saintbletch

Good post pap.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and directly answering the question. It might just work. And I'm not about coming down hard of people - it it's a solution. Solution, there is an important word. But I can't help thinking that a) we wouldn't be able to build enough prisons and b) the peers and families of those who had been imprisoned would simply feel further apart from society and would continue in their ways.

Yes apologies egg but I didn't see your reply until after I had sent my post Unless you read it with an agenda, I'm not sure it's ambiguous. But you tell me it is so I'll respect that. Have you been involved in football violence? If so then thanks for sharing your thoughts. If not then with respect your opinions aren't important, in the same way that mine aren't either. I still wonder whether someone who has been caught up in the emotion of a scuffle at a football match and has acted in a way that is very different from the way they would behave on their own, can relate to what the article said about people changing when in a group. For the avoidance of doubt, even if I feel or felt that this sort of group effect was involved in the rioting/looting, it doesn't change my view that it is wrong and should be punished. I am simply looking to understand some of the causal factors that made large sections of our youth take the streets and loot.

It's a little difficult debating this without having to refer back to things I've already written on this thread and I appreciate you probably haven't read through it all. It's also a little difficult if you're going to selectively quote me. Somehow, you managed to omit: from the definition I supplied to you from wordnik. So when I used the term poverty it was that which I was referring to and as shurlock helpfully pointed out below, poverty is not an absolute condition. Now I'll ask something of you if that's OK. You wrote that. I wrote So it seems that we both agree where the problem lies and it now seems you've see that when you suggested that "f*****g WORK!" was the solution, it was a little simplistic. So what do we do as a society to move people away from seeing law breaking as a way to get what they want in life and towards a socially acceptable way of generating wealth?

That would be an terrible analogy if I had attmpted to make it. Sorry egg but did you read the article and did you read my question? I asked I didn't' suggest that there was any ideological link. I specifically asked if those that had been involved in football violence felt the same loss of moral identity, empathy and guilt when in a large group. I make no connection at all between football violence and the rioting except to wonder whether the same sort of intoxication and change in emotional state happens.

Very interesting articles BTF. I know there are a number of people on here that either now or used to involve themselves in violence at football matches. I wonder if they can relate to the comments about people losing their moral identity, empathy and guilt in a large group? Anyone? [Legitimate question - not attempting to moralise or judge anyone!]

I'm not sure the definition changes much from year to year or from country to country to be honest. It's something like having little money, being poor. From here.

I can see you've obviously thought this through Sour Mash. But I might have spotted a flaw in your otherwise excellent plan. What if these people don't want to change, don't want to join the society that you and I know, don't want to f*****g WORK? Society still has a problem. Losing control and swearing at them isn't going to solve it I fear. What do you do? Lock them up? Our courts hold no fear for them. We have a prison service that is over-crowded as it is? Build more prisons? We're a little strapped for cash at the moment but maybe that's an option. But again I fear still more would come to take their place. My feeling would be that this behaviour will simply continue for generations and now that the rioters/looters see they can overpower the police there really is nothing to stop them.

I agree with most of what you said there Special K but I think you've misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Perhaps I could have been clearer. Whilst it's obvious that if someone is wearing £100 trainers and has a £300 smart phone then they're not in poverty by a strict income test. But if they've only got those things through illegal means and if they didn't steal, scam, mug, deal or whatever to get the money to buy those things then they very well may be in poverty; then poverty has still plays a role in they're life. If they stop stealing, scamming mugging and dealling then they may well be in poverty. So to issue a glib sound-bite tweet that suggests that poverty obviously plays no part, to my mind is an over-simplification. And now the disclaimers because it seems that people make a lot of assumptions about what you think about these issues if you try to understand the root cause. If the fictional character above stole, scammed, mugged or dealt he should have the full weight of the law thrown against him. Poverty, or at least the lack of money in no way excuses any illegal action. However if we want to stop this scummy behaviour from continuing for generations to come then WE, as a society, have to find a way for some of our youth to move themselves out of poverty in a socially acceptable way. I also acknowledge that in these copy-cat riots we're now seeing more and more of the rioters appear to be simply disaffected youths looking for something to do.

