London's Burning

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Seems like everyone's pointing fingers and no one's really doing anything about it.

Long before any blame is cast, first the problem must be identified. So many are quick to cast blame; ignore the problem.

The problem: adolescents doing what adolescents do. A normal stage in cognitive development. Or what happens when an adolescent stops growing.

Skeptical adolescents react to this uncertainty by rejecting rationality. The take the attitude that if they cannot be certain bout what to do or whom to believe, then all opinions and positions are equally valid and they don't have to listen to any (or to anyone in particular). They lose respect for authority and have little patience for those who parade around as experts. Because they have lost faith in logic, these adolescents behave impulsively (without reasoning through situations), intuitively (doing what their emotions, rather than their logic, tells them to do), and indifferently (without attempting to choose a good course of action, "going with the flow"). They are apt to conform to others, letting the majority make their decisions for them, and they become rebellious or disengaged. ... Again, many people never outgrow this stage of reasoning.

Now, are these adolescents who stopped growing? Or just so many adolescents at that stage of development where crisis causes them to respond emotionally as an adolescent would do? If so, then what is the widespread crisis?

Long before casting blame, first reasons for that problem must be defined? Does England have so many adolescents with arrested development? Or just a smaller numbers that could so easily create a 'herd mentality'? Or why have so many lost faith in logic?

Yes, top management - the parents - are the source of 85% of these problems. If kids are not growing, a parent's job to address it or to seek help. But is that the reason for so much emotion?

Casting blame is junk science reasoning if a problem is not first defined. Provided is an example from researchers (the authors of The Adolescent) for how one might answer those questions. Casting blame without first identifying the problem is an example of illogical thought.

Shameful is anyone looking for answers in soundbytes. Soundbyte reasoning makes one no different than adolescents who have lost faith in logic while behaving impulsively, intuitively, and indifferently.

If parents are a primary reason for this problem, then what is it that parents have not addressed or encouraged?

[DanaC]

Here's a thought:

Riot and disorder have always been a part of the political expression of this country. From the highly organised protest marches that fly out of control, through the street level violence and anger at race motivated police brutality, to the mindless ransacking that springs from a less obviously political place.

What we're seeing here has been seen before. The big differences are that the people concerned are primarily very young. And they've been able to organise a response around looting, using social media. Instead of the atmosphere of a riot stretching across the people in the immediate vicinity, and then other places kicking off as news slowly spreads, this time the atmosphere of a riot was able to spread far from the immediate crowd, into a virtual space which these youngsters live in.

This is no different really to what happens from time to time in Britain, except that it was accelerated beyond anything we've previouisly experienced. What took a year and a half to play out in the 90s, as town centres and housing estates accross the land began to erupt in riots and disorder, with a new spate occurring every few weeks or months, and again in the mid 00's, with race riots in the northern towns, this time happened across three nights, everywhere, simultaneously.

I would not be at all surprised if many of the people involved are not particularly criminal or immoral in their day to day life. And whilst it is ill-articulated, I think somewhere behind their 'it's the rich people's fault' excuse for looting, a genuine political grievance is operating. They may not fully understand it themselves, and it in no way should be taken as a reason not to prosecute criminal behaviour, but it absolutely needs recognising and tackling.

This is not simply a moral decline in our youth. We've been singing that particular ditty for generations. Yea, even unto the middle ages. Nor is it the result of a state that helps people to stay out of work. Because, we've also been singing that ditty for generations, and again, yea even unto the middle ages. The debate now is about the 'Welfare State' and then it was about 'The Parish', 'The Poor Law, and 'The Poor Union'. Then as now, the indigent poor were seen as a feckless and irredeemable underclass. Provide them and their families with shoes and linnen for their clothes and why would they choose to work? Allow a subsistence of existence to be supported by the Parish, and vast swathes of feckless layabouts choose that rather than work. It teaches them to be lazy. It teaches them to be immoral. They are different from us. They can't raise their children properly. Their children are immoral. Poor children, whose parents are little more than beasts that walk.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Here's a thought: ... What we're seeing here has been seen before. ... This is no different really to what happens from time to time in Britain ... We've been singing that particular ditty for generations. ... we've also been singing that ditty for generations ...

Here's another thought:

Sheep get sheared.

[infinite monkey]

Good to hear from you Sundae. I think all are present and accounted for now!

[Aliantha]

To answer you in your own language tw, the parents have not addressed issues with cognitive development, possibly (probably) because they've never reached stage 4 themselves, and so are unable to reason properly to find a better answer than the one that's not working.

