London Riots

[daftandbarmy]

The parents should be held responsible for the actions of their kids and share the punishment/fines.

Amen to that. This guy for President of the World

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pAC0YSmK0g&feature=player_embedded

 

[Sythen]

Amen to that. This guy for President of the World

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pAC0YSmK0g&feature=player_embedded

Such a huge fun of Pat Condell. Always stellar commentary.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Consider this when you read media reports from the London riots......

Google news headline IPCC "misled press over shooting" bungles BBC headline Mark Duggan death: IPCC 'may have misled journalists', which derives from a bungled Guardian headline: Mark Duggan death: IPCC says it inadvertently misled media, which is not true, and it's not even what the headline's story asserts. The story reports that the police watchdog said it may have "inadvertently" misled journalists into believing the Tottenham man had fired at police. Looking even closer, the IPCC actually stated, in response to queries from the Guardian, that "it seems possible that we may have verbally led journalists to believe that shots were exchanged."

The Mark Duggan shooting is also widely reported (or misreported) to have "sparked" the mayhem and looting in Britain earlier this week. Anyway. . .

The officer who shot Duggan never said he was fired at "and is understood to be upset that the family might have been misled into believing this." I should say so. Further, it wasn't the IPCC that got the story wrong.

The IPCC's first statement made no reference to shots being fired at police. An IPCC spokesperson did say (i.e. "verbally") that an officer had been shot (which is true; it seems a bullet fired by the other cop lodged in the shot cop's radio). The Evening Standard (inaccurately) reported a "shootout" in which the officer who shot Duggan was "returning" fire. The Mirror quoted an IPCC spokesman in those first frenzied reports: "We do not know the order the shots were fired. We understand the officer was shot first, then the male," which also appears to be completely true.

The IPCC statement: "Analysis of media coverage and queries raised on Twitter have alerted to us to the possibility that we may have inadvertently given misleading information to journalists when responding to very early media queries following the shooting of Mark Duggan by MPS officers on the evening of 4 August." This is two full days before the riots began, which seems more than enough time for journalists to have corrected any mistakes they made. The IPCC concedes it was possible that its early information suggested shots were exchanged, and the IPCC added: "This was consistent with early information we received that an officer had been shot and taken to hospital. Any reference to an exchange of shots was not correct and did not feature in any of our formal statements, although an officer was taken to hospital after the incident."

A more suitable headline: Media Get Story Wrong, London Goes Up In Flames, Media Blame Police.

Source:  Chonicles & Dissent blog, 12 Aug 11

 

[Haletown]

When citizens get directly involved in protecting themselves

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=pdFP9w_q3mw

 

[ModlrMike]

It seems actions _do_ have consequences:

Article Link

Riot boy's family is kicked out of home: Suspected looter and his mother are the first to be punished with eviction

 

[Kirkhill]

UK Riots Graphic

At the height of the recent violence in England looting spread to almost every corner of the country

CRAP.

We regularly beat up the CBC about biased reporting.  This is from the National Post but the error is equally applicable to all those in the media and elsewhere grinding axes.

The "Graphic" is suitably presented to spread the effect over as wide a geography as possible.  But the numbers show a different story.

Rioting occured in Manchester, Birmingham, Nottingham and London.  And in each of those cities the rioting was confined to a number or well known districts.

The Liverpool riots barely signify.  Bristol arrests were on a par with a typical Saturday night.  The Geordies never came out in Newcastle or nor the Arabs in Shields and the traditional heartland of discontent (Halifax, Hull and Huddersfield together with Bradford and Sheffield) was dead quiet.  Southampton, Plymouth, Portsmouth.... nothing.

This was a London event involving gangs that have been part of the culture long before I became aware of the Crays (and probably predate the time that London merchants paid viggorish to the Genoese navy to be allowed to fly the Cross of St George) and that spread amongst wannabes that aspire to the Premier League.

Look at the pictures and videos of the damage and you will see the same images over and over again.  Look at the cityscapes by night and day and count the number or fires and columns of smoke.  They are in the single digits. 

During the heart of the riots they were holding a Beach Volleyball competition in Horseguards, people were suntanning by the Serpentine, tourists were clicking photos of Buckingham Palace and the politicians had free access to Westminster.

Labour and the left want to demonize the Tory cuts.
The Tories want to demonize Labour's welfare state.
The Police want to show them both up and save their jobs and reputations.
The Fire Service in the UK is notoriously risk averse and won't show up without a written invitation.

The right answer for most of these gits in baggy breeks is to bring back the Borstal, complete with the rod of correction.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I was composing something on the London Riots, because I disagreed with almost all the analyses I had read. I was using words and phrases like ”disconnected from societal norms” and “unconcerned with the 'established' cultural values” but I can stop all that because Robert Fulford, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the National Post, has got it almost exactly right:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/08/13/robert-fulford-britain-is-a-land-without-shame/

Robert Fulford:
Britain is a land without shame

The many thousands of rioters, looters and arsonists who stormed through British cities this week are the spiritual descendants of Oliver Twist, the orphan boy of the 1830s imagined by the young Charles Dickens. They are deprived, as he was, but in a different way, a way they cannot begin to understand.

Famously, Oliver was deprived of food. The people who humiliated England this week are provided with food but they are deprived of just about everything else that matters — above all a sense of shame, that absolute necessity for a civilized life.

Their behaviour this week was shameless. Shame is the force that keeps many of us from doing whatever outrageous thing that occurs to us at the moment. We know that it will make us feel wretched and make others think badly of us.

But the criminals who violated the peace of English cities will not think badly of themselves because they will never regret what they have done — and they will not be concerned by what others think of them. They believe they have a right to riot because they feel they have the right to do what they wish.

No matter what you have read, the riots were not political, nor were they racial or economic. They had nothing to do with government cutbacks (which haven’t taken effect yet anyway).

The background to the riots lies in a darker and more complicated realm, the landscape of emotions, in which personality is structured and individuals learn (or do not learn) that a livable life requires, among much else, a sense of responsibility and certain vital inhibitions.

Most people acquire an appropriate aversion to feeling ashamed through family, community, religion, school, work and friendships. But if all or nearly all of these shaping forces are absent, or weak, the individual is deprived. That’s roughly how the English rioters developed.

Teaching self-control is a delicate matter, involving much experiment. There are many ways to learn it, but it’s generally agreed that no one can learn it alone.

If children enter adolescence without this inner equipment, the government can’t help them much. When welfare reaches the point where it makes working unnecessary, as it does sometimes, it creates a class of unhappy cheque-cashers, resentful of their position and ready to break the law or otherwise embarrass authority, for the pleasure of expressing their rage.

There is no shame, of course, in being unemployed. On this point, society is thoughtfully non-judgmental. It is never one’s own fault. It’s the government’s fault, or the fault of rich people.

In Britain, hundreds of thousands of young people don’t know the satisfaction of doing good work. Welfare (the world is learning, rather late) is always too much or too little.