I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong Thedelldays but didn't I read on here recently that you were, on behalf of a mate, planning a revenge attack on a woman? Here it is. I'm not entirely sure how this... from this thread, is much different from someone tweeting that they are thinking about organising a riot. Hypocrite, or have I got that wrong? Just for the record I agree that the police should have acted quicker and more decisively than they have.

Profound? Or a complete over-simplification of the complexity of the issue? Surely a more relevant analysis would be to ask what they must have done illegally, or at least outside of mainstream society's wealth generating mechanisms in order to pull themselves out of poverty to be able to afford those things?

That's a fair clarification on the context of St. Marco's comments Capital Saint. But I think my wider point still stands. The area where you are born/raised is less important than the family environment you're brought up in. Statistically I believe there is a strong correlation between where you live and family breakdown. Perhaps by using the term 'left to rot in a ghetto', pap was including all of the likely social implications of living in a ghetto and not just the location. But someone who does well from a 'Council Estate' background that had the support and backing of a family (I don't know whether St. Marco did or didn't) has had an advantage over someone in the same situation but without a stable family influence.

Some good points in there St Marco But can I ask whether you feel that you can take all of the credit for trying to make something of yourself? I don't mean to pry and I'm certainly not intending to be disrespectful but were your parental influences so poor and ineffectual that it was you, and you alone that was responsible for making something of yourself? If so, and if you had no positive roll models in your life then well played to you mate and more power to you. Exceptional. But if you had a strong family life around you and/or were shown right and wrong, good and bad and had that instilled in you from an early age and reinforced through the behaviour of your close family continually through your developing life, then with respect I'm not sure comparing your life to the lives of some those rioting is a fair comparison. *please see my earlier disclaimer about not excusing the actions of the rioters.

Well I never Barry the Badger. But that looks like a bark and not a bite (yet). All that missgucci13 needed to do to have a defence or sorts would be to put the whole message in quotes and say she was posting it as irony. Or to end the message with some form of contradiction such as 'Not'. I do hope the 13 is 'her' lucky number and not her age. Yes as BBM (My Daughter has had a BlackBerry surgically connected to her right palm) is by invitation you may well be right Steve.

I was thinking the same thing myself this morning. Actually I was wondering whether an app could be developed to collate this sort of information from twitter - but that's another story. The problem is that it's a slippery slope there Steve. If we start to indict people for the stuff they spout of social media, we're all in trouble. Perhaps an emergency law that allowed for mobile comms (wireless/3G) to be interrupted during periods of civil unrest would be a better way to go. Although laws passed in haste that give governments too much power are never a good idea. Suspension of twitter/BBM/FB might be an option but I'm not sure governments can easily interfere with commercial organisation's assets in this way. But to use someone's ill-thought out re-tweet as evidence is a dodgy legal area. One man's incitement to riot is another man's humour.

I wouldn't disagree with that point at all OldNick. But I'd ask whether such opportunists would act on an opportunity to break the law if they truly felt like an active and wanted member of our society. This is what I meant by the politically correct debate having gone too far. The police are hamstrung now. They shot and killed a man. Time will tell whether they acted correctly. But now they are impotent. Perhaps because they've been caught with their trousers down over getting a little to close to politics and newspaper Barons. Perhaps because we are now to have 'elected' Commissioners who will be accountable to the public who, just like our politicians will also have to listen to focus groups before they make a decision. But either way, they cannot now take the action they need to take because they are concerned about public perception. I noted that the independent police complaints commission made an interim statement about the shooting in Tottenham, not something we are used to hearing. We normally get "We can't comment on an on-going investigation". I wouldn't be at all surprised to get an early verdict and I equally wouldn't be at all surprised for some officers to be sacrificed - if ANY wrong-doing is uncovered.

