Agree with that report.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curlyben
|
Agree with that report.Quote:
Originally Posted by Curlyben
Yup... for almost a quarter century every President has been Ivy League .
It's less about the school they came from and more about the corporate control of your government.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Indeed. Regardless of any political debate on underlying tensions, there's just no excuse for the rioting. The fact that so many youths and even kids think this behavoiour is acceptable just makes me question whether some people should be allowed to breed...Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Hello again, Q:Quote:
Originally Posted by QLP
It's obvious that you're watching things progress from the comfort of your home WITH a full fridge.. If you WEREN'T in such a position, your empathy might lie elsewhere.
Now, I'd LIKE to say that the needs of the disadvantaged get addressed in the NORMAL course of events... But, they DON'T. In fact, they get CUT.
After the riots, they WILL be, though. If that's what it takes to get your problems addressed, then THAT'S what it takes. I WISH it were different, but WISHING doesn't make it so.
excon
So these 'disadvantaged' have Blackberry's and presumably access to computers to create their Facebook and twitter accounts?
Hello Exy.
If it weren't for the fact that the rioters were planning their next attacks on their blackberrys (price £100-£200) whilst I was trying to text my son to see if he was safe on my £15 brick of a mobile phone my empathies might lie elsewhere.
Should I go off and loot myself a decent phone then as my wages don't run to one?
Edit - beat me to the punchline there bear lol.
Hello again, albear:Quote:
Originally Posted by albear
Sure. I don't know about blackberry's, but smart phones, Facebook and twitter, you betcha. What?? Because they have a phone means they're not poor?? You need to get out more.
excon
A phone? Not at all, a Blackberry and the funds to run one, yea, I don't think they're as disadvantaged as your making them out to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, my friends across the pond:
I'm not saying that there aren't SOME who take advantage of situations and loot just for fun. I'm not even saying some of 'em don't have blackberry's..
What I AM saying, is that the young of your city have NOTHING to do. They used to have youth clubs in the inner city's they could go to, but because of budget considerations, they got shut down. The ones that stayed open tried to CHARGE the youth to enter...
Now, when you have unemployed youth, and you can KEEP THEM OCCUPIED doing stuff in a club, CLOSING the club, EVEN if you can't afford it, is like shooting yourself in the foot.
Now, I know some pinched nose politicians are going to say they HAD to do it. But, I don't think it was a good idea. You?
excon
Hello again, albear:Quote:
Originally Posted by albear
I have an Iphone. I have access to the internet, email, twitter and texting.. It's costs me $89 US per month. I think MOST people can afford that.
Blackberry's?? Hmpf... I'll bet one of those pinched nosed politicians put out that bit of nonsense.
excon
My Android phone cost $55 a month, and that includes the cell service and free apps such as Facebook and Twitter widgets.
Hello again,
Let me add this.. Rioting isn't good. Looting somebody's store ISN'T good. Burning stuff isn't good... Shooting unarmed fathers isn't good either.
The point I'm making is that these problems are SOCIETAL in nature, and NOT RACIAL. Yes, the inner cities are stocked with brown people. Ours too. But, I again say that it's a SOCIETAL problem, and NOT a racial one, as has been suggested.
excon
That's about £55 a month, you seem to be on quite the high price tarrif there, there's no way I could afford that. - even the $55 a month is too high for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
So if a lot of these youths don't have jobs and are dissadvantaged, how are they affording to pay for luxury items?
That would make for a great university research/survey project.Quote:
Originally Posted by albear
Hello again, albear:Quote:
Originally Posted by albear
Ok, let's say you're right. And, I do agree with you that they CAN'T afford cell phones...
Yet, they HAVE them.. So, either they're NOT disadvantaged, or they don't spend their money very well. Frankly, I'll vote for the latter.
But, in either case, so what? Are you saying that it's OK, if the truly disadvantaged riot, and they can be identified by their LACK of cell phones? Or are you saying that a wealthier class of youngsters is doing it for no reason at all except to have fun?
I'm not sure that one of those problems is any better than the other.
excon
I think that saying they are rioting because they are disadvantaged is incorrect, and yes based on reports I've heard and seen they seem to be doing it for fun, not out of boredom or having nothing to do, but it seems to me to be because of the thrill of doing something they know they shouldn't and apparently getting away with it (so far).
BBC News - London rioters: 'Showing the rich we do what we want'
I think there are a few clues around:
Family on £42,000 a year benefits because they are 'better off unemployed' - Telegraph
Average UK pay is around £20k, and that is average, not minimum.
Express.co.uk - Home of the Daily and Sunday Express | UK News :: You are better off on benefits
Just wanted to share the brighter side of things:
Eyewitness: Riots cleanup | World news | guardian.co.uk
When I first saw this on TV I was thinking the Brits finally came to their senses and overthrew the monarchy. Wrong.
Then I thought the Brits came to their senses and got rid of the puppet PM. Wrong.
