for trouble. People were pulling all sorts of tricks - the biggest I know of was self-certification - where people would literally invent their own salaries while everyone who was making a cut looked the other way. All short-term greed fuelled by something that Verbal alluded to in his post, unrealistic expectations. For me, house prices should be in line with what people can afford, and houses are somewhere where you live, not something to make money off. We go to work or create businesses to do that.

Good to see all of those players getting off the mark.

Nice.

So you guys think that my radical plan is to:- 1) Build lots of new houses 2) Give them to people who are already causing problems in their own communities. FWIW, I've worked all my life - from stacking shelves, pulling pints or doing what I do now. I'm not saying that we build a bunch of new houses, only to populate them with people who are causing issues in current houses. Who says that we have to employ the ridiculous system we use now, where a decent couple looking for their first home can get gazumped by a single lady with a lot of children. Why would we even use the same criteria? Why not ask questions like "have you been in employment for two years" instead? They do exactly the same thing on a mortgage application. It's a measure of stability, a sign that you're someone who can pay your dues. It should be one of the first questions we ask someone who wants social housing, and prioritisation of people who can demonstrate this would be a powerful incentive to get people into employment.

Fair play, but I did mention a lot of other incentives in that plan, such as job creation and the demolition of run-down areas.

Ok, first, let's shoot down that no choice thing straightaway. You had a choice. You made a choice. It now seems like a bad choice. I can get why you are frustrated, and if I were in your position, I would feel aggrieved too. But unless you were dragged to NatWest against your will to and forced to sign the mortgage papers, you had a choice. That said, you've got a perfect right to be aggrieved. The market was artificially inflated on the premise that "house prices would keep rising forever and ever" and that's a big part of the reason that your house was the price it was when you bought it. So I refer you to my second point. Why shouldn't the bankers compensate people like yourself for losses that in effect, they have created? Especially if they are in public ownership?

Would it help if I said it was more a case moving people from sh*t social housing to good social housing?

C'mon boys, I did say that was part of my thinking. Any time you want to throw in a huge plan for societal change, enlighten us.

I was just suggesting a potential solution to solve some of the issues that we're having, not describing how we came to get here in the first place.

Yes, I do mean reduce. Let's be absolutely clear. On the subject of negative equity, I'm in two minds. One part of me thinks "f*ck 'em. If you were stupid enough to overfinance yourself and buy at the height of the market, that's your problem". It's not the only thing I'm thinking. Just throwing it out there. A more charitable side of me would consider the mess the banks got us in, and how they might repay that, particularly those that the taxpayer has a large stake in.

Since you asked mate, I think the biggest problem in this country is housing. It's too scarce and it is too expensive and for too many people, out of reach. Whatever the rioters' motivations, numerous commentators have observed that they lack a stake in society. Having roots gives you that stake. Too many people don't have a home, can never afford a home and can never lay down roots, stuck in an estate. I would suggest a massive construction program to build more houses, dovetailed with a plan to knock down some of the slums that people have to live in, modernising the country as appropriate. If we have to build on greenbelt land, so be it. Was going to happen at some point. May as well be now. In addition to giving people a chance to have a place of dignity in society, it'll create a huge number of jobs in construction, infrastructure, supply chain and maintenance. It should also help to normalise house prices so that more people can afford them and take their place in society. As well as affordable homes for sale, the programme would also entail a massive commitment to providing council houses or similar and the amenities to support new communities. I can't see how any of this would be a bad thing. So my solution? Build enough houses so a "stake in society" is achievable for all, and perhaps a lot of these people will start to believe in it.

