I predict a riot!!!

[emordnilap]

Indeed the magnitude of this event was tiny. Don't think we can learn much about any serious event from this.

Except, perhaps, how quickly things can fall apart for certain types.

[Mean Mr Mustard]

I dont believe we just saw an "alex scarrow event".

The looters were scum who wanted sportswear and games consoles,

Which is exactly what Scarrow described - lowlifes exploiting a sudden policing vacuum. The difference was that it was limited in scope and eventually contained.

[ujoni08]

Steve, good thought-provoking analysis.

[Totally_Baffled]

...and a good rebuff from Stumuz!

[Ludwig]

At the beginning of the industrial revolution we had an empire to pillage

East India Company built on trade, not pillaging.

Same thing Stumuzz, more or less.

Believe what you like, but every empire throughout history has been sustained by imbalance of power, which is another term for exploitation.

Following the First World War, the game was beginning to be up for the UK.

Roaring twenties, the phrase emphasises the period's social, artistic, and cultural dynamism, or as you put it ‘the game was almost up’

Steve was talking about economics, not culture.

Then came the Second World War. Following which the game was more or less fully up for the UK. We just didn't realise it yet.

Following the end of World War II, there was a long interval without a major recession (1945–1973) or as you put it “the game was more or less fully up for the UK”

Wasn't this period of ostensible economic good times due mainly to the pound's anachronistic status as a global reserve currency?

then we got Thatcher and monetarism

Thatcher, created social leveling never seen previously in the UK. She told poor boys from poor backgrounds that they could get where they wanted to go on merit. It did not matter where you came from, what school tie you wore or who your parents were.

Absolute rubbish Stumuzz. The social levelling you attribute to Thatcher actually began in 1944 with the Education Act. My father, whose parents left school in their early-mid teens, ended up going to Oxford University thanks to it, a thing he couldn't have dreamed off if he'd been born 20 years earlier.

What you mean when you talk about social levelling, I suspect, is that YOU prospered under Thatcher. Well done, but there wasn't enough for everyone. Did you see much of inner city Liverpool during the 1980s?

These are poor boys who today are millionaires, been the first in their family to go to university and changing the life chances of their children because of Thatcher.

Changing the life chances of their children? Their children are screwed.

Steve, your essay is little more than ideological loaded opinion. It is so wide and general it becomes far too easily challenged. Like you, I have work to do.

No, Steve is spot-on. The apparent wealth of the UK over (most of) the past 25 years has been pure smoke-and-mirrors: the money was all borrowed from a future that couldn't pay it back.

[biffvernon]

London gets to see the real violence next month: http://www.dsei.co.uk/

What is DSEi?

With over 1,300 exhibitors, DSEi is the key event for the defence and security community. It provides a unique platform to view the latest equipment and systems from the world’s defence and security industry, such as BAE Systems, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Finmeccanica. DSEi provides an opportunity for visitors to develop international relationships and generate new business opportunities.
DSEi gives you the chance to:
» View the full capability of the international defence and security industry at a single exhibition
» Witness the latest developments in products and services – learn, take home new ideas that will improve performance – touch and see the future of the defence industry

» Make new contacts – It’s the major meeting point for the global defence & security industry at this time of year
» Network with every element of the defence supply chain
» Participate in information sharing through our EXPANDED seminar and demonstration programme

[biffvernon]

Oh dear, so here we are, eight days after the event and now the police admit they 'may have misled journalists'.

Mark Duggan death: IPCC 'may have misled journalists'

The police watchdog said there was no evidence Mr Duggan had fired at police
The police watchdog has admitted it may have misled journalists into believing police shooting victim Mark Duggan fired at officers before he was killed.

Mr Duggan, 29, was shot by officers last Thursday in Tottenham.

His death sparked the initial riots in London which were followed by disorder in other English cities.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission later released a statement to make it clear that Mr Duggan did not fire a gun at police.

Ballistic tests found that a bullet which lodged itself in one officer's radio was police issue.

It was reported by many media outlets at the time that a police officer had been shot before Mr Duggan was killed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14510329

[adam2]

I have UNCONFIRMED reports from a cab driver, of disorder underway now in Peckam.

Can anyone confirm or deny ?