When I found out it was allegedly due to a man or girl being killed. I scratched my head in wonderment wondering if the Brits have finally lost it altogether.
Being better off on benefits. Just who's bright idea is/was that baloney? Collect free money for just breathing every day will only led to revolt by the peasants.
I thought they rioted due to the extra immigrints coming into their country going directly onto benefits. Now THAT would be something to riot over.
The sleeping Americans need to riot over the recent Debt Crisis backlash. But they won't as they consume way too much fluoride dumbing them down. Also all the antidepressants are just fluoride in pill form. Wonder why everybody is so docile in the USA? Look at the over prescribed pills for the answer.
A school assistant and a school boy both charged.
London riots: school assistant and boy, 11, among defendants in court | UK news | The Guardian
Guess the school dinners are worse than I realised...
They should be thankful they get them. You could understand that an eleven year old would be stupid enough to get caught up in what was going on but adults with jobs, just straight out criminals. What did that kid think he was going to do with a garbage bin? Fill it with goodies?
I'm still trying to work out why rioters cleared out a pharmacy of its stock of immodium (that's a treatment for diahorrea)...
Rioting and looting gives you a bad belly. They're stealing Imodium now! | whataprick.tv
Probably because they couldn't read or because it was free and thought it might be some new kind of drug to get high with. The mind of looters really makes me wonder.Quote:
Originally Posted by QLP
It is simply wilding . They are doing it for the same reason a mob attacks people attending the Wisconsin State fair .It's the same reason cities are afraid to have sports champions .
It's the same reason joggers aren't safe here in Central Park.
Yeah it says a lot about cultural de-evolution. One can ask why in terrible hardship did we not see wilding and looting in Fukushima Daiichi .What ? They didn't want shoes from the Footlocker store ;or cell phones ,or Immodium ?
It sounds like some places need a good tsunami to clean them out once in a while. You want to know the difference. The Japanese are a disciplined hard working people and you might have noticed they don't have many "foriegners" in their midst. The UK has a situation which is explosive, even more so than other parts of Europe and this is because they have given citizenship to people who are not indigenous to the British Isles, people who have formed an underclass in a nation where class has been important. They say this isn't about race but about youth, however if you take a good look at which youth are unemployed you find some races over represented. It comes down to the UK having an immigration problem which has spawned a crime problemQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
This sums things up well: BBC News - The competing arguments used to explain the riots
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Your bigotry is only exceeded by your ignorance of history... May I remind you that YOUR family were FOREIGNERS once in a new country... Yes, your ancestors were brought to Australia in CHAINS, so it didn't spawn crime... It WAS the crime. So, when you view different countries immigration situation, you need to separate it from your own.
excon
Interesting details from some of the fast tracked cases : BBC News - England riots: Who are the rioters?
My sense of history is much keener than yours Ex and my ancestors were not brought to Australia in chains but came of their own free will. You don't like me pointing out that these people who are at the heart of these riots aren't the true British but recent immigrants, people who were for various reasons displaced from their own land. Right now we have an immigration situation which brings numbers of displaced people here from places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, people torn from their land and we find among them those who will behave in the same violent manner. Even when we accommodate them they will destroy the very home they have been givenQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Some have said these riots are the result of a society that has marginalised these people, failed to care for them, but they have a better life than many in other countries. This is why they stay and for them to rise up and destroy their surroundings means they don't belong, so whatever the British response, whether it be jail, stripping of entitlements, ejection from accommodation, fines even deportation they deserve it. We have a saying here that describes these people " out of country" and it means they have no roots.
Hello again, clete:
Oh, I know you BELIEVE your prejudice is warranted, but it's prejudice nonetheless.
excon
Prejudice? You don't know the meaning of the word Ex. I am against those who would destroy my way of life and impose their antiquated ideas upon me and I will stand with the British who similarly object to the destruction of their way of life. People like you only yell prejudice when you see the flow going against you. I doubt the British like their cities being turned into ghettos. You think that because I observe that the criminals who perpetrated these acts in the UK are largely from the black communities that I am prejudiced to say so. I also observed a video of a black woman calling on black people to stop the violence. There is no PC where I come from EX, we call a spade a spade. Was she also prejudiced? It is an observable fact throughout the world Ex that black people are overrepresented in prison populations, overrepresented in unemployment, overrepresented in violent outbursts, urban violence, criminal acts and it doesn't seem to matter what their race is, there is a mindset at work.
I have no doubt you think this fellow was prejudiced too!
http://www.news.com.au/world/london-...-1226111341895
Hello again, clete:
It only occurs to you that the over representation you note is because of their blackness... It DOESN'T occur to you that the over representation stems from the social injustices perpetrated against the people of color throughout the world.
Have you seen the starving black kids in Somalia? I guess they deserve their fate too.
The bigotry in your mind comes from your belief that a particular people are prone to criminal acts... That's because, from a Darwinian point of view, that viewpoint is totally incredulous... Oh, yeah. I forgot. You don't believe Darwin.