There's a lot to cover here, so let's try, shall we. First, I don't believe that everything on a council estate is nicked. I was specifically responding to people who claim that trainers and gadgets must automatically mean that the person wearing them has a lot of disposable income. It doesn't. I'm also not saying that everyone on the estate is out on the rob, but some people are, and everyone knows who they are. As for people not advertising stuff as stolen goods, that's irrelevant. First question that you'd ever ask on buying something from someone is "is it hot?". Affects both the purchasing decision and the price. Second, I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush. The entire point of my first couple of paragraphs was a direct response to your "I was from a council estate" and I did ok, specifically illustrating that there are gradations in the council estate experience and that not all are equal. Your assertion that "I got off a council estate so anyone can" kinda implies that all of those people have similar abilities. They don't. It's more accurate to say that "I got off a council estate so anyone of equal or better ability and support network should be able to do the same". Incidentally, I grew up on the Flowers Estate too. My mum still lives there now, and I'm there for a few days every few months. You must be referring to a different estate when you say "they built a police station next to it" because to this day, the closest nick is Portswood. This also can't be the estate where people "didn't go around stabbing each other", because anyone living there during the 1980s will remember the time that the Glen Eyre and Hampton Park girls slashed each other to ribbons on Burgess Road, bloodstains still on the pelican crossing two hours after it kicked off. Fair play, this sort of thing did not happen all the time, but it happened. And not everyone is involved in the black market, but it's there. The vast majority of the estate are decent people - even the villains wouldn't sh*t on their own. And yes, we have electricity, water, communications, sanitation and access to public amenities. I hope we are now clear. Now, it's actually your first paragraph that I take most issue with. You enumerate the wondrous gifts that council estates are given, such as water and electricity, citing that 'the main comforts are exactly the same as if you were rich'. Those aren't comforts, mate. They are basic necessities. And I can't really let you get away with passing wealth off as if its unimportant. Wealth is a massive factor. A headcase on a council estate is a f*cking nutter, a headcase with cash in the bank is an eccentric. A poor person nicking £10 out of a till is a thief. A rich banker trousering tax-payer's money gets a bonus. Perhaps more importantly, a poor kid is likely to have a worse support structure than his wealthier counterpart, with much less chance of rescue if she plunges into a downward spiral. So let's not treat access to funds as if its insignificant, because it's probably the biggest factor at play in all of this.

As did I, but like me, you probably grew up on a council estate in a time when it was easier to get out of one. Personally, I benefited from a very cheap education ( we still had some semblance of a grant back then and no tuition fees ). Even back then, there were horror stories on our estate. My immediate family were not well off, but I benefited from having a large extended family that took part in my upbringing and encouraged me in the right way. Not all are so lucky, and if you spend your entire childhood with adults who are abusive, criminal or both - I'd say that your life chances are considerably worse. So, my point is - not all council estate experiences are the same. You can live on a council estate with decent parents and family, or you can have complete shyte. You can have grown up in the 19xx's and have been conferred the benefits of the time, or you could be reaching adulthood today, only to find that the ladder has been pulled up and that all the opportunities your parents had are denied to you. Times have changed. I grew up in a single-parent family, and back in the 1980s, that was pretty rare. Now it is almost the norm on my old estate. You say you grew up on a council estate, yet you make this point? Good trainers and devices are not an indication of wealth. Most of the kids on my estate had good trainers and for the time, relatively modern computers. Most of the trainers were nicked, or 'hot', as it was termed back then. Most of the computers were either nicked or paid for out of the proceeds of drug trafficking. You can buy a lot if you have a quarter of dope to trade. Which council estate did you grow up on? The Eton overflow? We haven't addressed the root cause at all, namely, that these people feel they have no stake in society and no means to better themselves. I'm glad you found your way out of a council estate. Just a bit sad that you've forgotten where you come from. I'm not asking you to condone all of this. I can't condone it myself. Once again, unless you are 18 right now, these people do not have the exact same options as you did. If you'd like to tell me when you hit 16, I'll be happy to enumerate the stuff you had that they don't. Although I haven't been the victim of a riot, I have been the victim of a violent crime. It was an unprovoked attack on a city centre street carried out by a stranger that you'd describe as a scumbag. It wasn't fun. I spent the best part of a year afterward looking over my shoulder and enjoying the occasional panic attack. I don't forgive the bloke at all, but I am interested in why people are like that in the first place. On a similar note, I'm not forgiving of the people that are causing trouble now. I am very concerned about it, and would like to stop it happening again. You would suggest that we just label them as scum. I would prefer to solve the problem. So yep, bleat on here about how you're a council estate kid made good all you like and join the club, mate. A lot of us came off council estates. The difference is that some of us remember what they're like.