Nor can the police and the courts help. They are mainly interested in protecting the rights of the young until the young obviously break the law. Then they receive the most gentle punishment.

Prime Minister David Cameron spoke to the rioters in harsh but not quite credible words: “We will track you down, we will find you, we will charge you, we will punish you. You will pay for what you have done.”

If this happens, it will be first time in many years that a promise of that kind has been kept. My guess is that few law-abiding citizens expect to see the criminals appropriately punished. After decades of gentle policing and gentle judging it seems likely that when the crisis recedes into the past, the guilty will once again be treated with understanding and the victims will be forgotten.

The media are no help. Popular music sentimentalizes addicts as tragic heroines. Television makes thugs into likeable gents. Most of the media, including the tabloid newspapers, teach their audiences that authority deserves nothing but derision and only fools take a schoolteacher seriously.

The working people (that is, people who actually make a living by working) suffer most when a sizeable part of the population turns criminal. The workers lose the freedom of their streets, which become dangerous after dark. They even lose control of their homes; British judges now consider that home burglary is an offence of little meaning, not much worse than illegal parking.

On the third day of the riots, I heard a justly furious woman on the BBC speak of the rioters as “feral” packs of criminals. Horrible word, “feral,” meaning wild, brutal and savage. Horrible and, in this melancholy week, horribly accurate.

National Post

I think the idea of a feral population – a sub-culture which doesn't have ordinary, human values is important. I also think that this feral population (of mostly young people) is not unique to the UK. We saw the same thing in Vancouver in the Stanley Cup riots – there were no racial or social issues it was just rioting for the hell of it.

The 'godfather' of today's feral youth was probably Abbie Hoffman

Now those who follow my rambling will know that I am not opposed to corporal punishment. While I support initiative like booting rioters and their sometimes innocent families out of council housing – because punishing the innocent may be the only way to get the attention of the guilty – I think we can and maybe should look to e.g. Singapore for ways to punish public vandalism.

 

[mariomike]

I think we can and maybe should look to e.g. Singapore for ways to punish public vandalism.

"Caning in Singapore":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caning_in_Singapore
"Contrary to what has sometimes been misreported, the use or importation of chewing gum is subject only to fines; it is not and has never been a caneable offence."

BBC:
"Singapore's streets and the buildings are free from litter and graffiti."

 

[Edward Campbell]

Another interesting 'explanation' of the London riots, by John Barber, a left leaning columnist who, until recently, covered Toronto city politics, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/what-happened-in-london-just-an-adjustment-of-the-riot-index/article2128490/

What happened in London? Just an adjustment of the Riot Index

JOHN BARBER
From Saturday's Globe and Mail

I was shocked when some young acquaintances riding the bulls on Bay Street first explained to me the theory of government that prevailed among their set, based on something they called the Riot Index.

Too many riots were bad for business, they allowed, but so were too few – a sign that government had become soft and inefficient. Prudent government squeezed until the mob rebelled, then increased spending just enough to prevent extensive property damage. Optimal social policy was a matter of dialling in the appropriate frequency of riots.

That was a long time ago, and I can't say my shock lasted. In light of the impotent moral outrage that has welled up in the wake of this week's events in England, the cynicism of the Riot Index now seems downright refreshing. It is surely more informative than the theories about bad parenting, “over-entitlement” and psychotic consumerism that many Britons are advancing to explain the disorder.

What the cynic notices is the rhetorical overload. The rioters are called feral youth, sometimes feral scum, vermin, wild beasts or street jackals. Aligned with that is an equally fierce denial of any political dimension to their violence.

“These are pure-and-simple criminals running wild tonight,” senior Manchester police official Garry Shewan said at the height of it. “They have nothing to protest against. There has been no spark. This has been senseless on a scale I have never witnessed before in my career.”

It is more than understandable for respectable people to affirm their own values in the face of such mayhem, and to stand solidly against its perpetrators, perhaps even to the extent of reflexively condemning them as subhuman. But as any cynical believer in the Riot Index will affirm, calling their activity “senseless” misses the point disastrously.

The lack of an immediately apparent cause for the English riots does seem to set them apart from similar, ongoing disturbances in Greece and Spain, which are clearly intended as protests against government austerity. And so they have invited all manner of speculative interpretation, providing pundits of every stripe with ample proof of their own prejudices.

“Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare-dependent, brutalized youngsters,” the Daily Mail said in a typical example, going on to say that liberalism “denies the underclass the discipline – tough love – which alone might enable some of its members to escape from the swamp of dependency in which they live.”

Many leftists were no less dismayed. “I believe in the politics of the street,” one Labour councillor from North London told The Guardian this week. “But to me that means Tiananmen Square; not some kids smashing in HMV. This is bullshit.” Even avowed anarchists condemned the violence.

The Riot Index permits no adjustment for ideology or morality. It seeks no causes and is indifferent to explanations. What it does do, however, is to accept without question that liberal social policies quell social unrest.

According to its logic, the fact that Britons are now struggling to make sense of good old-fashioned mob violence only proves that liberalism has gone too far – that the mob has been a stranger too long. The conclusion may be distasteful, but the underlying premise – that austerity causes riots and spending forestalls them – is well supported by historical evidence.

In that respect, the most telling commentary on the English riots to emerge this week was an econometric study by academics Jacopo Ponticelli and Hans-Joachim Voth at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona.
Titled “Austerity and Anarchy: Budget Cuts and Social Unrest in Europe, 1919-2009,” the study assembled masses of data on historic protests, riots, assassinations and revolutions, and uncovered what the authors called “a clear positive correlation between fiscal retrenchment and instability.”

Economic downturns in themselves are not enough to spark riots, they found. The tinder box is government fiscal retrenchment, and its relation to social eruption is causal. “Once you cut expenditure by more than 2 per cent of GDP, instability increases rapidly in all dimensions, and especially in terms of riots and demonstrations,” Prof. Voth wrote on his blog this week.

When former London mayor Ken Livingstone made the same point this week, linking the riots to the Cameron government's sweeping and determined program of fiscal austerity, he was attacked by Tory MP Patrick Mercer as “hugely crass.” Misplaced moralism trumped common sense.

Others say it is too soon to measure the effects of the ongoing British austerity program, even though it was announced more than a year ago and key measures – including a hefty increase in sales tax to 20 per cent – are well in place. Last February, in an attempt to explain away the country's economic stagnation by saying it was too soon to blame austerity, The Economist noted that “the bulk of the spending cuts and further tax increases come in April.”

Followed, right on schedule, by mob violence. The vehemence with which government ministers deny the link only makes it more obvious. One of the most incredible events in a week of dread, with police still reeling from the assault, was Prime Minister David Cameron's reaffirmation of his commitment to cut police budgets.

The Riot Index may be cynical, but at least it's not stupid.

