Conquer Club

radiojake wrote:I've been thinking about this a little - The main difference I can see from these recent riots compared to other riots in history (from what I've been able to gather, obviously I wasn't present at any) is the distinct lack of reasoning behind the riots, short of acquiring and looting consumer goods. We've had race riots with particular communities fighting for more access to economic oppurtunity, but this riot didn't seem to have any of that - Infact, it's almost as if our consumer culture has something to do with it. We are bombarded with messages through advertising that tell us success if measure through consumer goods - Plasma TVs, Laptops, igadgets, designer clothing, etc, etc (all useless shit) - If there wasn't such emphasis on this consumer lifestyle, would people have looted the things that they are otherwise unable to attain?

All I know is if I happened to be involved in these riots, I would not have been stealing any Plasmas, but I sure as hell would have been smashing them to pieces - Over-consumption is the death-knell for our culture.

Just something I've been thinking about -

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Ministers plan removal of rioters’ benefits

Ministers are drawing up controversial plans to remove benefits from those convicted of taking part in the riots that engulfed England last week, in a move Liberal Democrats and independent experts have condemned as counter-productive and overly expensive.

Officials in Number 10 and the department for work and pensions are putting together plans for the harsh punishment of those found guilty of even the most minor infringements during the riots after a public petition calling for such a move gathered nearly 200,000 signatures.

David Cameron will lay the ground for such a move on Monday.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c8970a8c-c688 ... z1V3ZuHpNZ

I don't really understand this move, and here's why...if they can prove that an individual was one of the looters (which I would hope they would have to do in order to remove their benefits), then why not just prosecute them under the law? I don't understand the need for this. Or do they not actually have that level of proof and just want to make a general sweep?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Ministers plan removal of rioters’ benefits

Ministers are drawing up controversial plans to remove benefits from those convicted of taking part in the riots that engulfed England last week, in a move Liberal Democrats and independent experts have condemned as counter-productive and overly expensive.

Officials in Number 10 and the department for work and pensions are putting together plans for the harsh punishment of those found guilty of even the most minor infringements during the riots after a public petition calling for such a move gathered nearly 200,000 signatures.

David Cameron will lay the ground for such a move on Monday.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c8970a8c-c688 ... z1V3ZuHpNZ

I don't really understand this move, and here's why...if they can prove that an individual was one of the looters (which I would hope they would have to do in order to remove their benefits), then why not just prosecute them under the law? I don't understand the need for this. Or do they not actually have that level of proof and just want to make a general sweep?

Not only that, but it begins with the assumption that most of the rioters were "on the doll", which does not seem to be true. And, I have a hard time condemning a 12 year old for the rest of his life becuase he acted like a complete ass when he was 12, and goaded on by a mob of others.

jbrettlip wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Ministers plan removal of rioters’ benefits

Ministers are drawing up controversial plans to remove benefits from those convicted of taking part in the riots that engulfed England last week, in a move Liberal Democrats and independent experts have condemned as counter-productive and overly expensive.

Officials in Number 10 and the department for work and pensions are putting together plans for the harsh punishment of those found guilty of even the most minor infringements during the riots after a public petition calling for such a move gathered nearly 200,000 signatures.

David Cameron will lay the ground for such a move on Monday.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c8970a8c-c688 ... z1V3ZuHpNZ

I don't really understand this move, and here's why...if they can prove that an individual was one of the looters (which I would hope they would have to do in order to remove their benefits), then why not just prosecute them under the law? I don't understand the need for this. Or do they not actually have that level of proof and just want to make a general sweep?

Not only that, but it begins with the assumption that most of the rioters were "on the doll", which does not seem to be true. And, I have a hard time condemning a 12 year old for the rest of his life becuase he acted like a complete ass when he was 12, and goaded on by a mob of others.

Wow, I agree 100% with Player. Except whether they were on the doll, or a real live girl, I don't see the correlation.

jbrettlip wrote:Of course there will be part of the criminal element out there. And since they are organized and focused (go take tv's etc) they will profit. That is why a "looters shot on sight" strategy would have worked well.

nagerous wrote:

India's Ambassador to the United Nations Hardeep Singh Puri says the UN Security Council (UNSC) has not yet examined the United Kingdom's violent crackdown on protests in Britain.