[biffvernon]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/1 ... sled-media

The police watchdog investigating the death of Mark Duggan, whose shooting by police sparked the first bout of rioting in London on Saturday, has said it may have "inadvertently" misled journalists into believing the Tottenham man had fired at police.

Responding to inquiries from the Guardian, the Independent Police Complaints Commission said in a statement: "it seems possible that we may have verbally led journalists to believe that shots were exchanged".

Remember de Menezes who we were inadvertently led to believe had jumped the tube barriers? The police have certainly got form.

[biffvernon]

I have UNCONFIRMED reports from a cab driver, of disorder underway now in Peckam.

Can anyone confirm or deny ?

Tweets for Peckam lead here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14495327
Rather nice.

[biffvernon]

The Guardian is doing a rather important job of journalism here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... court-list
compiling data on the court sentences.

The twitterverse is busy with condemnation of the attempt by Wandsworth Council to evict a tenant whose son was involved and with the sentences that show a comparison between an MP convicted of multi thousand fraud and a youth convicted of stealing a bottle of water.

[Little John]

At the beginning of the industrial revolution we had an empire to pillage

East India Company built on trade, not pillaging.

Remind me, was our relationship with India born of free and fair trade or did the a little matter of having an occupying army, judiciary and government there sway the economics of that relationship in any particular way?

Following the First World War, the game was beginning to be up for the UK.

Roaring twenties, the phrase emphasises the period's social, artistic, and cultural dynamism, or as you put it ‘the game was almost up’

Not a good example to use stumuzz. The "roaring twenties" were, as now, built on the sandy foundations of debt and monetary speculation. Coincidentally enough, the noughties appear to have come to a rather similar sticky end for pretty much the same reasons. Except, of course, due to global resource contraints, we don't get to grow out of this one.

Then came the Second World War. Following which the game was more or less fully up for the UK. We just didn't realise it yet.

Following the end of World War II, there was a long interval without a major recession (1945–1973) or as you put it “the game was more or less fully up for the UK”

Absolutely. As I said, there was the inevitable bounce that came from rebuilding following the war. However, as a matter of historical fact, bit by bit our manufacturing base was eroded to the likes of Japan, Taiwan etc. This is not a particularly contentious point. It's just what happened. By the time Thatcher, came onto power, the process of decline had simply reached a critical point.

then we got Thatcher and monetarism

Thatcher, created social leveling never seen previously in the UK. She told poor boys from poor backgrounds that they could get where they wanted to go on merit. It did not matter where you came from, what school tie you wore or who your parents were.
These are poor boys who today are millionaires, been the first in their family to go to university and changing the life chances of their children because of Thatcher.

Steve, your essay is little more than ideological loaded opinion. It is so wide and general it becomes far too easily challenged. Like you, I have work to do.

I didn't suggest that Thatcher had not brought a certain degree of levelling for a significant portion of the population, at least for a while. That is to say, it was an illusory and unsustainable wealth born on the back of a future that was/is unable to deliver. Or, in fact, that some kids from poor background were able to achieve riches for the first time in their family history. The points I was making were entirely different and you have not actually addressed a single one of them with your straw man here.

Also, I would suggest that the abandonment of a manufacturing base and the social/economic deregulation that accompanied it was at the price of a significant reduction in the life chances of the lowest, least skilled section of the population whose skill-set was always only ever going to be best fitted to low skill manufacturing. I say this in no way disparagingly either. I say it from the position of an ideological assumption that absolutely everyone deserves the dignity of meaningful work. Particularly so, given that the majority of humans are excluded from control of the means of production. It seems to me, therefore, that the very least they should be able to expect is that they have the right to work for the man, even if they can't be him. Instead, they have had this opportuntity progressively offshored to Chindia et al (where desperate rural peasants will work in the cities for a pittance) and so have been bribed with welfare to keep them quiet in the corner of our society. Out of site and out of mind.. Nevertheless, this particular section of the population has proved to be a thorny social problem ever since. Particularly so, given that even those bribes to keep quiet are now being removed. Unsurprising, then, that they are beginning to kick off.

Which kind of leads to my next post...

[biffvernon]

[stumuzz]

At the beginning of the industrial revolution we had an empire to pillage

East India Company built on trade, not pillaging.

