(1) He will not be incarcerated for anything like 10 years;
(2) Incarceration's looking like a fine alternative to the next decade in the wild. Especially in countries with more lenient prison systems (the US is bad but not as bad as the Middle/Far East; the UK is better than all of the above).
I'll grant you that it is not always possible to leave because of other commitments, a weak labor market, lack of transportation, or for various other reasons, but that doesn't really mean that the other options aren't possible or survivable
"I'll grant you that sometimes not A, but always A."
Are you asserting that slavery is better than death by starvation? And therefore slavery is somehow moral?
I'm assuming you're regarding yourself as a Chinese magnate and me as a Chinese peasant. Because my circumstances are very different: I am not likely to starve if you don't feed me. This is why you're not a slavedriver in making me any offer (I can't refuse).
tl;dr anarchy; I'll have a private militia to protect me until others loot the precious gold I'm using to pay my soldiers; most militarily powerful families consolidate power; feudalism; rinse; repeat.
Eyewitnesses. If they were rioters they wouldn't be my friends.
Weird. So your friends are only people who share your moral code and never err in its application?
What evidence did they provide? None. What evidence would they have, why would I demand evidence of things my friends say that they have no reason to lie about? Do you realise what an absurd thing to say that is?
I am asking what evidence your eyewitness friends have that these rioters have no cause or grievance. Eyewitnesses see and can report on actions, but it's very difficult for eyewitnesses to shed light on motivations. Was there some clear indication of affiliation to some cause, for example? Evidence of an organised criminal operation? Or is this a case of absence of evidence being interpreted as evidence of absence?
On the other hand I'm also well aware that beyond the initial financial checks that occur prior to being accepted for JSA the week-to-week tests are laughable at best.
It depends entirely on which jobcentre you go to and which advisor within that jobcentre you see. Some will begin payments within a couple of weeks and require you to do little more than sign a sheet on further fortnights. Others will take months to start payments and immediately put payments on hold for a 4 week period if you don't fulfil a long list of obligations - local managers set up quotas to kick off a certain proportion of people per week. One of the biggest difficulties is going off JSA into a job with an abusive employer or which you are not equipped to carry out. if you are declared to have voluntarily left it or been sacked then the advisor is entitled to subject you to a 26 week sanction with no payments.
It is not a difficult life to live if you can get over the inherent shame that you are living at the hand of others.
Did/do you not pay taxes? Did/do your parents not do so? Everyone lives at the hand of others - that's how society works - and a functioning society allows everyone to contribute when they are able. Assuming that you weren't in some way playing the system, you have no reason to be ashamed. I was born into a family with private healthcare; I attended private school on a private scholarship; I paid for much of my undergraduate study with a combination of part-time work and parental support; I paid for most of my postgraduate study with another private scholarship. Compared to the average person I've had very little state support, though I am quite happy to ask for it when I need it and I have no problem with anyone else receiving it.
So rather than handouts they prefer to steal? Their demonstration of their desire to participate "freely and safely in society" is to riot, destroying the homes and livelihoods of others?
They are following the example of their seniors, hoodwinking investors and fiddling expenses and starting wars to accumulate resources. And, yes, a community of alienated, undereducated youths relying on handouts (if they are eligible at all) is no better than a community of youths stealing. Do you have evidence that even a significant minority of the rioters were "destroying the homes of others"? Certainly some were destroying the livelihoods of others who may be struggling as much as them, and this was not acceptable. But being smart and well-organised is not a prerequisite for having a legitimate grievance and protesting your lot.
the situation of jobs (if they are looking for them) are the same for everyone
No, it isn't. If you are uneducated, inexperienced and of average or below-average intelligence then things are much worse for you. If you have no connections and you're living in a run-down community, yet worse. The only thing you can do something about is your education, but (i) it's really hard to identify what's a worthwhile educational programme - many clever people leave univ
I'm a few miles from central London right now. Are your friends/family eyewitnesses or rioters? What evidence did they provide?