There is a certain cynical logic to the “riot index” explanation ~ indeed, giving the chronically poor too little to satisfy their needs but too much to spur them inot productive employment has been the modus operandi of governments in the West ever since Bismarck. But it doesn't satisfy either Vancouver or London because not all, maybe not even most, of the rioters were 'protesting' and socio-economic issues. Many (most?) were 'protesting' something simpler: their displacement from the socio-cultural mainstream. They are, indeed, feral youth because they are 'wild,' unable (not just unwilling) to conform to to our cultural norms. The reasons they are unable to conform are more readily discerned from Fulford's column (just above): they lack the tools of civilized life in the modern, urban West. They are ignorant, by and large, thanks to education systems that try to homogenize rather than sort people into productive lives as rocket scientists, clerks, plumbers, brain surgeons, truck drivers, lawyers, fire fighters, insurance salesmen, construction workers and philosophers according to their abilities. They are aimless thanks to the same system and to a society that tries, but, of practical necessity, fails to 'entitle' them to everything and to excuse anything.

The riots in Greece are explicable in the simplest economic terms: greed. The Greeks don't want to 'pay the piper;' who can blame them? The riots in Vancouver and London are not so easily explained and sending money, via social programmes, hasn't worked for 150 years and ... well, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Recent footage on the riots. Not for the faint of heart...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmU_wexOQt4&feature=related

 

[Edward Campbell]

The 'blame game' is getting into high gear, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/europe/riot-ravaged-britain-must-confront-its-moral-collapse-cameron-says/article2129516/

Riot-ravaged Britain must confront its `moral collapse', Cameron says

DAVID STRINGER AND SHAWN POGATCHNIK
London — The Associated Press

Published Monday, Aug. 15, 2011

Britain must confront a culture of laziness, irresponsibility and selfishness which fueled four days of riots that left five dead, thousands facing criminal charges and hundreds of millions of pounds of damage, Prime Minister David Cameron acknowledged Monday.

As rival political leaders staked out their response to England's unrest, Mr. Cameron pledged to deliver a raft of new policies by October aimed at reversing the “slow-motion moral collapse” which he blames for fostering the disorder.

“This has been a wake-up call for our country. Social problems that have been festering for decades have exploded in our face,” Mr. Cameron told an audience at a youth center in Witney, his Parliamentary district in southern England.

“Just as people last week wanted criminals robustly confronted on our street, so they want to see these social problems taken on and defeated.”

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith said Monday that he was already examining whether those involved in the riots should have their welfare payments cut, while London mayor Boris Johnson said young people convicted over the disorder would lose their right to use public transport for free.

Mr. Cameron pledged to end a culture of timidity in discussing family breakdown or poor parenting, or in criticizing those who fail to set a good example to their children or community.

“We have been too unwilling for too long to talk about what is right and what is wrong,” Mr. Cameron said. “We have too often avoided saying what needs to be said, about everything from marriage to welfare to common courtesy.”

In a rival speech, main opposition Labour Party leader Ed Miliband criticized Mr. Cameron's response as overly simplistic, and demanded that lawmakers focus on delivering better opportunities for disaffected young people.

“The usual politicians' instinct — announce a raft of new legislation, appoint a new adviser, wheel out your old prejudices and shallow answers — will not meet the public's demand,” said Mr. Miliband.

He spoke at his former high school in Camden, north London, half a block from the scene of intense rioting Aug. 8, when shops were trashed and police came under attack.

“Are issues like education and skills, youth services, youth unemployment important for diverting people away from gangs, criminality, the wrong path? Yes, they matter,” Mr. Miliband said.

The differing approaches to Britain's most serious riots in a generation are likely to dominate the country's annual political conventions, which begin next month. Mr. Miliband has called for a full public inquiry into the roots of the riots, while Mr. Cameron insists his government is able to adequately examine the issue.

Mr. Cameron insists that racial tensions, poverty and the government's austerity program — much of which is yet to bite — were not the primary motivations for the riots across London and other major cities.

Instead, Mr. Cameron pointed to gang-related crime, and a widespread failure from Britain's leaders to address deep rooted social issues — including through the country's generous welfare system.

“Children without fathers. Schools without discipline. Reward without effort. Crime without punishment. Rights without responsibilities. Communities without control. Some of the worst aspects of human nature tolerated, indulged — sometimes even incentivized — by a state and its agencies that in parts have become literally demoralized,” Mr. Cameron said.

He pledged that the government would intervene to help 120,000 of the country's most troubled families before the 2015 national election.

Standing before a backdrop of graffiti, Mr. Cameron said Britain's damaged society had for too long been one which “incites laziness, that excuses bad behavior, that erodes self-discipline, that discourages hard work.”

Both he and Mr. Miliband agreed that, following recklessness by bankers, the lawmakers' expense check scandal, and media phone hacking saga, all sectors of society had a share of the blame.

“Moral decline and bad behavior is not limited to a few of the poorest parts of our society. In the highest offices, the plushest boardrooms, the most influential jobs, we need to think about the example we are setting,” Mr. Cameron said.

Young people who watched Mr. Cameron make his speech appeared unimpressed with his plans.

“He should stop blaming it on everyone else, he should stop living in la-la land,” said 17-year-old Jake Parkinson. “If he was doing his job right, this wouldn't be happening.”

As police continued to hunt those involved in last week's riots, detectives said they had uncovered a cache of weapons and hidden loot buried in flower beds in Camden. Knives, a hammer, metal bars and two cash registers from a looted cycle store were found after officers combed the area with metal detectors.

A-33-year-old man, Gordon Edward Thompson, was remanded into custody at Croydon Magistrates Court charged with setting fire to a department store that had been in business since 1867 and run by five generations of the same family.

Mr. Cameron spoke with the store owner Maurice Reeves, and said Monday he had described “a hundred years of hard work, burned to the ground in a few hours.”

In Birmingham, where hundreds of Asian, black and white locals held a peace rally on Sunday, two men and a teenage boy appeared in court Monday charged with murdering three Pakistani men run over and killed during last week's riots.

Haroon Jahan, 20, and brothers Shazad Ali, 30, and Abdul Musavir, 31, died Wednesday after a car struck them at high speed as they guarded shops in west Birmingham, 190 kilometres northwest of London.

The attack raised fears of gang warfare between the area's South Asian and Caribbean gangs because residents identified the car-borne assailants as black. But public appeals for no retaliation, particularly from one victim's father, Tariq Jahan, have helped keep passions at bay.

England's gang-fueled rioting began in London Aug. 6 and spread to several other English cities. Police were criticized for responding too slowly, particularly in London, but eventually deployed huge numbers of officers at riot zones to quell the mayhem.

The Association of British Insurers has estimated the cost from wrecked and stolen property at £200-million ($326-million) but expects the total to rise.

Police were on Monday questioning two men over the fatal shooting of a 26-year-old man during riots in Croydon, south London. Officers were also interviewing a 16-year-old boy arrested Sunday night on suspicion of fatally beating a 68-year-old man who had tried to put out a fire set by rioters in Ealing, west London.

