I predict a riot!!!

[JavaScriptDonkey]

This is beginning to look like a bit of a pattern.

Where have I seen that before?

[adam2]

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

The looters were scum who wanted sportswear and games consoles, not ordinary people who wanted food. Although apparently there were families out looting Lidls.

So far there have been 1,500 arrests.
So lets say say 15,000 people took part?

Now imagine next time, there are 150,000 people taking part, and they arent after some trainers, they are after food for their starving children.

Agree not an ASE, yet.
As you say, scum looters stealing non-essiential goods.
An ASE is when large numbers are FORCED to loot for the essientils of life, not sports shoes, mobile phones and TV sets.
"You know that the world has ended when even the underclass realise that food and water are more valuable than electronic goods"

[biffvernon]

Meanwhile, in San Francisco, mobile phones were shut down last night to hinder attempts or organise a demo about the killing of a man by the police.

The operators of the Bay Area Rapid Transit subway system temporarily shut down cell service last night in four downtown San Francisco stations to interfere with a protest over a shooting by a BART police officer, a spokesman for the system said today.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20091 ... z1UtWIaCV7

[postie]

Agree not an ASE, yet.
As you say, scum looters stealing non-essiential goods.
An ASE is when large numbers are FORCED to loot for the essientils of life, not sports shoes, mobile phones and TV sets.
"You know that the world has ended when even the underclass realise that food and water are more valuable than electronic goods"

Indeed, but not all are going to realise this at precisely the same time. In an ASE (love that term!) the retards will still be scooping up plasma tv's and a trolley full of xbox's. If we're really lucky... we being those who live outside of major cities, the retards will then burn anything of any use for survival, making survival for them even harder and hastening a die-off, or at least weakening them enough to stop them strolling out of the city and robbing the surrounding areas at will.
I guess it's a play on the old adage - "only when the last Tesco Express has been looted and burnt will people realise they can't eat Nike trainers"

[stumuzz]

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.

You have not addressed the first point never mind subsequent points.

I will try again with the first point. Try to answer it succinctly; verbose replies do not equate insightful replies.

Your point: India was pillaged by way of having an occupying army, judiciary and government.

My point: If India was occupied and pillaged, why did it keep its Name, borders, institutions and law of the heinous occupiers?

Please do not pretend you did not raise this first point.

If you try to answer, I will give you the courtesy of rebutting your second and subsequent ideological opinions.[/u]

[clv101]

Your point: India was pillaged by way of having an occupying army, judiciary and government.

My point: If India was occupied and pillaged, why did it keep its Name, borders, institutions and law of the heinous occupiers?

stumuzz, I don't see the problem? Why can't India have been pillaged and then keep the institutions? Your point does't disprove the first at all.

[stumuzz]

stumuzz, I don't see the problem? Why can't India have been pillaged and then keep the institutions? Your point does't disprove the first at all.

So someone breaks into your house, pillages it and occupies. When they leave you say that was a jolly good time lets do it to ourselves? Hmm

[woodpecker]

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

The looters were scum who wanted sportswear and games consoles, not ordinary people who wanted food. Although apparently there were families out looting Lidls.

So far there have been 1,500 arrests.
So lets say say 15,000 people took part?

Now imagine next time, there are 150,000 people taking part, and they arent after some trainers, they are after food for their starving children.

Agree not an ASE, yet.
As you say, scum looters stealing non-essiential goods.
An ASE is when large numbers are FORCED to loot for the essientils of life, not sports shoes, mobile phones and TV sets.
"You know that the world has ended when even the underclass realise that food and water are more valuable than electronic goods"

On our high street, the looting was from Tesco Express: food such as rice, nappies and similar. No doubt some alcohol too. The pharmacy also had its windows caved in, but I don't know what (if anything) was looted from there.

[biffvernon]

So someone breaks into your house, pillages it, occupies and builds a jolly fine railway system round the rose beds. When they leave you say that is a jolly good railway. Lets keep it for ourselves. We really did a lot of good stuff that was worth keeping all over the Empire but that doesn't mean we didn't do a lot of very bad stuff as well. The more sensible ex-colonies did not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

(What's this got to do with riots?)

[stumuzz]

So someone breaks into your house, pillages it, occupies and builds a jolly fine railway system round the rose beds. When they leave you say that is a jolly good railway. Lets keep it for ourselves. We really did a lot of good stuff that was worth keeping all over the Empire but that doesn't mean we didn't do a lot of very bad stuff as well. The more sensible ex-colonies did not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

(What's this got to do with riots?)

Very good point and well made. Pillagers do not build lovely railways.

Dunno about riots. Never been in one.

[UndercoverElephant]

So someone breaks into your house, pillages it, occupies and builds a jolly fine railway system round the rose beds. When they leave you say that is a jolly good railway. Lets keep it for ourselves. We really did a lot of good stuff that was worth keeping all over the Empire but that doesn't mean we didn't do a lot of very bad stuff as well. The more sensible ex-colonies did not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

(What's this got to do with riots?)

I don't think it is fair to judge the behaviour of previous generations by the ethical/political standards of today. If the British had not taken over India, some other European imperial power would have, and they'd probably have done many of the same things.