As for the "social welfare system", what experience have you had of it? Jobseekers' allowance is £53/week for young people, and the limits of local housing allowance - recently capped absolutely and further relatively to area by the Tories - make it difficult to find suitable (and liveable) property in central London. The former often has a long waiting period while it is processed, has strong conditions attached to it and is cut off at a whim with appeals processes lasting months (for example: call up the fraud hotline giving any random name of someone you know on JSA and their allowance will be stopped before evidence is gathered and a decision made). The latter has less conditionality attached but may still be subject to waiting periods and cut-offs, or the simple unavailability of affordable property since most/all (depending on your area) council housing was sold off - why else do you think so many thousands are living in temporary accommodation[tm]? Eligibility for hardship payments/crisis loans, often the last resort when people are refused JSA and satisfy already limited categories of eligibility, is being further reduced with Tory aim to eliminate these entirely at the next ideological welfare shake-up.
Those with all but the most severe health difficulties (new claimants, although existing people are being transitioned over the next couple of years) are now required to comply with the same JSA rules as those who are perfectly healthy, where previously they'd have been on an incapacity benefit while they recover - those with mental health problems often cannot cope.
There are two areas in which Britain actually provides almost unconditional welfare to permanent residents: the NHS and the right to water. The latter was the result of high incidents of third-world diseases such as dysentery and hep A around 1990 as people during the last recession could not afford to pay for water (recall that housing allowances do not cover any utilities), and was politically a concession to Thatcher managing to create the AFAICR then only country in the world with an entirely privatised water supply. The NHS, of course, still has long waiting lists and very limited mental healthcare under certain Trusts.
This is all irrelevant. People don't want handouts. Protestors (including looters) in Egypt and Libya mostly weren't starving either. What people want is a chance to participate freely and safely in society. The rhetoric of Cameron mirrors quite well the rhetoric of the reactionary governments in the Middle East, and the media in those regions painted exactly the same picture as he's trying to paint: of mindless, antisocial thieves. And, you know, some may be mindless - just as Parks may have just had tired legs and want a comfortable seat on the bus.
This is not to say that attacking a random human or firebombing the local corner shop (most people did neither) is an acceptable or effective means of protest. But that doesn't mean it isn't a protest.
Sometimes protestors aren't directly harmed by an injustice and are fighting out of solidarity or the fear that an injustice against one ends up being an injustice against all (although if you think a primary school teacher's aide in London is part of the well-to-do then you need to review the situation). See also Iraq war.
How many eyewitnesses and "rioters themselves" have you interviewed?
How do you think the official local media tried to represent the situation in the Middle East?
Remember to regard the events of the last week as following peaceful attempts to seek redress of grievances by various communities in inner London - at least some national media interviewees have managed to get this message across. And that protesters, rioters and looters may overlap but aren't the same.
Finally, simply taking stuff may be a form of protest. If you think the system works for you and you're happy in your environment then you don't destroy it. If you think the system is biased in favour of the already rich, a corrupt upper class who leech more from the country than a single looter with a new TV ever will, then going some tiny way to address the imbalance is one way of getting across your message. If you later make £50 selling the TV, well... that's the purpose in protesting: to improve your lot. For the long term, you may unintentionally spark social change. But at the time it may be that you simply were exhausted and wanted somewhere comfortable to sit on the bus.
Yup, that's just what the governments in the Middle East said. Not protesters, just thugs and looters (and many of them were engaged in violence and looting).
At no time after being stuck in the middle of a violent scene where dangerous weapons were used have I thought, "Wow, I know what'll stop this happening again - loss of everyone's freedoms!"
I'll take the risk of loss of property and the very occasional bloody injury, thanks. For those who aren't prepared for the vigilance required to accompany freedom, there are many states which provide the security you seek. Enjoy:-).
The unions funding Labour let it happen. Was it because their members were stupid or because their leadership are corrupt hoodwinkers? Did they think they would still receive (temporary) concessions for their members while ignoring their wider role protecting the working population?
The merest suggestion of the dropping of Clause IV should have been cause for every union funding Labour to totally withdraw support. I do not understand why any worker is prepared to remain a member of these hypocritical institutions.
Not cold from winter? Well, Britain doesn't have the coldest winters in the world, but what the hell are you talking about? Thousands more people die in the UK during cold winters. Study Dept of Health figures or any number of newspaper articles - even in the right wing papers - which regurgitate figures. Older people are of course more vulnerable because, well, they're older.
As for hunger, you're right, the one thing most first world countries have achieved is hardly anyone without an eating disorder dying from simply not having enough food available. Malnutrition, on the other hand, is a very real problem tackled with various advice for health professionals. The effects of malnutrition in youth are far more insidious.