Agree with bits of that, disagree with most. But it seems like you've just re-stated the problem. Other than a lot of chest-beating rhetoric and an implied "they should all just magically and instantly be a little bit more like me and the mates I grew up with", other than time travel to go back and instil this doctrine at an earlier age, I don't really see how you plan to make this happen to solve the problem we face now. Given that we are where we are, and given that the opportunity to instil some of the values you sensibly argue should be possessed, has passed, what would you do to solve the wider problem JackanorySFC? I'll say up front that I've no idea what concrete steps to take to solve the problem we have. But I'd start by looking for a cause, no matter how painful a process that might be for our society. But what would you do to bring about the change in attitude you've outlined above?

Thank you Saint_Pedro. And as for anothersaintinsouthsea if you don't like my argument or posting style you can **** right off you total ****. (It's OK. I got the irony in your original post)

You appear to have fallen into a common trap if you don't mind me saying so OldNick, of assuming that you know where I might stand (perhaps politically too) on a debate. You also seem to be assuming that I'm excusing what is going on. I am not. I am simply looking for a root cause or causation factors. I guess as this is such a common debating problem I need to explicitly state that nothing I'm about to say attempts to excuse what has gone on over the last several nights. While I'm dishing out the caveats I should also say that this is a problem that has no single root cause and no single cure. It's complex and by attempting to explain it away on a football message board we would be doing each other a diservice. So your passport scheme - I'll take with a pinch of similarly cynical salt. To answer your question in bold above, I'll ask you a questions. Why are you not on the street looting? I'm sure you'll come up with many reasons and might even be affronted that I asked it. In answering I expect you might use terms like wrong, respect, society, law abiding, tax paying, citizen, etc. And in there lies your answer. What if as a society we have passively allowed through various mechanisms (excessive imigration, unemployment, greed-is-good, racism, I'm alright jack, not in my back yard, not knowing the names of one's neighbours, someone else will deal with it) significant sections of the population to feel quite separate. I hate to use the word disenfranchised because you'll point out my bleeding heart again, but that word sums up the situation perfectly. What if those people do not see themselves as part of a greater whole, what if they don't see themselves as citizens, what if they don't work and therefore don't pay tax and therefore don't bear the costs of their actions against the wider society, what if they see the enforcers of the law as their day to day 'enemy', what if multiple generations of their family have shared the same life outlook? What if this general level of background disaffection could be sparked by some catalyst and for the response to be coordinated in some way? What could 'they' 'achieve'. What if they took their queue from the results of a genuine protest over alleged police heavy-handedness in Tottenham? What if they saw how easy it is to take the streets from the police when a real and some may say genuine concern over how the police acted boils over? What if all of these factors together with the general fecklessness of youth combined? Has it never struck you how such a small police force enforces order in our country. I mean look at the numbers of police and look at the population. Policing, or law and order in the wider sense only works through consent of the population. It's an amazingly fragile contract. We, the citizens allow the police to 'police'. Otherwise, if we rejected their licence to enforce the law en mass, it would be a simple matter for us to say 'no' and we have anarchy. But coordinating such an en mass 'no' is not easy. Enter social media, twitter, Facebook, Blackberry Messenger, etc. And now you have the means for the population to coordinate. The student protests earlier in the year showed how twitter could be used to steal a march on the Police. Arab Spring anyone? When we looked upon the events in the middle-east earlier in the year, who thought that our youth would take to the streets too, coordinated via 'message' and 'like' and 'tweet'. So my comment about feeling a part or apart is simple. If you feel that you have something invested in society then you're happy to maintain the status quo. If you don't feel part of that society then you have no qualms about trashing it. But we're a pack 'animal' and we all feel the need to belong, so something has to replace the identity they are losing by not being part of society. So their gangs give them that greater identity they need and when they trash society and they take to the streets they feel in some completely warped sort of way that for the first time in a long time they've 'acheived' something. They're part of something. I need to close by saying that I'm excusing this at all. I'm also not suggesting that there is some form of moral right on the side of the rioters. None of what I've said above was in the conscious minds of any of those involved I'm sure. They were out of control, law breakers who should be punished to the full extent of the law. But years of turning our backs on these issues and years of polarised "political correctness" versus "heavy handed right-wing politics" debates have meant this has not been tackled or even debated properly. It's time for us to see some grey in amongst the black and the white. Your responsible. I'm responsible. Our politicians are responsible. We're all responsible.

