You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 03, 2016, 03:44:33 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: London Riot's  (Read 4820 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Syauglan

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #50 on: August 13, 2011, 05:54:36 PM »
I'm curious, Neroon, as to specifics regarding adequately toothy discipline to apply in schools. What would you like to be able to do to your pupils to keep them in line that you are prevented from currently?

Regarding the link between a lack of hard discipline and greater social disorder, is there any evidence beyond your personal opinion that might help to persuade someone, like myself, who suspects confirmation bias is largely responsible for your observations and conclusions? As far as I'm aware studies show there is a very strong link between disorder in schools and socioeconomic deprivation. If there is another reliable link, I'd love to hear about it.

I find it significant that four years ago Unicef rated British children as the unhappiest in a study of 21 wealthy western nations. Do you suppose the top 10 countries listed in the study are known to be harder on their youth than the UK? I wonder how much summer rioting goes on in the top 10?

I absolutely agree though, these kids are just a bunch of brain-dead good for nothing degenerates and some lead to the brain-pan might actually improve their intellect a little.

Bound to help matters. I mean, that approach is working well for Syria, and what a wonderful model of society Syria is. The UK should be more like that.

Offline Missy

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #51 on: August 13, 2011, 08:49:47 PM »
Bound to help matters. I mean, that approach is working well for Syria, and what a wonderful model of society Syria is. The UK should be more like that.

Which is kind of why I don't say everything I think, I can really go over the top if I don't watch myself.

Offline SilkTopic starter

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #52 on: August 13, 2011, 09:06:13 PM »
Which is kind of why I don't say everything I think, I can really go over the top if I don't watch myself.

Well there is very little help for people who think that destroying what few employers are in the area is somehow going to increase their job chances/prospects.

Offline Missy

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #53 on: August 13, 2011, 10:57:10 PM »
Well there is very little help for people who think that destroying what few employers are in the area is somehow going to increase their job chances/prospects.

Which is why I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if they declared martial law and some of them died.

But I also think we should be careful not to rush to doing something too extreme, if we can find a way without killing them then it would definitely be preferable. The daughters of Mother Liberty aren't tyrants even in the most extreme of circumstance.

The important thing is to protect the rights and liberties of those law abiding citizens who are victimized by these degenerates.

At the end of the day we'll do all we can, but if they force us to take it that far then it was them that took it so far, we are responsible for protecting ourselves and our families. Whether those families are united by blood, nationality, or liberty.

Offline Zakharra

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #54 on: August 14, 2011, 01:32:18 AM »
  You have cricket bats, steel piping and such. you don't need guns to defend, just people willing to stand up and beat the living shit out of these thugs and goons. most of them would run when they are the ones to suffer pain. A few broken bones and skulls might be what's needed to sort out the rioters who are doing it


Bound to help matters. I mean, that approach is working well for Syria, and what a wonderful model of society Syria is. The UK should be more like that.


 Those rioters, I believe, want more freedom and liberty. These rioters are mainly out to 1; steal things, 2; cause trouble and 3; have fun.  It stops being fun when  your bones are the ones being broken. Plus as others have pointed out, they are absolutely not helping their cause with the common person since that is the type suffering the most in these riots.

Offline Syauglan

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #55 on: August 14, 2011, 03:26:00 AM »
It seems vigilantism has become a theme in this thread but I'm not sure why.

The important thing is to protect the rights and liberties of those law abiding citizens who are victimized by these degenerates.

The important thing is to protect the rights and liberties of all citizens. A just society is a society where no one is above the law, including vigilantes.

You have cricket bats, steel piping and such. you don't need guns to defend, just people willing to stand up and beat the living shit out of these thugs and goons. most of them would run when they are the ones to suffer pain. A few broken bones and skulls might be what's needed to sort out the rioters who are doing it

Wow. I'm truly sorry to read this. The severe physical beating of people, mostly kids in the case of the riots, would be a despicable response to theft and property damage. Luckily most wouldn't be willing to do this because they're not monsters.

Those rioters, I believe, want more freedom and liberty. These rioters are mainly out to 1; steal things, 2; cause trouble and 3; have fun.  It stops being fun when your bones are the ones being broken. Plus as others have pointed out, they are absolutely not helping their cause with the common person since that is the type suffering the most in these riots.