Across the country, about 1,400 people have been charged so far with riot-related offenses and thousands have been arrested. Several courts opened Sunday for the first time in modern history to try to reduce the backlog of cases.

London's police said in the capital alone, a total of 1,593 people had been arrested and 926 charged with offenses.

Both Prime Minister Cameron and Labour Party leader Ed Miliband are on the right track: the problem is deep rooted and cultural rather than, say, racial or religious or even social. And education is a key to forming and shaping the right cultural values.

What has happened in Britain (and in America, Australia and Canada, too) is that we – the entrenched, 'establishment' - got lazy. It was too hard to insist that our culture was, in some ways, superior to others and that 'others' had to learn it and live it in order to live here. We decided, because it was so easy, to be 'tolerant' and we agreed that there is some sort of 'cultural equivalency' which excuses almost everything up to and including, sometimes, female genital mutilation.

I just read, recently, a weak minded justification for not teaching Shakespeare. Roughly: “It's too hard for new Canadians,” said an (doubtlessly ill-educated) educrat. “New Canadians do not have the background to comprehend Shakespeare.” That's nonsense, of course. Shakespeare is, very often, good, rousing, wholly multicultural stuff – watch Branagh's Henry V; it's a good story, it's a good film, it's easy to understand and it is one of the (many, many) roots of our, Canadians (and American and British, etc) culture; ditto Macbeth and Richard III and, and, and almost ad infinitum. Studying Shakespeare (and Milton and Hardy and ...) is what helps new Canadians shake off the dust of the 'old country' and join us, in our country.

We need to reaffirm our culture and its superiority over the others, the ones that new Canadians left behind. We need to rid ourselves of the multicultural myths – folk dancing and ethnic festivals like Caribana are harmless (unless you're in the line of fire) but we must not pretend that Algeria, Barbados or Croatia (and all the rest) are culturally equivalent to Canada; they are not. The proof of that is in the number of Algerians and Barbadians lined up to come here as opposed to the number of Canadians lined up to go there – and the attraction is not all economic, either.

 

[mariomike]

BBC
"Even as delinquents did the damage, the emergency services did their duty."
"No one can doubt the level of personal bravery":
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14494023

 

[kstart]

[quoteThere is a certain cynical logic to the “riot index”explanation ~ indeed, giving the chronically poor too little to satisfy their needs but too much to spur them inot productive employment has been the modus operandi of governments in the West ever since Bismarck. But it doesn't satisfy either Vancouver or London because not all, maybe not even most, of the rioters were 'protesting' and socio-economic issues. Many (most?) were 'protesting' something simpler: their displacement from the socio-cultural mainstream. They are, indeed, feral youth because they are 'wild,' unable (not just unwilling) to conform to to our cultural norms. The reasons they are unable to conform are more readily discerned from Fulford's column (just above): they lack the tools of civilized life in the modern, urban West. They are ignorant, by and large, thanks to education systems that try to homogenize rather than sort people into productive lives as rocket scientists, clerks, plumbers, brain surgeons, truck drivers, lawyers, fire fighters, insurance salesmen, construction workers and philosophers according to their abilities. They are aimless thanks to the same system and to a society that tries, but, of practical necessity, fails to 'entitle' them to everything and to excuse anything.

The riots in Greece are explicable in the simplest economic terms: greed. The Greeks don't want to 'pay the piper;' who can blame them? The riots in Vancouver and London are not so easily explained and sending money, via social programmes, hasn't worked for 150 years and ... well, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.][/quote]

I think you have some interesting insights there.

There was the use of 'social media', which closed the gap re: "six degrees of separation", some stupid ideas were circulated by 'deviant/angry/trouble-maing others', just as in there was in Vancouver Riots-- I think directly causal is acting upon stupid ideas.  Stupidity spread contagiously, per borough, maybe like we saw from the Vancouver Riots.  There were crimes of criminal opportunity, greed and/or destruction motivated.  Maybe a lexicon of riot in response to percieved police brutality, and that tapped into an emotion (globally, people aware via mass media, e.g. re: Rodney King beating in Los Angeles) and let's make ourselves 'heard', group identity re: the poor, oppressed.  Can tap into some sentimentality, e.g. living in a social housing project, most likely others have had direct experiences with police in a less positive way, or have heard stories of brutality, whether real, or embellished or fictionalized. 

Housing projects can generate an unhealthy group identity, 'class consciousness' (e.g. dessemination of Marxist 'method'-- revolt [Marx however, on an analytic basis, is perceptive, but never was suppose to be a 'method', IMO]-- a lot is about appropriation of 'ideas', the can be misappropriated, i.e. used stupidly).  I think some of this could have been provocative, a catalyst (as re: media coverage, social media responses, and responses in the heat of it all, borough by bourough).  There was the emotionality of the victim's family and demand for justice (can understand a trauma response there-- grief, not time to organize it, get the facts).  But it spread like wildfire.

I agree to this to a point:

They are, indeed, feral youth because they are 'wild,' unable (not just unwilling) to conform to to our cultural norms. The reasons they are unable to conform are more readily discerned from Fulford's column (just above): they lack the tools of civilized life in the modern, urban West. They are ignorant, by and large, thanks to education systems . . .

Intergenational factors among the projects.  E.g. prevalance of criminally involved parents; parents with addictions problems, mental health problems-- lacking the equipment to teach and raise their kids in ways that do prepare them; teaching kids victimized attributions (addicts can be good at that, e.g. "it's everyone else's fault but mine'.  Parents too stoned to pay attention (or even remember) what their kids are up to.  Unstable living environment (some 'lone parent's' can bring in disaster spouses, that don't help the 'family unit')

Lack of preparation for kids for integrating into the outer society, by not teaching the kids boundaries, proper, responsive self-discipline (learning by example is one of the strongest ways to teach this to children), but also parenting methods. 

Psych theories which differentiate between "open boundaries", no restrictions, as a consequence of parental neglect, overwhelment, lack of confidence, and not taught it themselves or over-compensation for having been raised by excessively restrictive parenting (overly punative, overly-controlling, to ranges of abuse, violence, having nothing to do with parenting roles-- an ill parent losing control-- which can also promote rebellion and gives the peer group and outside influences more power).  But with the 'passive parenting style' there's no checks on improper, disrespectful behaviours-- from early childhood onward. Neglect teaching morals.  Lack of education re: parental styles, and consequences (what you get when you mess up on this re: early childhood parenting and what becomes in adolescence).  I think the overly passive parental style (no rules, no enforcement, no clarity in acceptable vs not-acceptable conduct, and appropriate corrections, i.e. consequences-- how to enforce boundaries-- has to be consequences. 