Perhaps your wife suggested that because by using the term 'The Blacks' you lazily grouped many individuals involved in the 'rioting' together with many millions more individuals that weren't and in the process you ignored the other ethnic variations represented in last night's law breaking. Whilst it might be less palatable I suspect it might be more accurate to have said 'It's the English/British again'. Or if you were a deep thinker you might even despair at "The breakdown and fragmentation of our society into groups that feel a part and those that feel apart".

We don't know that The Guardian has got it wrong. Do we? But at best The Guardian is confused. Their main headline says it's £10M. An article on the player later in the same edition says £12M.

Within seconds of the music coming in I had goose flesh up my arms. Stunning. Although for me hearing the imperfect Billy Bragg version gives a clue as to how this might be sung in less formal gatherings than TLNOTP.

Philistine. "His poem makes little sense". It wasn't intended to be a shopping list, directions to get to Alton Towers or instructions on how to operate a hoover. It's a poem. It's job is to make you think. It's allegorical. Anyway, why does it have to make sense? Why does it have to be about a specific thing? It surely just needs to stir the nation, make them identify with each other and celebrate what it is to be English. I mean "When the Saints go Marching In" achieves a similar effect amongst Saints' fans but that's about life after death and meeting others in the here after. Personally I'd go for Jerusalem but as it divides opinions so much and is too left-wing for many it will never be the English national anthem. I really love the tune and pomp of Land of Hope and Glory but it harks back a little too much to our colonial past for me to feel totally comfortable with the words. But you can't deny that it does stir the emotion and for many it gives them an identity. You'd need to drop the God and Empire bits though. Three Lions?

Anything in the language used there? ...massive bid (singular) been thrown in by them for more players (plural). Multiple players from one club? Or just clumsy twitter-English? EDIT: Apologies beavis17 didn't see your post.

Thanks for clearing that up dune. You've certainly helped me to understand your motives for posting the way you do. But just so I can be doubly sure of what your saying. Let me play it back to you and I'm sure you'll correct me if I get it wrong. You've obviously put an enormous amount of thought into this idea of government run farms in East Africa and I wouldn't want to misrepresent you. I'm with you so far on the overall plan - who wouldn't? It's brilliant. But I do have a few concerns. In these tough times where our coalition government is making tough but necessary cuts, rather than involving the private sector to get involved and profit from Africa, you instead are advocating diverting sufficient funds from the government coffers to buy land, establish farms and manage 'their' agriculture. This idea that we should be buying large tracts of land in East Africa from the government purse is brilliant by the way, but I'm just not sure you'd get that past the Liberal's in the other half of the coalition. They'd be suggesting that buying land in a foreign country with government money and establishing farms where it hasn't rained for 24 months would be an irresponsible use of the public purse. Liberals eh? I'm really not comfortable that this apparent obsession of yours with centralising this sort of initiative so that our government becomes even more bloated than it already is. Why should the government be running this sort of scheme. Surely the private sector is the place for a brilliant scheme like this. Why not give the private sector the opportunity to hit pay dirt too. But to ensure that the scheme wasn't over-subscribed and to generate even more money, the opportunity for private sector companies to buy land and open farms in a foreign country where it hasn't rained for 2 years could even be licensed. In the same way that telecommunications companies paid a small fortune for the rights to broadcast over the airwaves, so billions could be raised by selling scorched and barren land to companies so that they could build efficient commercial farms. I'm also uneasy with then length of time before we'd see a return. It's this 'no rain' thing that's nagging away in my mind. I mean I know we've got much more agricultural expertise than 'them' but how quickly could we realistically be growing crops without water? Unless we plan to fly the water in? That sort of investment profile where a return comes at some point down the line stinks of philanthropy to me. And like you, that doesn't sit well with my desire to exploit the weak and needy. So in summary you are saying that we should help Africa with an ill-defined plan to buy land and establish farms, that seems to be underpinned by a non-disclosed mechanism to either create rain or invent crops that don't need water, that may or may not return money to the exchequer in the short or long term, organised by centralised-governmental using money that could be spent at home helping our own citizens. Did I get that right?