Civil War by any other name? Youth Versus...

[Ludwig]

"Those who would give up their freedoms in return for security deserve neither"

I agree with almost everything you've posted so far Steve, but I think this quote is facile. If freedom comes at the cost of societal breakdown (e.g. as a result of economic collapse), then of course security is preferable, at least to most people.

There has never been such a thing as absolute freedom. Most stable societies allow considerably less individual freedom than we have in the Anglo-Saxon countries; individuals' responsibilities - i.e. restrictions in freedoms - may not always be enshrined in law, but they are implicit in any society worthy of the name.

[Little John]

"Those who would give up their freedoms in return for security deserve neither"

I agree with almost everything you've posted so far Steve, but I think this quote is facile. If freedom comes at the cost of societal breakdown (e.g. as a result of economic collapse), then of course security is preferable, at least to most people.

There has never been such a thing as absolute freedom. Most stable societies allow considerably less individual freedom than we have in the Anglo-Saxon countries; individuals' responsibilities - i.e. restrictions in freedoms - may not always be enshrined in law, but they are implicit in any society worthy of the name.

I take your point Ludwig.

I guess, for me, the absolute ideological starting point is liberty. From there, it becomes both reasonable and inevitable that some freedoms will be limited in a large and complex society.

However, such freedoms should only be limited to the extent that to not limit them is to allow, by implication, a limitation of the freedoms of others. For example, monopolistic behaviours should be limited because if they are not, then the freedom to economically act by everyone else is limited. Or, the freedom to fire of a gun at random in a public place should be limited because to not limit this freedom is to potentially limit the liberty of others to live.

It's why, also, I consider that the ownership of the raw resources of life is a liberty that should be severely curtailed since no-one made them and so they are a resource in common to all humanity. To monopolistically control them is to limit the freedom of others to economically act. Now, of course, I understand that control of primary resources is an inevitable part of any production process. That being the case, then, what should happen is that everyone else who does not have control of them should be directly recompensed for the limitations on their freedom to act that such control causes. I include land, itself in the above point. In a roundabout way, this is what welfare is about, though you wouldn't think so given the usual narrative of charity at best and scrounging at worst that usually accompanies any public discussion of welfare.

Where I think we should be extremely suspicious, however, is when our elites tell us that they need to limit our freedoms in order to "protect" us. The same elites, by the way, who also happen to own and control the primary means of production. History is littered with their kind of "protection" and it's usually employed when they are beginning to get frightened of us.

I'd say our elites are beginning to get frightend of us.

I hope so.

[Prono 007]

It is unfortunate though, that when the dicontented where given voice the selection provided by the media consisted of 'nutters' and the educationally sub-normal. This skews the public perception of 'discontented youth'.

Well certainly those affected are doubtless under-educated. But there have certainly been better spokespersons than that shown in the mainstream in general. The best I've heard were two guys who phoned in on the talk shows on LBC radio. Of course you don't get a middle class accent and academic terminology. But both these guys got to speak at length about the problems and what they said was articulate, well thought out and passionate.

Which begs the question that you hint at: To what extent has this episode been an exercise in political 'priming' or manouvering?

I think no one wants to take responsibility for what happened. The government don't want it to be seen that their cuts were the reason (though they clearly are.) The police don't want to be blamed for their (often racist) abuse of the youth, specifically the stop and searchs and arresting kids for no real reason. And society in general wants someone to save them from these criminals which is the police and government so they're happy to go along with the mostly rightwing's narrative that the whole blame is on the rioters. It's classic Tory ideology: blame the individual not society which completely absolves them and their policies.

If you go outside the UK and look at the media abroad, where no one is threatened by the truth, then it's seen much more as a problem of British, or the Scotts would say English, society as a whole. On C4 news the US economist Joseph Stiglitz was asked if the thought the cuts were connected to the riots and he was unequivocal: 'very much so', he said.

To his credit the only person I've heard take any responsibility was Milliband who said that New Labour were responsible. He wants a Public Enquiry perhaps because he knows that the Tory cuts will be shown as a direct causal factor.

Whatever the answer to that question, it is unfortunate that ordinary folk and small business suffered at the hands of the mob, rather than the true culprits of their dissaffection.

This is true and I've heard several rioters say they didn't agree with the looting or even setting fire to stuff and lament the injuries to others. Although the problems may be the same for all/most of them it's not like this is one homogeneous group with one plan, shared ethics or even cultural background. The big lie that media is promoting is that the thousands involved fit into one simple stereotype: greedy, consumerist, apolitical and with bad parents. It's garbage.

[kenneal - lagger]

Stop and search concentrates on black youth because that is where the main problem lies. The great majority of black youths killed, and there are many in London, are killed by other black youths. The problem is so bad that there is a special unit of the Met Police, Operation Trident, to deal with this and they get a hell of a lot of support from the black community. Unfortunately it was Operation trident officers who killed Mr Duggan and precipitated, to an extent, the riots.

The riots might not have happened if Tottenham police station had provided a senior officer to talk to and pacify the initial peaceful demonstration. I wonder if this was a deliberate action on the part of the police to show that a cut in their numbers would be a bad thing. Police tactics, on the whole, were inept and one again wonders if this was a deliberate strategy to embarrass the government over cuts in numbers. There were plenty of reports of police being ordered to retreat to their vans and let rioters get on with it.

Have Haringey Council chosen to cut front line services, such a youth clubs, and not staff in an effort to make the cuts look worse than they are and to embarrass the government? It has been known to happen in the past and with Tory councils as well as Labour.

There was a lot of politicking going on and it wasn't all on the part of the rioters.