I notice what appears to be prevalence of ADD/ADHD coming out of the current generation, lack of self-control and focus-- many factors can be feeding that, too many distractions-- some of that I think can come from earlier parenting-- too many toys (insecure parents can try to go overboard-- project parents may attempt try to over-compensate this way-- think about 5 and 10 stores, dollar-stores-- fill them up with too much junk, less $ to supply good educational or skills development materials, not enough $ for extra-curricular, sports, other opportunites, which build confidence, skill, self-discipline, social skills, etc.)  This sort of fits in with:

. . . giving the chronically poor too little to satisfy their needs but too much to spur them inot productive employment has been the modus operandi of governments in the West ever since Bismarck

I'll have to search for the research, re: poverty, conduct disorder and sociopathy, but there is a statistical relationship.

I think kids also to a certain point seek to protect their maladaptive parents (at least at the younger ages), some of this can carryover to if there was 'help available', there maybe be fear accessing it, because of not wanting to break up the family-- or worse, if their family is criminally involved, there can be a lot fear re: accessing help.  Or the 'help' is simply not available.  Some children wind up taking on a parental role, in response to a sick parent (e.g. a crhonic alcoholic)-- so parent sends them out to get groceries, pick up cigarettes, score some dope for them. . . really bad parental boundaries (or 'emotional incest', when the isolated parent over relies on their children to provide emotional support-- total enmeshment-- and a distractor that a developing child, adolescent doesn't need).  Can also think about the prevalence of adult sociopaths existing in the neighbourhood, criminal, predatory-- some bad evil happens to some kids.

There's also the bs of mass media and culture and popularized sub-cultures, which idealize crime, gangs, guns over personal empowerment.  A kid might not have the skills to function in school, many distractors back at the home, and many distractors among peer groups, that can take away focus from school, achievement, etc.  Super-alienated youth may also experience a very real sense of alienation in relation to maintream, and constant reminders of that, so gravitating towards groups which they feel they 'fit in' more with-- becomes repetition of what's already been unhealthy.

"Riot Index":  Opportunities Model

I think it's important for youth when they reach the age they are able to work, to have those opportunites for work-- because this can be a very useful, and productive escape (plus ability to start saving for education while living rent-free).  Crap at home can errode a youth's sense of confidence re: work, sense of worthiness and ability to accomplish, plus if they've lacked the socialization skills which can help them retain work, and are not impeded by mental health issues, etc.  A lot of mental health issues don't get diagnosed, nor access to effective treatment (e.g. beyond drugging them).  Cognitive Dissonace, they may fall back on what they know, vs. have some adventurous sense to take the risks anyway, into something new.

There has to be opportunity for low-skilled employment to accomplish this, opportunties to work towards.  Britain is coming out of a recession, and jobs hit by recession may have disproportionately hit lower-skilled jobs.  There seems to be some similar trends, re: outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to #3rd World cheap labour.  A chance to get ahead and break the cycle is the opportunity for part-time/full-time employment while in school (do-able if school hours are 9-3pm, do homework afterschool, before work-- + more work hours on weekends)-- you can escape the crap at home and escape the trouble you can be getting into among peers.  Focus on managing money--don't really need the 'rich kids toys', think long-term, to be able to afford education, be less in debt.  Education being affordable enough that a person can save reasonably enough.  And have a safe place to live, is certainly a bonus, if can live at home (without getting sicker), rent free, to save more $ for school/future.  Really lucky if can work for someone in the trades, and build opportunity towards skilled apprenticeship.

There's a lot more than meets the eye, re: poverty, intergenational stressors, opportunities, etc.

The riots in Vancouver and London are not so easily explained and sending money, via social programmes, hasn't worked for 150 years and ... well, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.

Some social programs have been really useless, when they're not co-ordinated properly.  There has to be intelligent assessment of the youth; proper mental health assessment; basic needs (e.g. lack of sleep, poor nutrition alone can be causing a lot of problems), no generic resolution, it's case management of programs which directly respond to individual youth's needs-- this often is not really done.  I remember 'youth centres' when I was a kid-- it was a place where youth went to score dope and older kid, sociopathic-criminal-predators praying on younger ones-- recruiting grounds for gangs, prostitution!  Others are run better, there's one run by police in my neighbourhood, with emphasis on health, fitness sports-- that's a good one.  Or others which do provide some skills-teaching workshops, re: communications skills, assertiveness (not agressive, not overly passive-- skills to prevent being sucked into bad situations, and to foster interpersonal skills which benefit employment retention); budgetting workshops; pre-employment programs; learning skills as hobbies but which can later on be transferable, e.g. sewing, carpentry-- help with focus, sense of accomplishment.  Mindfulness meditation, for focus, emotional regulation, self-control.  A lot of these sorts of opportunities can help where there has also been damage to developing self (Piaget, Kholberg, Cooley and Mead, Erikson) which can help correct defficiencies as result of poor parenting and or underlying psych impairments.

I also remember being identified as a "youth at risk', poor attendence at high school.  And had to go to a really BS workshop, which had nothing to do with addressing the underlying problems, which for me was sleep (post-trauma), and poor nutrition; lack of routine because I had to avoid home (my presence evoked violence, not to do about correcting behaviours-- best to go home when the angry person is asleep).  But when old enough to work, and there being work opportunities in my community to earn money-- this was a perfect escape, constructive.  Some work places aren't good for a kid trying to get an escape, e.g some bars (with pedophile owners), and sometimes the smaller businesses (which are fronts for criminal gangs, laundering money, drugs, prostitution, etc.)-- they can be limiting experiences, damaging.  It can be helpful for a kid in lieu of an engaged, concerned parent, to have some access to a social worker or something, a responsible adult who does have an eye on protection, to help steer a kid away from dangerous environments.

The task is in re-building some sort of stable foundation of reasonable safety so that it's not further damaging (Erickson/Maslow, "Heirarchy of needs").  Learning some resilience skills, self-empowering attitudes with the dominant culture, vs. feeling shame and like dirt (which is also common place, and wounding-- being down and at some disadvantage and being stepped on and crushed further. . . and re-emphasized through many realms: parents, schools, society/media/politics, etc.-- to find and build a path of dignity through it, cause they can be up against a lot).  Lack of access to reasonable adults, because as a youth, as a dependent-- predators prey on disenfranchised youth-- there is a lot of ugliness in this society that we don't hear about, re: darker natures in humanity, and the damage can be extensive.

Can be at a severe disadvanted re: severity of violence, other problems at home.  It can affect resilience, even if a youth is able to build somethings up for themselves.  Contingencies such as job-layoffs, and not being able to get another job, can put a spiral effect back down to 'what they know'.  They're up against a lot.  Can say, "all families have problems", but it's also about the degree of dysfunctioning, and project life, there are parents who are not functioning very well, resulting in lack of employment/poverty, and trickle-down into poor parenting, unsafe living environments for children and youth.  Some kids do rise from the "projects', but not all experience the same things from there.  A parent can be in poverty for different reasons, yet still be able to focus on wise-parenting (if not drug addicted, severe mental illness, etc.).  I think it's harder for 'project kids', when their own parents are criminally entrenched, addicted, ill.  People get shot in their home, parent too stoned and not watching out for their kid, while they've let all sorts of strangers into the home.  Some have pimped out their own kids. . . sick stuff.  And the 'addict' pretending to 'care for their kid', but actions don't match words, they're truly self-absorbed, manipulative--mental/emotional abuse-- they're not capable of parenting responsibly.  Millions of kids slip through the system, child protection misses it often, frequently IMO.  Mental fk.  While living in it, can't see the forest for the trees, entrenchment all around.