Well those rioters are protestors for the most part in Syria's case. Regardless, the use of lethal or excessively violent means to control disorderly people is ethically and morally reprehensible. It shouldn't and it wouldn't matter what rioters are rioting for.

Offline Missy

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #56 on: August 14, 2011, 05:15:32 AM »
The important thing is to protect the rights and liberties of all citizens. A just society is a society where no one is above the law, including vigilantes.

Agreed, which is why I'm not pushing straight for a state of martial law.

When a person commits a crime or takes action against the civil rights of another he or she accepts the consequences of those actions and those with the ability are ethically required to oppose those who commit as much by those means which are 1) within their ability and 2) within their authority.

Unfourtunately, these degenerates often opt not to cooperate with the authorities. It is these criminals who determine what is necessary to resolve the issue, all others are acting upon our ethical obligations to ensure all citizens retain their civil liberties. Particularly from those who choose not to respect the basic rights of others.

Offline Neroon

  • Sneaky Little Weasel
  • Oracle
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Stationed with the Slug-Slaying Cavalry
  • Gender: Male
  • Beware of geeks bearing gifs
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: London Riot's
« Reply #57 on: August 14, 2011, 09:15:18 AM »
I'm curious, Neroon, as to specifics regarding adequately toothy discipline to apply in schools. What would you like to be able to do to your pupils to keep them in line that you are prevented from currently?
I would change three things.

1) Give teachers the ability to make the current sanction we use enforceable.  At the moment they are not. Pupils can- and do- walk out of detentions and teachers are not allowed to bar their way.  Similarly, pupils can disrupt learning with such things mobile phones yet there is no legal ability for teachers to conficate such items, much less search for them to preempt such disruption.

2) Remove the sanctions that effectively prevent schools from permanently excluding problem pupils.  At the moment, schools that permanently exclude problem pupiils are likely to be deemed to be failing in an Ofsted inpection.  Furthermore, schools face financial sanctions for every pupil they exclude.  When you add to it that almost every exclusion is applealed and that, currently about half of them are overturned, we have a situation where something that a school does in the very last resort only resolves the problem half of the time.  So pupils are given the message that the school's ultimate sanction is unenforceable.

3) Restore the presumption of innocence in the face of pupil allegations.  As it is, if a pupil alleges that a teacher has spoken inappropriately, physicaly restrained them or stepped beyond the bounds of acceptable behaviour in any way, the pupils words are presumed to be more truthful than the teacher's.  Thus students will make allegations against the teachers that punish them as a means of retaliation.

There does not need to be any particularly harsh form of discipline, it just has to be capable of being enforced, so that children realise that if they break rules, negative consequences will affect them.  At the moment that is not the case and so a valuable life lesson is not being learned.

Regarding the link between a lack of hard discipline and greater social disorder, is there any evidence beyond your personal opinion that might help to persuade someone, like myself, who suspects confirmation bias is largely responsible for your observations and conclusions? As far as I'm aware studies show there is a very strong link between disorder in schools and socioeconomic deprivation. If there is another reliable link, I'd love to hear about it.
Actually, the link there is more to do with parental attitude than one of socioeconomic class, which was recognise even as far back as the 1980's in Ivan Reid's The Sociology of School and Education.  The apparent link between good pupil behaviour and socio-econimic group is due to the fact that there is a link between parental attitudes to both education and child behaviour.  Over the decades, it has been my experience that the attitudes of more affluent parents have not altered significantly while those of parents in less affluent groups has.  Why that might be the case, I don't know. 