People don't want to simply be alive: they want to live. A handout of enough food and shelter to remain alive is not good enough. You can give that to any poorly treated animal in a cage.
The worst I've heard is "if you stop providing help for people and they don't commit suicide it means they're happy enough to live and don't need any more help". It sounded insane at the time, but it's just the reductio of any "it could be worse thus it's good enough" argument.
(And the uniforms were really smart, so you were free... would any non-free person have such a smart uniform?)
You appear to have quite a sense of entitlement. You think society, via taxpayers, should pay policemen to arrest these people and a justice system to house them in jail just to accommodate for your particularly Daily Mail brand of anger.
I say that society should, via taxpayers and voluntary schemes and good example, give these people a part to play so they are productive and contributing rather than unhappy and a burden. I don't think that anyone is entitled to anything, but it's what you've got to do if you want to live in a functioning, comfortable, happy environment.
Our NHS is good for many routine physical conditions, though lacking for mental health.
But, no, we don't have a huge range of social benefits which "help... to live decent lives". Eligibility is increasingly restricted and a handout isn't what people want anyway (despite what the Daily Mail thinks) - what people want is the chance to be treated well and to play a productive part in society.
High taxes don't imply an effective welfare state. Feudal landlords also collected high taxes.
Society does not owe you a sense of love and belonging that would be your families job.
OK, let's say you as part of wider society do not owe the disaffected youth anything.
Then the disaffected youth owes you nothing either.
In particular, he does not owe you the respect not to smash your store and take the stuff inside.
I guess you have made your bed.
The Internet is built on so much "nanny state" academic and military research that I question the sanity of anyone who sits online with an argument such as yours.
Slashdot Mirror
(1) He will not be incarcerated for anything like 10 years;
(2) Incarceration's looking like a fine alternative to the next decade in the wild. Especially in countries with more lenient prison systems (the US is bad but not as bad as the Middle/Far East; the UK is better than all of the above).
I'll grant you that it is not always possible to leave because of other commitments, a weak labor market, lack of transportation, or for various other reasons, but that doesn't really mean that the other options aren't possible or survivable
"I'll grant you that sometimes not A, but always A."
Are you asserting that slavery is better than death by starvation? And therefore slavery is somehow moral?
I'm assuming you're regarding yourself as a Chinese magnate and me as a Chinese peasant. Because my circumstances are very different: I am not likely to starve if you don't feed me. This is why you're not a slavedriver in making me any offer (I can't refuse).
Do what you say or I'll kill you = do what I say or you'll be left to die, from the PoV of the listener.
tl;dr anarchy; I'll have a private militia to protect me until others loot the precious gold I'm using to pay my soldiers; most militarily powerful families consolidate power; feudalism; rinse; repeat.
All slaves have the option of not working.
Choice is only meaningful when consequences are considered.
It was supposed to be an expression of skepticism, not hate.
There are lots of "security professionals" who actually have very little technical knowledge, let alone technical knowledge specific to security.
Having vague ideas on a process doesn't mean having to hire a particular person.
What's actually going on here, Apple?
Eyewitnesses. If they were rioters they wouldn't be my friends.
Weird. So your friends are only people who share your moral code and never err in its application?
What evidence did they provide? None. What evidence would they have, why would I demand evidence of things my friends say that they have no reason to lie about? Do you realise what an absurd thing to say that is?
I am asking what evidence your eyewitness friends have that these rioters have no cause or grievance. Eyewitnesses see and can report on actions, but it's very difficult for eyewitnesses to shed light on motivations. Was there some clear indication of affiliation to some cause, for example? Evidence of an organised criminal operation? Or is this a case of absence of evidence being interpreted as evidence of absence?
On the other hand I'm also well aware that beyond the initial financial checks that occur prior to being accepted for JSA the week-to-week tests are laughable at best.
It depends entirely on which jobcentre you go to and which advisor within that jobcentre you see. Some will begin payments within a couple of weeks and require you to do little more than sign a sheet on further fortnights. Others will take months to start payments and immediately put payments on hold for a 4 week period if you don't fulfil a long list of obligations - local managers set up quotas to kick off a certain proportion of people per week. One of the biggest difficulties is going off JSA into a job with an abusive employer or which you are not equipped to carry out. if you are declared to have voluntarily left it or been sacked then the advisor is entitled to subject you to a 26 week sanction with no payments.