For 1) "Freedom of Choice", need to have mental stability, health, support and you need; 2)"Freedom of Opportunity", some ways out, some safety, some alternative choices, some support.  Kids in the projects in unhealthy living situations, all the garbage around them and all the media crap and alienation at school, etc. I doubt they can even process the impact of it all (that takes separation, a place of safety, etc.), so they gravitate to 'what they do know', a lot of that can be unconsciously, choices based on 'familiarty' (vs. what feels 'alien', un-identifyable), not what's truly healthy (they lack a yardstick for that-- need access to a way for dialectical conversion. . .? And choices and opportunities, skills, etc.).

I don't believe a lot of 'outsiders', mainstream truly understand all the complexties and challenges of rising out of a poverty situation, unhealthy situations.  It's hard to create 'nothing from nothing' (dialectical conversion-Hegel, etc.), without opportunities for newer, and safe experiences for develoment and growth to become the functional citizens for coping with modern society, without some access to some 'healthy guidance' in some form or another etc.  People do get out from the projects, have other assets that can help, and if healthier opportunities exist (some are lucky to come by it by 'chance'); some parents are strong to not allow their economic circumstance and associated 'shame' hinder them from focus on getting out of the projects (and this is valuable teaching to their children as well, it can empower them-- if they're not suffering mental illness, or addicitons, have some rationality, or had some health in their own family of orgining and this is simply 'situational poverty', by economic factors alone). 

I remember a highschool friend, lone-parent family of origin, low-functioning alcoholic, but she had the asset of being beautiful and kind and not socialized for sociopathy (b/c caregiver for sick parent), was welcomed into 'middle class' groups, was smart, high achieving; got involved in extra-curricular groups; sought support via ALANON, and moved on and was able to build a good life, there were other 'inheritances though' first generation project, older siblings, though not living at home, still positive influence (things healthier before family breakdown by addiction, loss of income, etc.).  I remember a group (informally, just finding one another), we were determined to not allow our circumstances to define us, and find ways to rise above it.  There wasn't the rap culture, project identity media garbage at the time.  There were also some decent teachers who were approachable (very few though), but who also had positive influence (others though, were Bstards-- look poor, are struggling to get it, and more wounds to the injury, when seeking help--kicked back down and shamed. . .). 

Interesting thing about how IQ can rise when not living in chithole circumstances and stressors. . . 

There also was so much of the aggressive marketing directed at youth re: products, most people rich and poor were are fairly equal standing-- if poor, find subgroups that are more accepting, less judgmental.  Disadvantages re: no computer, etc.  No safe living space, till reaching age of employabiity where there's some escape from stressors, dramas, etc

 

[daftandbarmy]

One irrefutable fact that seems to be ignored is that riots are FUN. I've seen fairly small skirmishes develop into full fledged barn (and shop) burners just because a bunch of people joined in before the original scuffle was squashed. Usually, these people emerge from pubs, drunk and ready to rumble.

One important tactic we adopted with great success was, therefore, to squash the 'little skirmishes' rapidly before the fun broke out. This usually involved driving at speed, in armoured vehicles, straight into the middle of the crowd, dismounting, and convincing people that this was not going to be 'fun' - usually with our batons. No baselines required, no messy gas or water hoses required. After a few quick arrests, the majority of pond life usually remember that they left the bath running, or something like that, and drift away.

The parallels with fire fighting are obvious.

Of course, this requires alot of training, initiative and courage on the part of those security force members on the scene. It was gratifying to watch a brick of 4 men successfully charging and arresting a couple of members of a howling mob of 20 or so, for example, or dominating a key intersection over a period of hours through the judicious use of baton rounds and manoeuvering. That's the 'fun' part for the good guys!  ;D

 

[kstart]

What has happened in Britain (and in America, Australia and Canada, too) is that we – the entrenched, 'establishment' - got lazy. It was too hard to insist that our culture was, in some ways, superior to others and that 'others' had to learn it and live it in order to live here. We decided, because it was so easy, to be 'tolerant' and we agreed that there is some sort of 'cultural equivalency' which excuses almost everything up to and including, sometimes, female genital mutilation.

I just read, recently, a weak minded justification for not teaching Shakespeare. Roughly: “It's too hard for new Canadians,” said an (doubtlessly ill-educated) educrat. “New Canadians do not have the background to comprehend Shakespeare.” That's nonsense, of course. Shakespeare is, very often, good, rousing, wholly multicultural stuff – watch Branagh's Henry V; it's a good story, it's a good film, it's easy to understand and it is one of the (many, many) roots of our, Canadians (and American and British, etc) culture; ditto Macbeth and Richard III and, and, and almost ad infinitum. Studying Shakespeare (and Milton and Hardy and ...) is what helps new Canadians shake off the dust of the 'old country' and join us, in our country.

We need to reaffirm our culture and its superiority over the others, the ones that new Canadians left behind. We need to rid ourselves of the multicultural myths – folk dancing and ethnic festivals like Caribana are harmless (unless you're in the line of fire) but we must not pretend that Algeria, Barbados or Croatia (and all the rest) are culturally equivalent to Canada; they are not. The proof of that is in the number of Algerians and Barbadians lined up to come here as opposed to the number of Canadians lined up to go there – and the attraction is not all economic, either.

I relate to the problems of the problem of 'cultural inclusivity', I was around academics who were really rigid in that way and I hated it (orgins of 'political correctness', stuplifying effect on rational thought, which is promoted not by censorship, 'don't go there', but "here it is, what is it"-- that's where really meaningful dialogue and refection can occure, IMO).  It annoyed me, went through some rebellion from it then some synthesis. 

I think there's room for it and positive cultural identity can be positive.  I don't think it's necessary to assert that dominant culture is superior, IMO, it's not in a lot of ways, but to neglect opportunities for reflection of dominant culture is silly-- there's great learning opportunities (but we have to admit to our shortcomings while seeing the positive, the merits). 

I do agree that Shakespeare is awesome and should be included.  Other cultures may be at a linguistic disadvantage with regard to it's study, because so much of the dominiant culture, the 'old sayings', 'metaphors' that are still with us today, have orgins from Shakespeare, so the 'nuances' would be more readily connected via coming from 'natural born English speakers", cross-generationally. 