For example. I developed parent might look at the circumstances they live in and think to themselves, "Hmmm, this is not the ideal environment to raise my child in. Maybe I should think of a way to improve our lives a little by using the education system (or something like that)", where as a stage 3 might say, "Hmmm, this is not the ideal environment to raise my child in. Who's fault is it?"

[tw]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Maybe I should think of a way to improve our lives a little by using the education system (or something like that)", where as a stage 3 might say, "Hmmm, this is not the ideal environment to raise my child in. Who's fault is it?"

So we will fix a parent with arrested cognitive development by throwing them out on the street. By ignoring the problem. Or by blaming low incoming housing. At what point does that become logical?

On the other hand, a parent may not be cognitively retarded. It is just an excuse. The question answered only with speculation. Just another formula for failure. A major reason for social breakdown is so many conclusions without first learning facts. As if more laws, more punishment, and more UG will solve all problems.

Low incoming housing failed due to bad management. It required complex managers who were provided resources. Management that was provided support from their government supervisors. And who could therefore exercise control of that housing complex. Breakdown started when local management did not even have money to repair and repaint apartments as tenants moved out. Budgeting experts who did not see failure that year. Therefore knew further budget cuts were appropriate. Eventually each complex became overrun by squatters and gangs when complex management could not even replace failed refrigerators. Did not know who was living in each apartment. And did not dare evict squatters.

What causes failure of low incoming housing. A bean counter mentality that cost controls so aggressively that an apartment could not even be repainted.

So, how do we know parents have arrested cognitive development? Due to the same popular myths and reasoning that also proved Saddam's WMDs? Or do we just ignore the missing facts? Instead, convert assumptions into proof? Then react to those assumptions?

Asking a kid why he is rioting can only identify his state of mind and maybe his stage of cognitive development. I still do not see any posts that first identify the problem.

[Sundae]

I'm still very conflicted about the way I feel about this.
I've said before that I have a right-wing reactionary core beneath my liberal exterior, and shocks like this bring it out.
On the other hand I feel extremely concerned at the idea of people involved losing benefits and social housing, because how on earth are they going to survive?

I've heard points made to take people out of social housing - let them find housing in the private sector! They have proved they are no longer part of the community! Well, moving people on has never had great success. Look at the sink estates blamed for the "benefit culture" because none of them work and apparently you're seen as a mug by your neighbours if you do.

Moving them into the private sector just makes more money for private landlords, devalues other properties in the area and costs local authorities more.

Or again - don't turf them out, just stop their benefits.
WHAT? How will they pay for the all time record high utility bills?
How will they eat? As someone who has had their benefits screwed around with I can tell you it makes you feel desperate and outside of normal society, constantly borrowing and begging and asking for extensions and assistance. And I was living at home with my only dependent a cat!

I do see support and help as more important than punitive measures.
Let the courts deal with criminal complaints. Where people are found guilty, this is where the charges should be decided and applied. Nothing to do with housing and benefits.

I heard a man explaining the issues these youths were facing and yes, it did ring a bell. Children born to girls of 14, 15. Never had a father figure. Children brought up by children who did not have a work ethic, who did not have a sense of family, who had never learned respect for education. The boys get taller than their Mums at 13-14 and from there on have no reason to listen to them, respect them, pay attention to anything they say. Not a cause for rioting, but it works fairly well as an explanation of the mindset of these people and why they step outside what we see as society's basic rules.

But then on the other hand I heard a woman from Ghana on the radio. Woooo-eeee she was livid. She was like all the Ghanian and Nigerian women I met in South London. I came from a country with NO free education, NO free healthcare, where you had to FIGHT every day to work! Britiain gives out too much, it lets kids get away with this, there should be more laws, more police, more control! This doesn't happen in Ghana because your mother would slap you silly. You GO to school, you DO your homework or your Grandma will kill you etc etc.

I'm not blaming immigrants for the riots at all, but I do wonder if in some cases the children of immigrants are equally disenfranchised by the attitudes of their parents compared to the laissez faire attitudes of their schoolfriends' parents. It might be an additional point to consider, that alongside those with no guidance, there are some that are trying to escape theirs.

[DanaC]

What really pisses me off abot these evictions and benefit penalties, is this: many of the rioters are young, many are still children. So, they're saying that if such children have rioted then their families will be evicted from their social housing. Why? Because they've proved themselves unworthy of that social housing. Since they have acted in such a way, why should tax payers in these communities foot the bill for their housing?