It is not a difficult life to live if you can get over the inherent shame that you are living at the hand of others.
Did/do you not pay taxes? Did/do your parents not do so? Everyone lives at the hand of others - that's how society works - and a functioning society allows everyone to contribute when they are able. Assuming that you weren't in some way playing the system, you have no reason to be ashamed. I was born into a family with private healthcare; I attended private school on a private scholarship; I paid for much of my undergraduate study with a combination of part-time work and parental support; I paid for most of my postgraduate study with another private scholarship. Compared to the average person I've had very little state support, though I am quite happy to ask for it when I need it and I have no problem with anyone else receiving it.
So rather than handouts they prefer to steal? Their demonstration of their desire to participate "freely and safely in society" is to riot, destroying the homes and livelihoods of others?
They are following the example of their seniors, hoodwinking investors and fiddling expenses and starting wars to accumulate resources. And, yes, a community of alienated, undereducated youths relying on handouts (if they are eligible at all) is no better than a community of youths stealing. Do you have evidence that even a significant minority of the rioters were "destroying the homes of others"? Certainly some were destroying the livelihoods of others who may be struggling as much as them, and this was not acceptable. But being smart and well-organised is not a prerequisite for having a legitimate grievance and protesting your lot.
the situation of jobs (if they are looking for them) are the same for everyone
No, it isn't. If you are uneducated, inexperienced and of average or below-average intelligence then things are much worse for you. If you have no connections and you're living in a run-down community, yet worse. The only thing you can do something about is your education, but (i) it's really hard to identify what's a worthwhile educational programme - many clever people leave univ
Yours is one of the more sophisticated counterarguments I have encountered. It may take me a while to think of a response.
I'm a few miles from central London right now. Are your friends/family eyewitnesses or rioters? What evidence did they provide?
As for the "social welfare system", what experience have you had of it? Jobseekers' allowance is £53/week for young people, and the limits of local housing allowance - recently capped absolutely and further relatively to area by the Tories - make it difficult to find suitable (and liveable) property in central London. The former often has a long waiting period while it is processed, has strong conditions attached to it and is cut off at a whim with appeals processes lasting months (for example: call up the fraud hotline giving any random name of someone you know on JSA and their allowance will be stopped before evidence is gathered and a decision made). The latter has less conditionality attached but may still be subject to waiting periods and cut-offs, or the simple unavailability of affordable property since most/all (depending on your area) council housing was sold off - why else do you think so many thousands are living in temporary accommodation[tm]? Eligibility for hardship payments/crisis loans, often the last resort when people are refused JSA and satisfy already limited categories of eligibility, is being further reduced with Tory aim to eliminate these entirely at the next ideological welfare shake-up.
Those with all but the most severe health difficulties (new claimants, although existing people are being transitioned over the next couple of years) are now required to comply with the same JSA rules as those who are perfectly healthy, where previously they'd have been on an incapacity benefit while they recover - those with mental health problems often cannot cope.
There are two areas in which Britain actually provides almost unconditional welfare to permanent residents: the NHS and the right to water. The latter was the result of high incidents of third-world diseases such as dysentery and hep A around 1990 as people during the last recession could not afford to pay for water (recall that housing allowances do not cover any utilities), and was politically a concession to Thatcher managing to create the AFAICR then only country in the world with an entirely privatised water supply. The NHS, of course, still has long waiting lists and very limited mental healthcare under certain Trusts.
This is all irrelevant. People don't want handouts. Protestors (including looters) in Egypt and Libya mostly weren't starving either. What people want is a chance to participate freely and safely in society. The rhetoric of Cameron mirrors quite well the rhetoric of the reactionary governments in the Middle East, and the media in those regions painted exactly the same picture as he's trying to paint: of mindless, antisocial thieves. And, you know, some may be mindless - just as Parks may have just had tired legs and want a comfortable seat on the bus.
This is not to say that attacking a random human or firebombing the local corner shop (most people did neither) is an acceptable or effective means of protest. But that doesn't mean it isn't a protest.
Sometimes protestors aren't directly harmed by an injustice and are fighting out of solidarity or the fear that an injustice against one ends up being an injustice against all (although if you think a primary school teacher's aide in London is part of the well-to-do then you need to review the situation). See also Iraq war.
How many eyewitnesses and "rioters themselves" have you interviewed?