However, when I started teaching in the late eighties in an inner city school, the typical attitude of parents was supportive of school discipline and would often punish the kid themselves over any sanction the school had imposed.  Now, however, that is not the case and a large number of such parents are indifferent to their children's progress and behaviour.  So the only limits placed on the actions of the real problem kids are the increasingly toothless limits imposed by schools.
I find it significant that four years ago Unicef rated British children as the unhappiest in a study of 21 wealthy western nations. Do you suppose the top 10 countries listed in the study are known to be harder on their youth than the UK? I wonder how much summer rioting goes on in the top 10?
I was involved with the PISA survey you mention, that the OECD organised for UNICEF, in that I was a liaison involved in the collection of the data relevant to science education in my area.  My role was to greet the data collector and round up the kids he wanted to include in the survey.  To be honest, looking at the protocols for how the data was collected, I was surprised that Britain scored so highly.  Selecting children at random and forcing them to miss a lunchbreak to complete an exam and then a survey is not the way to give a positive set of answers, even from those children that didn't just walk out.  I think that in many ways, the structural errors in the data collected there more than outweigh any possible confirmation bias in my opinions.
Bound to help matters. I mean, that approach is working well for Syria, and what a wonderful model of society Syria is. The UK should be more like that.
Really, sarcasm like this is hardly helpful to reasoned debate and does little to aid your argument.  This is a shame, as I actually agree that the primary duty of a society is to protect all of its citizens' rights and freedoms.  However, with rights come responsibilities and with freedom comes the duty to consider the needs of others.  When individuals insist on limiting the rights, freedoms and safeties of others, then it is right for society as a whole, through the law to bring those individuals to justice.  This includes not just rioters but any vigilantes that seek to usurp the rule of law.

I firmly believe that violence is the last resort of the incompetent.  However, that is because I believe that the incompetent will capitulate to the unacceptable before considering violence, while the competent will resort to violence before such capitulation is necessary.  Excessive violence is wrong and I see very few situations where it can be justified.  However, that does not mean that all violence is necessarily wrong, if used in noble aims.  For my mind, there are fewer aims more noble than protecting the liberty and way of life of one's society.

Offline Zakharra

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #58 on: August 14, 2011, 11:19:28 AM »
It seems vigilantism has become a theme in this thread but I'm not sure why.

The important thing is to protect the rights and liberties of all citizens. A just society is a society where no one is above the law, including vigilantes.

 When the police cannot protect your property, you have an obligation to do it yourself.

Quote
Wow. I'm truly sorry to read this. The severe physical beating of people, mostly kids in the case of the riots, would be a despicable response to theft and property damage. Luckily most wouldn't be willing to do this because they're not monsters.

 Breaking into stores and homes, stealing stuff, burning buildings and cars, beating up and intentionally hurting people doesn't call for a harder response?  I'm sorry, but if any mob tried that in my home and area, you can bet there would be some of their blood on the ground. I'll worry about their civil rights when they stop violating mine. To stand by and passively let them do it and wait for the police to respond is asinine. They'll be gone long before the cops arrive.

 Understand though, I am advocating this as a defensive measure. That it should only be done when the rioters are in their area.  Defense I believe is still legal...

Quote
Well those rioters are protestors for the most part in Syria's case. Regardless, the use of lethal or excessively violent means to control disorderly people is ethically and morally reprehensible. It shouldn't and it wouldn't matter what rioters are rioting for.

 And the nature of the riots in Syria is different than that in England atm.

 To your last sentence, let me respond with this;  'Your rights end when your fist touches my nose.'  Riot all you want, but do it where I live and you -will- be hurt. Break, steal and burn things and you lost some of your civil rights right there.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2011, 11:22:57 AM by Zakharra »

Offline Syauglan

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #59 on: August 14, 2011, 02:10:56 PM »
I would change three things.

I see. Heh. I won't write out why I think the restrictions you pointed to as unhelpful are important to keep in place because I think both of us are just going to be firmly at odds over some issues. When it comes to the limitations around exclusion, well, maybe there is some middle ground. For a time in the UK I was an outreach tutor for young violent offenders. Most of the kids I had to work with had been practically unteachable and highly disruptive in conventional classrooms. Without doubt they needed special help and without it everyone was going to be worse off in the long run. Trying to keep such students in school for fear of financial penalisation or inspection failures isn't a good solution.

Actually, the link there is more to do with parental attitude than one of socioeconomic class, which was recognise even as far back as the 1980's in Ivan Reid's The Sociology of School and Education.  The apparent link between good pupil behaviour and socio-econimic group is due to the fact that there is a link between parental attitudes to both education and child behaviour.  Over the decades, it has been my experience that the attitudes of more affluent parents have not altered significantly while those of parents in less affluent groups has.  Why that might be the case, I don't know.

So, the link is socioeconomic class, which you confirm here encompasses parental attitudes. Agreed.