Trouble is, that if there are children in the family (and in most of these cases it appears to be the case) then the local authority has a statutary duty to ensure the safety and security of those children and to assist any struggling families in building that safe and secure family environment. All kicking them out of council houses will do, is force a bunch of families into expensive private accomodation that will make it een harder for them to survive as a family, or simply onto the street or friend's floors.

The local authority will then have to deal with that situation as part of its 'corporate parent' responsibility, and the whole exercise will end up costing the counil, and therefore the council tax payers of that area several times more than the cost of allowing them to stay in their council/social rent house.

Whilst one part of the council authority is exercising its right to evict, a different part of the same council will be left to try and deal with the family in whatever context that ends up being. It is just a way of looking tough and decisive, that solves absolutely nothing, and exacerbates problems in families that are already probably struggling for internal cohesion against a range of negative pressures.

To me this just seems bizarre and retrograde. What makes more sense, as far as i can see, is yes to prosecute those caught in criminal acts. And also to censure the parents who allowed their children to become involved. But censure really is only part of the answer when dealing with families. Those who became involved need educating and working with, to help them become part of a community they apparently feel apart from. I have no problem with short prison sentencnes for the worst offenders, but most of these youngsters could be best dealt with by enforcing some kind of community service, possibly helping in the clean up and repair task in the areas where rioting occurred.

This knee-jerk response is ridiculous and actively works against resolving the core problems at play.

There are all sorts of reasons why I object to this stuff that are more political in nature. The fact that only one class of the multi-tiered rioting crowd can actually face this kind of penalty for instance, but there are also very real pragmatic concerns with this. Bearing in mind the potential ramifications of eviction and benefit sanctions, it is even more disturbing to consider the speed with which these people are being tried and sentenced. Courts running all night, solicitors pulling 14 hour shifts. speedy decisions are not necessarily the best decisions. And conveyor belt justice may not be robust.

[Undertoad]

In the US public housing goes to shit every single time, and we have given up on the idea. After a while it became obvious that putting people there was just about the worst thing you could do for them. We tear 'em down and don't rebuild anything, and people find somewhere to live.

And the neighborhood improves dramatically.

[DanaC]

Ours have always been a mixed bag. There are nice estates, and not so nice estates. Estates in areas where there' s lots of work, and easy access to services and where the atmosphere is not materially different to any private estate, and there are sink estates on the bitter edge of nowhere, with few transport links, fewer jobs and a pervading sense of violence and hopelessness. And inner-city collections of estates that live cheek by jowl with some of the wealthiest communities in the world.

And there are slighgtly downtrodden but scraping by estates where some of the families are in crisis and some of the kids are running amok, but most are just living a 'normal' life, with a job they quite like, and their kids doing well at the local school.

What made housing estates worse, in my opinion, was the change to social housing laws under the Thatcher government. Council tenants were given the right to buy their houses from the council, and encouraged to do so with easy to get mortgages, partial equity schemes, and the fact that they were valued at considerably less than a house which had started out private.

So lots of people bought their council houses and flats, and then eagle eyed developers started buying them up for a low price (which was still mad profit for the seller). Where the bought properties were flats, they usually ended up as developed executive apartments, walled and fenced with security gates and guards (I lived in one such at the edges of a Salford estate in the early 90s). Where they were houses, many ended up as private sector rentals competing with the council for tenants and often resulting in a transient and troubled populationg moving through the estates.

Councils were barred by law from investing the money from the sale of council houses back into the social housing stock. It sat, cordoned off and unable to be spent for years. So, housing stock began to shrink. At the same time, the constant message being put out in government and in the media, was that being a proper adult citizen effectively meant being a home owner. Renting a council house became highly stigmatised and working families who'd once been quite happy to rent a house in an estate, because it was the next best thing to buying in terms of security, were suddenly taking up any assistance scheme they could to get out of social housing and buy a house.

When I was a kid, one of the first things you did when you came of age was get your name on the council house waiting list. It was just a part of becoming an adult if you were from a working-class background. And by the far the majority of us were. Now, it comes with a bunch of baggage and most of it has been farmed out to the private sector, or to arms length not for profits.

It was a deliberate strategy to reduce social housing in this country and turn us into a nation of home owners.

[monster]

There are riots everywhere from time to time. All that's required is an excuse. Politics and social circumstances have bollock-all to do with it.

[DanaC]

What i really hate, is the way the government is leaping on this as an opportunity to bring in even more anti-civil liberties legislation and police powers.