On the other hand, this can be accomodated for, by simply educating on it, to help bridge it, make it excessible to people of other cultures, non-natural born english speakers (and would be beneficial for natural born english speakers as well). I think Shakespeare offers so many opportunities for insights into psychology, social realties (some historical, yet still so relevant today, many things have not really changed)  And there are some great Shakespeare movies out there that have been done really well, with interesting takes on it, making them relevant and accessible today.  Lots of opportunities to teach social, mental, emotional intelligence via Shakespeare. 

A program of study of Shakespeare can be re-designed to bridge cultural differences, promote reflection and individual maturity.  It would just take the will for an educator to design a sound program for study which can also support cultural difference.  Avoidance is not the way of learning, embracing contractions, moral viewpoints, relevant theory, etc.  It's also not the way for dealing with cultural or class conflict.  It's like people get stumped into blunted "either/or" thinking (which was a huge annoyance of the 'political correctness' movement), which is distortive, doesn't facilitate balanced perspectives, problem-solving, embracing contractions, looking beneathe them, maturity, etc.

I enjoyed Shakespeare much better after I was done with school, I think it could be taught better and used reflectively (developmental psych, tasks re: Herbert Mead, and Cooley "looking glass"), Shakespeare can be an awesome mediating tool that can promote self-development.

There's lots of good books at there than can be adapted to help mediate and mitigate against cultural misunderstanding, human misunderstanding, inspirational protagonists; and learn from dysfuntional characters (I like Death of a Salesman-- A. Miller (?), there's interesting reflection from there, relevant re: project reflection, parenting styles.

I suspect there's been progressive dumbing-down in the education system.  The pressure is on basic literacy, math, science, computers.  The 'liberal education' has been killed (no study of the Greeks, Romans, philsophers, foundations of democracy, civics, etc), not deemed functionally practical (if it's offered, it's not mandatory, but elective), yet it was also suppose to be about developing positive citizenship (e.g. Dewey model), I think we've gone away from that-- it's partly a matter of keeping taxes low on education: personal and moral development not deemed as important-- "that's the parent's job". . . well, a lot of kids are missing out.  There used to be drama courses at the primary and secondary school level-- those can also be used, e.g. role-playing, conflict resolution, to teach interpersonal skills, and creative expression of conflict, creativity, imagining ways forward, etc.  But the results aren't "quantifiable", not what the government wants, it wants bang for the buck (as do tax payers, so no indulgence in the 'softy' subjects).  These could promote individuality (separation from the 'collective' when that collective is not healthy).  Educational goals have been re-framed, "goods of effectiveness" (skill sets, quantifiable) vs, "goods of excellence" (character development, quality-based, less 'quantifiable').

As for Shakespeare, Hamlet can teach a lot about emotions, being overly-dramatic, hurt by loss, social withdrawal and the illhealth of that.  Romeo and Juliette would provide an interesting mirror to cultural values re: relationships, discussion of pragmatic vs, not pragmatic-- but respectful dialogue of student, reflection on culture, moods, emotions-- interiority development, de-romatize destructive relationships, co-dependency, etc. .  Tonnes of Shakepeare, re: political realities, powerplays in the office/workplace and how to better adapt.  Can provide other materials to help assist dialogue, self-discovery, personal development and personal empowerment.  MacBeth-- avoid manipulative women  , resist peer or relationship pressures. . .  It can be taught in ways that self-empower youth to make wiser decisions, learning from tragedy, avoiding roads that can be unhealthy, promoting health choice awareness.  These works can be really good mirrors on social reality, challenges, decision-making. 

It could be made so relevant and supportive to all students, regardless of cultural and language backgrounds.  (It's also fun to role-play characters, play with tone-- social learning that way as well-- I did this later on in life, my brother and I had fun playing with Shakespeare, something to do, doesn't cost money-- it was fun learning it that way, and reflecting on it, 'who does this remind you of. . ." ).  It was taught in a dry fashion when I studied in it school (pretentious English teachers, inauthentic identities themselves )

 

[kstart]

One irrefutable fact that seems to be ignored is that riots are FUN. I've seen fairly small skirmishes develop into full fledged barn (and shop) burners just because a bunch of people joined in before the original scuffle was squashed. Usually, these people emerge from pubs, drunk and ready to rumble.

One important tactic we adopted with great success was, therefore, to squash the 'little skirmishes' rapidly before the fun broke out. This usually involved driving at speed, in armoured vehicles, straight into the middle of the crowd, dismounting, and convincing people that this was not going to be 'fun' - usually with our batons. No baselines required, no messy gas or water hoses required. After a few quick arrests, the majority of pond life usually remember that they left the bath running, or something like that, and drift away.

The parallels with fire fighting are obvious.

Of course, this requires alot of training, initiative and courage on the part of those security force members on the scene. It was gratifying to watch a brick of 4 men successfully charging and arresting a couple of members of a howling mob of 20 or so, for example, or dominating a key intersection over a period of hours through the judicious use of baton rounds and manoeuvering. That's the 'fun' part for the good guys!  ;D

I think this is a relevant factor, re: direct causation, especially as it was spread via social media (Vancouver riots, the social media among teens, 'yeah, c'mon down'.  I was musing about 'behind the actions' re: poverty/project perspectives,  But I think excitement, acting out was a big part of the phenomenon and it spead contagiously via the euphoria (where reason, respect for property, and life was not factored in-- kids do stupid things).

 

[mariomike]

"So far about 1,400 people have been charged with riot-related offenses. More than 1,200 have appeared in court — often in chaotic, round-the clock-sessions dispensing justice that is swifter, and harsher, than usual.
Although a public opinion favors stern punishment for rioters, a few cases have made headlines and sparked debate. A London man received six months in jail for stealing a case of water worth 3.5 pounds ($5) from a looted supermarket. A Manchester mother of two who did not take part in the riots was sentenced to five months for wearing a pair of looted shorts her roommate had brought home.
Late Tuesday, two men in northwestern England were handed stiff jail terms for inciting disorder through social networking sites. Cheshire Police said Jordan Blackshaw, 20, and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, both received 4-year sentences for using Facebook to “organize and orchestrate” disorder."
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1040043--tough-sentences-for-two-who-used-facebook-to-organize-u-k-riots?bn=1

 

[daftandbarmy]

"So far about 1,400 people have been charged with riot-related offenses. More than 1,200 have appeared in court — often in chaotic, round-the clock-sessions dispensing justice that is swifter, and harsher, than usual.
Although a public opinion favors stern punishment for rioters, a few cases have made headlines and sparked debate. A London man received six months in jail for stealing a case of water worth 3.5 pounds ($5) from a looted supermarket. A Manchester mother of two who did not take part in the riots was sentenced to five months for wearing a pair of looted shorts her roommate had brought home.
Late Tuesday, two men in northwestern England were handed stiff jail terms for inciting disorder through social networking sites. Cheshire Police said Jordan Blackshaw, 20, and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan, 22, both received 4-year sentences for using Facebook to “organize and orchestrate” disorder."
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1040043--tough-sentences-for-two-who-used-facebook-to-organize-u-k-riots?bn=1

I can bet that the line ups at the Appeals court will be as long as the line ups at the front end!