Take an example of one of the worst crimes of the British Empire: the genocide of aboriginal Australians. When the British arrived in Australia, they discovered an ancient hunter-gather society which to their eyes looked completely and utterly backwards. They viewed the aboriginal Australians as sub-human, and treated them accordingly. They basically reasoned that these people were so wretched that they were better off dead. To our 21st century ears, this sounds like nothing less than Crimes Against Humanity - it's up there with the Nazi genocide of the Jews.

Try to put yourself in the shoes of those British invaders of Australia. Are you sure you wouldn't have done the exact same thing? Because I'm not sure I wouldn't have.

We now know that native Australians are not sub-human, and many of us now have a great respect for their traditional way of life, but these are products of late 20th century science and cultural changes.

[woodpecker]

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

The looters were scum who wanted sportswear and games consoles, not ordinary people who wanted food. Although apparently there were families out looting Lidls.

So far there have been 1,500 arrests.
So lets say say 15,000 people took part?

Now imagine next time, there are 150,000 people taking part, and they arent after some trainers, they are after food for their starving children.

Agree not an ASE, yet.
As you say, scum looters stealing non-essiential goods.
An ASE is when large numbers are FORCED to loot for the essientils of life, not sports shoes, mobile phones and TV sets.
"You know that the world has ended when even the underclass realise that food and water are more valuable than electronic goods"

On our high street, the looting was from Tesco Express: food such as rice, nappies and similar. No doubt some alcohol too. The pharmacy also had its windows caved in, but I don't know what (if anything) was looted from there.

And perhaps I should point out that one of the principle buildings looted in Rye Lane (Peckham), around the corner, was Poundland. Which sells neither electronics nor branded clothing. (Poundland is the building that has featured in the 'we love Peckham' post-it note thing, after the event.)

One of the guys pleading guilty of looting East Dulwich Tesco took nappies. (We haven't been told what the others took. But Tesco Express has neither electronics nor clothing.)

And a guy who pleaded guilty of a similar offence in nearby Tulse Hill stole water worth £3.50. (Jailed)

It isn't all TVs and Nikes.

[Ludwig]

So someone breaks into your house, pillages it, occupies and builds a jolly fine railway system round the rose beds. When they leave you say that is a jolly good railway. Lets keep it for ourselves. We really did a lot of good stuff that was worth keeping all over the Empire but that doesn't mean we didn't do a lot of very bad stuff as well. The more sensible ex-colonies did not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

(What's this got to do with riots?)

I don't think it is fair to judge the behaviour of previous generations by the ethical/political standards of today. If the British had not taken over India, some other European imperial power would have, and they'd probably have done many of the same things.

Take an example of one of the worst crimes of the British Empire: the genocide of aboriginal Australians. When the British arrived in Australia, they discovered an ancient hunter-gather society which to their eyes looked completely and utterly backwards. They viewed the aboriginal Australians as sub-human, and treated them accordingly. They basically reasoned that these people were so wretched that they were better off dead. To our 21st century ears, this sounds like nothing less than Crimes Against Humanity - it's up there with the Nazi genocide of the Jews.

Try to put yourself in the shoes of those British invaders of Australia. Are you sure you wouldn't have done the exact same thing? Because I'm not sure I wouldn't have.

I'm sure I wouldn't have. That's regardless of whether I thought they were subhuman or not. I'm not being holier-than-thou, I just can't relate to the idea that cultural superiority means greater right to life. That's a visceral feeling, not something I parrot from cultural norms.

There were plenty of people in the 18th Century who were opposed to slavery, even though they undoubtedly regarded Africans as inferior. The argument that being "subhuman" means people don't deserve to live has been used since time immemorial as simply a justification for giving rein to the darker aspects of human nature, and is just a form of psychological denial.

The invaders of the New World knew that what they were doing was wrong, by their native societies' Christian standards, but they felt they could get away with it. A large proportion of people in the West today would do the same thing, if they thought they could get away with it. (Wasn't there a survery recently where over 1/4 of British men said they would rape a woman if they knew they wouldn't get caught?)

The settlers of the New World would, initially, have been among the most ruthless, amoral and violent members of their societies. That's the flip side of being "enterprising". In Australia, these tendencies would have been strong both in the "conquistadores" and the criminals who made up the first groups of settlers.

A lot of people today argue that global overpopulation and its attendant problems are the fault of the Third World. This is a modern twist on the attitude you portray: "It's their own fault, so they don't deserve to live." That's a very convenient perspective, but the developed world places many times more strain on the world's resources than all the poor put together (32 times more per person, according to Jared Diamond).

[biffvernon]

Pillagers do not build lovely railways.

Oh I don't know about that. The British were very clever fellows, multi-tasking, don't you know what. Building railways and a bit of pillaging on the side was all in a century's work.

[Mean Mr Mustard]

Pillagers do not build lovely railways.

Oh I don't know about that. The British were very clever fellows, multi-tasking, don't you know what. Building railways and a bit of pillaging on the side was all in a century's work.

How is one to remove the raw materal and move troops to where folks are getting uppity without jolly splendid railways built by coolies, and what's more, using trains sold by the occupying nation?