However, when I started teaching in the late eighties in an inner city school, the typical attitude of parents was supportive of school discipline and would often punish the kid themselves over any sanction the school had imposed.  Now, however, that is not the case and a large number of such parents are indifferent to their children's progress and behaviour.  So the only limits placed on the actions of the real problem kids are the increasingly toothless limits imposed by schools.

If this is really an overall pattern I suspect the post WWII hope of greater social mobility and equality through education has been lost. To push this again, many studies have shown a strong link between socioeconomic class and achievement in schooling, which tends to mirror existing discrimination. Maybe parents of less affluent students have picked up on that.

I was involved with the PISA survey you mention, that the OECD organised for UNICEF, in that I was a liaison involved in the collection of the data relevant to science education in my area.  My role was to greet the data collector and round up the kids he wanted to include in the survey.  To be honest, looking at the protocols for how the data was collected, I was surprised that Britain scored so highly.  Selecting children at random and forcing them to miss a lunchbreak to complete an exam and then a survey is not the way to give a positive set of answers, even from those children that didn't just walk out.  I think that in many ways, the structural errors in the data collected there more than outweigh any possible confirmation bias in my opinions.

OK. That is possible but I think you'd understand that, in the interests of protecting against confirmation bias, I would have to trust the balance of evidence as its presented over an anecdotal account of poor methodology. And besides, if I was to go with anecdotal accounts then I'd swing towards believing British children are subject to overly severe treatment in and out of school, as several friends from other countries far further up that list have strongly complained to me about.

Really, sarcasm like this is hardly helpful to reasoned debate and does little to aid your argument.

Exasperation can defeat me sometimes.

Offline Syauglan

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #60 on: August 14, 2011, 02:33:42 PM »
Breaking into stores and homes, stealing stuff, burning buildings and cars, beating up and intentionally hurting people doesn't call for a harder response?  I'm sorry, but if any mob tried that in my home and area, you can bet there would be some of their blood on the ground. I'll worry about their civil rights when they stop violating mine. To stand by and passively let them do it and wait for the police to respond is asinine. They'll be gone long before the cops arrive.

You were advocating an extremely aggressive vigilante response, not a merely harder response. Its that kind of escalation of violence and chaos would be asinine. Much better to wait for the police to do their job.

Typically there is a wave of outraged reactionary demands for harder more brutal treatment of people involved in social disorder whenever things like riots occur. That's about revenge, not justice or making things better.

Offline SilkTopic starter

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #61 on: August 14, 2011, 03:14:49 PM »
Well there has been some additional news that armed police officers have now been called in to help cleans things up, its supprising just how obedient disruptives youths can be when they have police dogs and Heckler and koths pointed towards them.

Offline Zakharra

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #62 on: August 14, 2011, 03:35:02 PM »
You were advocating an extremely aggressive vigilante response, not a merely harder response. Its that kind of escalation of violence and chaos would be asinine. Much better to wait for the police to do their job.

Typically there is a wave of outraged reactionary demands for harder more brutal treatment of people involved in social disorder whenever things like riots occur. That's about revenge, not justice or making things better.

 I'm not advocating vigilantism, just defending your home and business. I'm not saying people should go out and kill people Punisher style, but mainly self defense. Which is what most here are saying too I believe. If someone breaks into my home and/or business and I can do something about it, you'd better believe me that person will be the one hurting the most. I'm not going to let hoodlums and thugs threaten my home and family while I can do something about it.

 If you are calling self defense 'Vigilantism', what would be your response then if that happened to you?

 It sounds like these 'youths' do respond when force is shown, as the post above suggests.

Offline Syauglan

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #63 on: August 14, 2011, 04:24:05 PM »
Insurance is the best protection against criminal damage and theft. If for some some reason physical self defense of your property or business seems like the only option that's unfortunately a very dangerous situation. I don't doubt that you could defend yourself very well but there is always risk. If I was close to you and you got yourself hurt by being a hero, I'd be pissed!