 

[rmc_wannabe]

I can bet that the line ups at the Appeals court will be as long as the line ups at the front end!

Who cares? I'd rather deal with and deny appeals from people who are already convicted than still having these idiots free and clear of their crimes.

just my  :2c:

 

[a_majoor]

Mark Styen on the riots and the broader cultural meaning for the West:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/275679

The Desperation-of-Deprivation Myth
The West has incentivized non-productivity on an industrial scale.

Unlike many of my comrades in the punditry game, I don’t do a lot of TV. But I’m currently promoting my latest doom-mongering bestseller, so I’m spending more time than usual on the telly circuit. This week I was on the BBC’s current-affairs flagship Newsnight. My moment in the spotlight followed a report on the recent riots in English cities, in the course of which an undercover reporter interviewed various rioters from Manchester who’d had a grand old time setting their city ablaze and then expressed no remorse over it. There then followed a studio discussion, along the usual lines. The host introduced a security guard who’d fought for Queen and country in Afghanistan and Bosnia and asked whether he sympathized with his neighbors. He did. When you live in an “impoverished society,” he said, “people do what they have to do to survive.”

When we right-wing madmen make our twice-a-decade appearance on mainstream TV, we’re invariably struck by how narrow are the bounds of acceptable discourse in polite society. But in this instance I was even more impressed by how liberal pieties triumph even over the supposed advantages of the medium. Television, we’re told, favors strong images — Nixon sweaty and unshaven, Kennedy groomed and glamorous, etc. But, in this instance, the security guard’s analysis, shared by three-quarters of the panel, was entirely at odds with the visual evidence: There was no “impoverished society.” The preceding film had shown a neat subdivision of pleasant red-brick maisonettes set in relatively landscaped grounds. There was grass, and it looked maintained. Granted, it was not as bucolic as my beloved New Hampshire, but, compared to the brutalized concrete bunkers in which the French and the Swedes entomb their seething Muslim populations, it was nothing to riot over. Nonetheless, someone explained that these riotous Mancunian youth were growing up in “deprivation,” and the rioters themselves seemed disposed to agree. Like they say in West Side Story, “I’m depraved on account of I’m deprived.” We’ve so accepted the correlation that we don’t even notice that they’re no longer deprived, but they are significantly more depraved.

In fact, these feral youth live better than 90 percent of the population of the planet. They certainly live better than their fellow youths halfway around the world who go to work each day in factories across China and India to make the cool electronic toys young Westerners expect to enjoy as their birthright. In Britain, as in America and Europe, the young take it for granted that this agreeable division of responsibilities is as permanent a feature of life as the earth and sky: Rajiv and Suresh in Bangalore make the state-of-the-art gizmo, Kevin and Ron in Birmingham get to play with it. That’s just the way it is. And, because that’s the way it is, Kevin and Ron and the welfare state that attends their every need assume ’twill always be so.

To justify their looting, the looters appealed to the conventional desperation-of-deprivation narrative: They’d “do anything to get more money.” Anything, that is, except get up in the morning, put on a clean shirt, and go off to do a day’s work. That concept is all but unknown to the homes in which these guys were raised. Indeed, Newsnight immediately followed the riot discussion with a report on immigration to Britain from Eastern Europe. Any tourist in London quickly accepts that, unless he hails a cab or gets mugged, he will never be served by a native Londoner: Polish baristas, Balkan waitresses, but, until the mob shows up to torch his hotel, not a lot of Cockneys. A genial Member of Parliament argued that the real issue underlying the riots is “education and jobs,” but large numbers of employers seem to have concluded that, if you’ve got a job to offer, the best person to give it to is someone with the least exposure to a British education.

The rioters, meanwhile, have a crude understanding of how the system works. The proprietor of a Bang & Olufsen franchise revealed that the looters had expressed mystification as to why he objected to them stealing his goods. After all, he was insured, wasn’t he? So the insurance would pay for his stolen TVs and DVD players, wouldn’t it? The notion that, ultimately, someone has to pay for the insurance seemed to elude them, in the same way it seems to elude our elites that ultimately someone has to pay for Britain’s system of “National Insurance” — or what Canada calls “Social Insurance” and America “Social Security.”

The problem for the Western world is that it has incentivized non-productivity on an industrial scale. For large numbers at the lower end of the spectrum (still quaintly referred to by British reporters as “working class”), the ritual of work — of lifetime employment as a normal feature of life — has been all but bred out by multigenerational dependency. At the upper end of the spectrum, too many of us seem to regard an advanced Western society as the geopolitical version of a lavishly endowed charitable foundation that funds somnolent programming on NPR. I was talking to a trustiefundie Vermont student the other day who informed me her ambition is to “work for a non-profit.”

“What kind of ambition is that?” I said, a little bewildered. But she meant it, and so do most of her friends. Doesn’t care particularly what kind of “non-profit” it is: as long as no profits are involved, she’s eager to run up a six-figure college debt for a piece of the non-action. The entire state of Vermont is becoming a non-profit. And so in a certain sense is an America that’s 15 trillion dollars in the hole, and still cheerfully spending away.

In between the non-profit class and the non-working class, we have diverted too much human capital into a secure and undemanding bureaucracy-for-life: President Obama has further incentivized statism as a career through his education “reforms,” under which anyone who goes into “public service” will have their college loans forgiven after ten years.

Why?

As I point out in my book, in the last six decades the size of America’s state and local government workforce has increased over three times faster than the general population. Yet Obama says it’s still not enough: The bureaucracy needs even more of our manpower. Up north, Canada is currently undergoing a festival of mawkish sub–Princess Di grief-feasting over the death from cancer of the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. Jack Layton’s career is most instructive. He came from a family of successful piano manufacturers — in 1887 H. A. Layton was presented with a prize for tuning by Queen Victoria’s daughter. But by the time Jack came along, the family’s private-sector wealth-creation gene had been pretty much tuned out for good: He was a career politician, so is his wife, and his son. They’re giving him a state funeral because being chair of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Toronto Renewable Energy Co-operative is apparently more admirable than being chairman of Layton Bros Pianos Ltd.

Again: Why?

The piano manufacturer pays for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, not the other way round. The private sector pays for the Vermont non-profits and the Manchester rioters and the entire malign alliance of the statism class and the dependency class currently crushing the Western world. America, Britain, Canada, and Europe are operating on a defective business model: Not enough of us do not enough productive work for not enough of our lives. The numbers are a symptom, but the real problem, in the excuses for Manchester, in the obsequies in Ottawa, in the ambitions of Vermont, is the waste of human capital.

— Mark Steyn, a National Review columnist, is author of After America: Get Ready for Armageddon. © 2011 Mark Steyn.