Commenting on the silence of the UN over the large-scale violence recently employed by the UK government against protesters, the Indian UN envoy said the permanent members of the Security Council have not yet attended to the issue, IRNA reported Tuesday.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/194203.html

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Phatscotty wrote:Ministers plan removal of rioters’ benefits

Ministers are drawing up controversial plans to remove benefits from those convicted of taking part in the riots that engulfed England last week, in a move Liberal Democrats and independent experts have condemned as counter-productive and overly expensive.

Officials in Number 10 and the department for work and pensions are putting together plans for the harsh punishment of those found guilty of even the most minor infringements during the riots after a public petition calling for such a move gathered nearly 200,000 signatures.

David Cameron will lay the ground for such a move on Monday.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c8970a8c-c688 ... z1V3ZuHpNZ

I don't really understand this move, and here's why...if they can prove that an individual was one of the looters (which I would hope they would have to do in order to remove their benefits), then why not just prosecute them under the law? I don't understand the need for this. Or do they not actually have that level of proof and just want to make a general sweep?

Not only that, but it begins with the assumption that most of the rioters were "on the dole", which does not seem to be true. And, I have a hard time condemning a 12 year old for the rest of his life becuase he acted like a complete ass when he was 12, and goaded on by a mob of others.

Phatscotty wrote:Ministers plan removal of rioters’ benefits

Ministers are drawing up controversial plans to remove benefits from those convicted of taking part in the riots that engulfed England last week, in a move Liberal Democrats and independent experts have condemned as counter-productive and overly expensive.

Officials in Number 10 and the department for work and pensions are putting together plans for the harsh punishment of those found guilty of even the most minor infringements during the riots after a public petition calling for such a move gathered nearly 200,000 signatures.

David Cameron will lay the ground for such a move on Monday.

Pedronicus wrote:I wanted to buy a water pistol (one of those big ones that you pump up to pressurise the water) to apply paint to walls for graffiti. Entered my post code for the model I had seen on the Argos website.... No Stock within 5 mile radius. tried another model - same results.

MI5’s maxim is that society is “four meals away from anarchy”. In other words, the security agency believes that Britain could be quickly reduced to large-scale disorder, including looting and rioting in the event of a catastrophe that stops the supply of food.

There is evidence that the breakdown of order could be caused partly by the first pangs of hunger but more likely by panic.

It is likely that the people affected would immediately buy up all the food available. As supplies ran out, the public might try to break through cordons or start competing violently for available food.

It is estimated that after as little as four missed meals, a “law of the jungle” would take over, in which citizens resorted to looting or violence to find food.

The possible breakdown in order, MI5 believes, could occur in isolated pockets or, less probably, across the country.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 492642.ece

saxitoxin wrote:Pedro's comment - more valid as it's a first-hand perspective - reminds me of the idea "4 Meals From Anarchy" that the British Secret Police operate under ... the Times did a story about it a few years ago ...

MI5’s maxim is that society is “four meals away from anarchy”. In other words, the security agency believes that Britain could be quickly reduced to large-scale disorder, including looting and rioting in the event of a catastrophe that stops the supply of food.

There is evidence that the breakdown of order could be caused partly by the first pangs of hunger but more likely by panic.

It is likely that the people affected would immediately buy up all the food available. As supplies ran out, the public might try to break through cordons or start competing violently for available food.

It is estimated that after as little as four missed meals, a “law of the jungle” would take over, in which citizens resorted to looting or violence to find food.

The possible breakdown in order, MI5 believes, could occur in isolated pockets or, less probably, across the country.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 492642.ece

Unlike the continent, Britain doesn't have a gendarmerie to reinforce the civil police and must rely on inefficiently and hastily reallocated local police as in the riots. Outside of Britain and Germany I can't think of a single other European nation that doesn't have a gendarmerie of some type (though in the former DDR we had the Combat Groups of the Working Class [KdA] and the three MfS Guards Regiments). That seems to be a peculiarly British thing as Australia, N-Z and the U.S. don't either. I supposition establishment of such a force in the UK will be a touchpoint of further EU integration.

But John Schindler, a colleague here at the Naval War College, isn't so sanguine about the British military's capability to act as a panacea. "The U.K. is in a very tight spot here," he told me. "Having reconfigured the force for expeditionary warfare, plus the drastic Cameron cuts, the British army is caught. Since the U.K. lacks any paramilitary force like Italy's carabineri, this [function] by default falls on the army. And the number of infantry battalions at home is now so small, I doubt the army actually could restore order in more than one or two cities at a time."

http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/arti ... y-equation