The idea that at times of 'civil unrest' the state would have the power and right to close down access to social media is a frightening one.

I also don't like the precedent being set here for evicting whole families as a response to the actions of individual members of those families (wtf have the younger or older siblings of a rioter done to deserve eviction as a punishment?). And indeed the precedent of serving eviction notices to those guilty of riot and disorder is itself a dangerous one, even if only aimed at the individuals concerned. There's some talk of extending this to legally enforcable fines levied against homeowners and taken off the equity of their homes.

Setting aside the moral questions of whether or not it is just to punish entire families for the actions of individuals, what about the potential for abusing that precedent? The line between legitimate protest and public disorder is often a fine one, and most riots are more founded in legitimate protest than the recent spate (as has been pointed out by many). The weapon this potentially puts into the hands of the state against dissatisfied and angry sectors of the community is a large one.

[DanaC]

See, the problem with that argument is that it doesn't take account of the many, many times that governments have (and are currently doing again) taken on the mantra of anti-welfare state economists and tried to cut back the system in ways that cut support whilst actually costing more. We've had countless schemes and revamps to the system that have made it less effective at getting help to where help is needed and also more costly to administrate.

What we lose to people playing the benefit system is a drop in the ocean compared to what we lose to the wealthiest tax payers not paying the tax they're supposed to pay. What we recover from the malingerer who's made his back injury stretch three years beyond the actual effects of injury whilst working cash in hand on the side, is as nothing compared to what it cost to root him out.

Much of the worst waste in the NHS, to take an example, has been in the administration layer that had to be added to try and knit together the fragmented health services borne of attempts to bring in the private sector. The fucking scams that came in under the guise of the free market were unbelievable.

Now, I don't actually have an objection to the free market. I see it as basically quite a positive thing for the most part. There are a few areas of life I feel are better served by socialised solutions and healthcare is one of them. But, whatever your view on healthcare, socialised or privatised, what's abosolutely needed is a sense of cohesion and efficiency, and whether it's profits or targets that drive the process, the direction needs to be towards better care and treatment. What doesn't help that is trying to cobble together an unholy mess of private and public where the lines of division are not very clear and where all the money leaks into either governing the meeting points of the two, or through outright scamming of the system.

It wasn't the socialised medicine that cost so much the past twenty years it was the cackhanded attempts to mould it into something it's not.

The changes to benefits are another classic example of British politicians attempting to import US solutions to a British setting and just failing miserably, because what's actually needed are British solutions, tailored to a British setting and culture.

[Trilby]

Originally Posted by DanaC

See, the problem with that argument is that it doesn't take account of the many, many times that governments have (and are currently doing again) taken on the mantra of anti-welfare state economists and tried to cut back the system in ways that cut support whilst actually costing more. We've had countless schemes and revamps to the system that have made it less effective at getting help to where help is needed and also more costly to administrate.

What we lose to people playing the benefit system is a drop in the ocean compared to what we lose to the wealthiest tax payers not paying the tax they're supposed to pay. What we recover from the malingerer who's made his back injury stretch three years beyond the actual effects of injury whilst working cash in hand on the side, is as nothing compared to what it cost to root him out.

Much of the worst waste in the NHS, to take an example, has been in the administration layer that had to be added to try and knit together the fragmented health services borne of attempts to bring in the private sector. The fucking scams that came in under the guise of the free market were unbelievable.

Now, I don't actually have an objection to the free market. I see it as basically quite a positive thing for the most part. There are a few areas of life I feel are better served by socialised solutions and healthcare is one of them. But, whatever your view on healthcare, socialised or privatised, what's abosolutely needed is a sense of cohesion and efficiency, and whether it's profits or targets that drive the process, the direction needs to be towards better care and treatment. What doesn't help that is trying to cobble together an unholy mess of private and public where the lines of division are not very clear and where all the money leaks into either governing the meeting points of the two, or through outright scamming of the system.

It wasn't the socialised medicine that cost so much the past twenty years it was the cackhanded attempts to mould it into something it's not.

The changes to benefits are another classic example of British politicians attempting to import US solutions to a British setting and just failing miserably, because what's actually needed are British solutions, tailored to a British setting and culture.

Amen, sister. Amen.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

What we lose to people playing the benefit system is a drop in the ocean compared to what we lose to
the wealthiest tax payers not paying the tax they're supposed to pay.

care to elaborate on that part. Are there many tax cheats, loopholes or is the top rate not high enough in your opinion.