The thing is, I'm not opposed to self defense. I'd just rather be safe than proud. I was beaten on countless times when I was younger, which was a consequence of growing up in rough town and being the sort of person people feel they need to have a pop at in order to prove themselves. Despite that I can't recall ever striking someone in defense except one occasion when a close friend went into a rage during a friendly sparring match and needed to be shut down quickly, before he seriously hurt his opponent. In fact, the only times I've got close to physical violence in defense have involved family, friends or others being threatened with it. Almost always the situation can be resolved with minimum harm to everyone involved, either through talking someone down or by a show of teeth and claws, so to speak.

Incidentally, I doubt a greater show of force has made much difference to the rioting in England. Its more the case things were winding down anyway.

Offline Missy

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #64 on: August 14, 2011, 10:43:41 PM »
I personally think: "If you didn't want me to drop your brain-pan you shouldn't have been in my home"

Of course that's entirely different from shooting an unarmed man in the back.

If it's that moment and he's making it me or him, it's gonna be him.

However, I agree vengeance is not justice.

Offline LunarSage

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #65 on: August 15, 2011, 10:23:05 AM »
I was told something by a friend of mine and I'm curious how true it is.

He said the riots were started because a cop shot a man to death, claiming he pulled a gun on him (when in fact eyewitnesses say there was no gun pulled) and instead of apologizing and firing the officer, the police department backed him up and said the eyewitnesses were lying... and when the people began a peaceful demonstration against the police, one of the cops opened fire on one of the demonstrators, so the demonstrators rushed the police and the riots started.

Offline Lipsy

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #66 on: August 15, 2011, 11:37:06 AM »
I know I'm being really, really selfish, and my heart goes out to the people of England...but I'm supposed to be there in 6 days. Please, please, please find calm and peace.

All blown over :)

And bad as it was, we are a small country and small activities get lots of attention.

Unless you were on the street were it was happening you wouldn't know about it. Most of London and Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool simply went on about their daily business.

Offline SilkTopic starter

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #67 on: August 15, 2011, 02:49:58 PM »
But then thats what Britain is great for, 7/7, 9/11 london riots, ultimately it's buisness as usual in the UK. No matter how bad things get, the people of Britain just bite their lip and get on with their day.

Offline Sandman02

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #68 on: August 15, 2011, 09:04:00 PM »
"Riot is the language of the unheard..."

Offline Missy

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #69 on: August 16, 2011, 12:36:03 AM »
"Riot is the language of the unheard..."

It's extraordinary how aggressive the desperate can become.

Offline LunarSage

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #70 on: August 16, 2011, 06:56:57 AM »
I was told something by a friend of mine and I'm curious how true it is.

He said the riots were started because a cop shot a man to death, claiming he pulled a gun on him (when in fact eyewitnesses say there was no gun pulled) and instead of apologizing and firing the officer, the police department backed him up and said the eyewitnesses were lying... and when the people began a peaceful demonstration against the police, one of the cops opened fire on one of the demonstrators, so the demonstrators rushed the police and the riots started.

So is this accurate or false?

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #71 on: August 16, 2011, 09:03:55 AM »
So is this accurate or false?
Sounds like utter nonsense from all the other reports I've heard. The cops did shoot a man, a reported illegal gun dealer, while making a bust - he had a loaded gun, but never fired it if the ballistics reports are correct (likely cause Han the cops shot first). Later, a peaceful protest was held at the station for several hours before dispersing. Some of them later came back belligerent, armed with weapons, and spoiling for a fight - the rioting started soon afterwards.

Offline Bayushi

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #72 on: August 17, 2011, 12:20:43 AM »
Insurance is the best protection against criminal damage and theft. If for some some reason physical self defense of your property or business seems like the only option that's unfortunately a very dangerous situation. I don't doubt that you could defend yourself very well but there is always risk. If I was close to you and you got yourself hurt by being a hero, I'd be pissed!
I'm so glad I'm not a citizen/resident of the neutered nation of Great Britain.

I have great insurance for the safety of myself and my home and property. That insurance happens to be a Springfield .45 ACP. You'd be surprised how agreeable someone bent on harming you or robbing you gets when you draw out a firearm.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2011, 12:24:09 AM by Akiko »

Offline lollipop

Re: London Riot's
« Reply #73 on: August 17, 2011, 01:10:01 AM »
While the teens might be the face of the attacks, there are others behind them - people the police are familiar with from causing riots at football games.

Totally not being sarcastic here, but essentially the movie Green Street Hooligans come to life?