Hmmm.. I wonder if there's a correlation between the bigoted of the world, and a belief in Intelligent Design... What would you say?
excon
No Ex you don't get off as easily as that I'll take your arguments one by one. Who perpetrates social injustices against black people? Well we could start in the northern hemisphere in the "land of the free" and deal with the social injustices which have existed there for centuries but you have erased it by erasing references to black people. In your vocabarly they don't exist, so no injustice there, but they are still over represented in your prisons, could this be the result of social injustice or simple lawlessness? Oh wait, in your mind we are committing an injustice by recording that statistic.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Staving black kids in Somalia are the result of the social injustice of black people towards black people or perhaps we could say islamic injustice towards black people coupled with certain weather conditions endemic to that part of the world. I recall that that nation I referred to also interferred in that nation at one time, perhaps it is your responsibility to fix the problem?
You want to discuss intelligent design and Darwinism. Darwinism says survival of the fittest so we shouldn't be helping these people. Do you believe that Ex? It is part of your Darwinist belief, isn't it? Where as those of us who take the creationist view say we should help these people. Which of us is wrong Ex? But at the same time we observe many things. Is our observation wrong? I recall recently that scientific research, you believe scientific research don't you EX? decided that certain races were in fact less intelligent than others. How they could determine this I don't know but from their lofty perch up their own fundamental orafice they pontificated thus, whereas we creationists say all people are equal, we don't say they were all intended to live in the same place or that we must provide them with a living, that is strangely enough, a view common among Darwinists.
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
So, the social justices of CENTURY'S is wiped out because we erased references to black people in our vocabulary. Well then, making them slaves couldn't possibly piss them off...
Dude. You're smoking better stuff than I do.
excon
Well of course I am Ex and so are many others. As part of that we devised a plan, perhaps you are familiar with it? It is called the Intervention. In our euphoric state we decided that no longer would the black people in our midst suffer disadvantage, alcoholism or ignorance. Please note that we acknowledged that they exist and could be referred to as a separate people. In order to do so we suspended the Racial Discrimination Act that had served these people so well, allowing them to descend into conditions I wouldn't keep my dog in, if I had a dog, that is. What that meant is that we could actually put foot upon their lands, send their kids to school, stop them spending their welfare on booze and dope and stop them committing certain unmentionable acts upon the person of the junior members of their society. It was our intention to stop them dying so early so they could enjoy our benevolence and live in houses above the standard of a tin shed.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Has this been a success? I have to report that despite the expenditure of billions of dollars and the dilligent work of many well intentioned people it hasn't made one iota of difference. Was our mistake that we wrongly identified the target of our benevolence, No, it was plain who they might be. In good Darwinist style we had identified them by species, sub species etc right down to their unique habitat to which they were supremely adapted. No Ex we neglected to understand that these people had a pecular mindset totally foreign to our society, they actually believed in sharing and so it was natural that they would permit us to share with them, they saw nothing unusual in taking what was not theirs, taking handouts and siting in the dust waiting for the next meal
Hello again, clete:Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Intentions be damned. If your citizens believed, as you do, that people of color have a propensity for crime, then it wouldn't matter HOW much money you spent...
excon
Well Ex it's true that building prisons is a growth industry here too and so we keep spending our money on high standard accommodation, it beats building new houses in out of the way places. The next time you hear of riots in our fair land be careful to note who the participants are. What it means is we haven't yet locked up enough of the right people.
Now we build that accommodation for two types of law breakers, those who think we are are not serious in expecting you ask first before you come here, and those who think their particular ancestry allows them to do anything they like, sometimes it is difficult to distinguish between the two
The Brits have decided that having attitude towards the nanny state has a consequence, you riot, smash and grab and you don't get to live in a council house as the Brits call their public housing so they have taken to speaking softly and carrying a big stick. Get out on the streets and you will stay there along with mon and dad, now that seems fair and a lot of those kids will be introduced to the razor strop. It's about time there should be a consequence to smart arse
That sounds like a tough stance Clete, until you realise that if the people in question are on benefits they will move to private accommodation and get their rent paid anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Much fuss has been made about the recent cap on housing benefit (ie rent paid by state) of £400 a week - which is still substantially higher than average rental costs anyway. My son works in London where rents are highest, has a good position (fully qualified chartered tax advisor) with one of the country's top accountancy firms, and can afford less than half that in rent.
The cap was really only a reaction to the furore about benefit claimaints demanding, and getting, luxury housing anyway, such as this family being moved to a £2million home because they weren't happy with the 5 bed house they were given originally:
Somali asylum seeker family given £2m house... after complaining 5-bed London home was 'in poor area' | Mail Online
Most of us would need to win the lottery to live in a house like that.
So net result of chucking them out of their council house is that the problem family gets moved onto someone else's patch at a higher cost to the tax payer. Genius...
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:09 PM. |