How do you think the official local media tried to represent the situation in the Middle East?
Remember to regard the events of the last week as following peaceful attempts to seek redress of grievances by various communities in inner London - at least some national media interviewees have managed to get this message across. And that protesters, rioters and looters may overlap but aren't the same.
Finally, simply taking stuff may be a form of protest. If you think the system works for you and you're happy in your environment then you don't destroy it. If you think the system is biased in favour of the already rich, a corrupt upper class who leech more from the country than a single looter with a new TV ever will, then going some tiny way to address the imbalance is one way of getting across your message. If you later make £50 selling the TV, well... that's the purpose in protesting: to improve your lot. For the long term, you may unintentionally spark social change. But at the time it may be that you simply were exhausted and wanted somewhere comfortable to sit on the bus.
Yup, that's just what the governments in the Middle East said. Not protesters, just thugs and looters (and many of them were engaged in violence and looting).
Perhaps we need some sort of Enabling Act.
At no time after being stuck in the middle of a violent scene where dangerous weapons were used have I thought, "Wow, I know what'll stop this happening again - loss of everyone's freedoms!"
I'll take the risk of loss of property and the very occasional bloody injury, thanks. For those who aren't prepared for the vigilance required to accompany freedom, there are many states which provide the security you seek. Enjoy :-).
The unions funding Labour let it happen. Was it because their members were stupid or because their leadership are corrupt hoodwinkers? Did they think they would still receive (temporary) concessions for their members while ignoring their wider role protecting the working population?
The merest suggestion of the dropping of Clause IV should have been cause for every union funding Labour to totally withdraw support. I do not understand why any worker is prepared to remain a member of these hypocritical institutions.
I really want to see [another human] cry, and beg for mercy.
That says enough about you.
Not cold from winter? Well, Britain doesn't have the coldest winters in the world, but what the hell are you talking about? Thousands more people die in the UK during cold winters. Study Dept of Health figures or any number of newspaper articles - even in the right wing papers - which regurgitate figures. Older people are of course more vulnerable because, well, they're older.
As for hunger, you're right, the one thing most first world countries have achieved is hardly anyone without an eating disorder dying from simply not having enough food available. Malnutrition, on the other hand, is a very real problem tackled with various advice for health professionals. The effects of malnutrition in youth are far more insidious.
People don't want to simply be alive: they want to live. A handout of enough food and shelter to remain alive is not good enough. You can give that to any poorly treated animal in a cage.
The worst I've heard is "if you stop providing help for people and they don't commit suicide it means they're happy enough to live and don't need any more help". It sounded insane at the time, but it's just the reductio of any "it could be worse thus it's good enough" argument.
(And the uniforms were really smart, so you were free... would any non-free person have such a smart uniform?)
Did 1.5 million people riot in London just because they were ignored? Nope. Because these were ordinary, civilized, and decent people.
Nope. Because they weren't the ones suffering directly and substantially from the war in Iraq.
...hopeless waste-of-spaces... scum... wouldn't piss on...
Ah, the sub-humanity argument. It was only a matter of time. Is Godwin invoked yet?
You appear to have quite a sense of entitlement. You think society, via taxpayers, should pay policemen to arrest these people and a justice system to house them in jail just to accommodate for your particularly Daily Mail brand of anger.
I say that society should, via taxpayers and voluntary schemes and good example, give these people a part to play so they are productive and contributing rather than unhappy and a burden. I don't think that anyone is entitled to anything, but it's what you've got to do if you want to live in a functioning, comfortable, happy environment.
One where the cultural background of people in government varies?
Our NHS is good for many routine physical conditions, though lacking for mental health.
But, no, we don't have a huge range of social benefits which "help... to live decent lives". Eligibility is increasingly restricted and a handout isn't what people want anyway (despite what the Daily Mail thinks) - what people want is the chance to be treated well and to play a productive part in society.
High taxes don't imply an effective welfare state. Feudal landlords also collected high taxes.
Society does not owe you a sense of love and belonging that would be your families job.
OK, let's say you as part of wider society do not owe the disaffected youth anything.
Then the disaffected youth owes you nothing either.
In particular, he does not owe you the respect not to smash your store and take the stuff inside.
I guess you have made your bed.
The Internet is built on so much "nanny state" academic and military research that I question the sanity of anyone who sits online with an argument such as yours.