Remind me, was our relationship with India born of free and fair trade or did the a little matter of having an occupying army, judiciary and government there sway the economics of that relationship in any particular way?

India still uses these institutions today. The Army still has the British rank structure, various legislation first introduced by the British is still in effect. The law is still based on English common law. If they are so heinous why are they still used?

the First World War, the game was beginning to be up for the UK.

Roaring twenties, the phrase emphasises the period's social, artistic, and cultural dynamism, or as you put it ‘the game was almost up’

Not a good example to use stumuzz. The "roaring twenties" were, as now, built on the sandy foundations of debt and monetary speculation. Coincidentally enough, the noughties appear to have come to a rather similar sticky end for pretty much the same reasons. Except, of course, due to global resource contraints, we don't get to grow out of this one.

The roaring twenties were still the roaring twenties whatever they were based on. Culture is an export

Thatcher, created social leveling never seen previously in the UK. She told poor boys from poor backgrounds that they could get where they wanted to go on merit. It did not matter where you came from, what school tie you wore or who your parents were.
These are poor boys who today are millionaires, been the first in their family to go to university and changing the life chances of their children because of Thatcher.

Steve, your essay is little more than ideological loaded opinion. It is so wide and general it becomes far too easily challenged. Like you, I have work to do.

I say it from the position of an ideological assumption that absolutely everyone deserves the dignity of meaningful work. Particularly so, given that the majority of humans are excluded from control of the means of production. It seems to me, therefore, that the very least they should be able to expect is that they have the right to work for the man, even if they can't be him.

Which kind of leads to my next post...

There is no need to answer such a breathtakingly patronising , arrogant, we know what’s best for them statement such as that!

[Little John]

East India Company built on trade, not pillaging.

Remind me, was our relationship with India born of free and fair trade or did the a little matter of having an occupying army, judiciary and government there sway the economics of that relationship in any particular way?

India still uses these institutions today. The Army still has the British rank structure, various legislation first introduced by the British is still in effect. The law is still based on English common law. If they are so heinous why are they still used?

The reason for the continued cultural use of certain organisational structures is am entirely separate question to the historical fact of the disparity of economic relationship that existed while India was actually occupied by the British. I note you have chosen not to address that fact and I don't suppose I will be the only one. Other readers may make of your unwillingness what they will.

the First World War, the game was beginning to be up for the UK.

Roaring twenties, the phrase emphasises the period's social, artistic, and cultural dynamism, or as you put it ‘the game was almost up’

Not a good example to use stumuzz. The "roaring twenties" were, as now, built on the sandy foundations of debt and monetary speculation. Coincidentally enough, the noughties appear to have come to a rather similar sticky end for pretty much the same reasons. Except, of course, due to global resource contraints, we don't get to grow out of this one.

The roaring twenties were still the roaring twenties whatever they were based on. Culture is an export

Again, you have chosen to ignore the points put to you and have responded with entirely unrelated point. This is beginning to look like a bit of a pattern.

To repeat, given that the "roaring twenties" are pretty much universally viewed by economists and historians to have been built on the sandy foundation of debt and asset speculation it is, arguably, not a coincidence that the noughties, being also built on similar unsustainable foundations, should also have come to very similar sticky end. The above being the case, do you not consider on reflection, that to cite the so called roaring twenties as being some kind of model of economic prosperity is, perhaps, not the wisest of strategies in this particular debate?

Thatcher, created social leveling never seen previously in the UK. She told poor boys from poor backgrounds that they could get where they wanted to go on merit. It did not matter where you came from, what school tie you wore or who your parents were.
These are poor boys who today are millionaires, been the first in their family to go to university and changing the life chances of their children because of Thatcher.

Steve, your essay is little more than ideological loaded opinion. It is so wide and general it becomes far too easily challenged. Like you, I have work to do.

I say it from the position of an ideological assumption that absolutely everyone deserves the dignity of meaningful work. Particularly so, given that the majority of humans are excluded from control of the means of production. It seems to me, therefore, that the very least they should be able to expect is that they have the right to work for the man, even if they can't be him.

Which kind of leads to my next post...

There is no need to answer such a breathtakingly patronising , arrogant, we know what’s best for them statement such as that!

Well, I think we both know there is, but why break the pattern of avoidence of an entire post eh?