Utter rubbish. Which businesses have cut by 20% whilst increasing the service they provide?

If it's that simple then how about you detail where these cuts can be made which won't affect front-line policing?

Thats not what he's telling the press to date, Camerons first response was to make an appointment with the man who is recognised as having eased (not cured) the gang problems in LA and New York and in doing so he lets rip with a lot of rhetoric about getting tough, about being old enough to face the consequences etc etc - and the first thing that his advisor starts telling the press is that you can't arrest your way out of the gang culture and you have to work with those kids not against them.

Someone is not singing off the same hymn sheet and if Cameron truly is going to pay attention to this guy then he needs to ease off the tough talk and wait and see what he has to say, there are huge swathes of voters who are now looking for long prison sentences and council house evictions and when they don't happen they are going to be looking at David and wondering why he's stopped talking tough.




I don't keep score, I simply comment where I see fit, as someone who was raised under the influence of Wilson and Heath I view all politicians today as mere shadows of the men they used to be to the extent where I don't even care about which colour flag my own MP sails under as long as he proves that he works for me, which the current incumbent did.

I'm not a pyschologist, but I'll give you my 2 penceworth. The same question was posed by a reporter to one of the rioters/looters and the short answer was...."because we can!" There was a mob mentality and possibly for the first time in their lives they had a feeling of power. The initial slow response from the Authorities merely added to their ego's and sense of invulnerability.
Comment was made by those unfortunate people trapped inside their businesses, about the sheer maliciousness of the rioters as they mocked their fear prior to smashing their way in. The people who arrived later were simply opportunists who in many cases were arrested for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.



To me, UK social deprivation was back in the day 50/70 years ago, with people sleeping several to a bed.....outside toilets...poor diet....high infant mortality.....ricketts, consumption etc etc. I'd be interested to hear how a section of society which has had free education.....free health care.....free housing.....free benefits etc can be described as deprived.



Where is written in stone, that the world in which we live will keep you in the manner you would like to become accustomed to? No jobs in your home town? As Norman Tebbitt pointed out years ago, "get on yer bike!" Move to any Country in the World, and the chances are you will hear some of the accents from the UK. I've worked away from home since I was 17, as have thousands of others. Sitting whinging about life in the hometown whilst signing on was not an acceptable option.

Housing is expensive and I do have a lot of sympathy for any first time buyer, but again, it is not a given that a nice 4 bed detached is yours by right.
Respect is a much abused word. Much like racist nowadays. If you want me to have a positive view about you, then it will be because I can see something positive in you, not simply because you're a teenager.

Authority figures who rip off the system? And who here, if he was one of those bankers would refuse that million pound bonus? Bent Coppers? West Midlands Serious Crime Squad springs to mind. Dodgy Politicians? I don't think I really need to say anything. It's all part of life's rich tapestry, so you had better get used to it!

'"

Call Me Dave talked (amongst other things) of a society that offers reward for no effort.

I wonder if that extends to inherited wealth?

I assume Mr Cameron reserves the same disgust and contempt for those members of the Bullingdon Club who trash restaurants and pubs and commit anti-social behaviour?

People often tell you things without meaning to. Does "because we can" really mean "because it was possible"? Plenty of things are possible, so why, considering they had the entire realms of possibility to aim at, did their attitude manifest itself in that way at that time? Time and time what I heard was the actions, however poorly formulated or thought out, were, at least in part a snub to authority. A snub to an authority they thought didnt care for them. And when things like the EMA are being withdrawn to secure an older generations savings its hard to argue against that feeling (again this doesnt justify their actions)
You do realise we had an NHS 50 years ago dont you? And social housing? and abundant jobs, little debt, guaranteed pension provisions, affordable housing. The beginning to Willy Wonka wasnt a documentary on the social provision in Britain in 1961.

Why? Why should they? Why should they agree to be bound by the rules you are putting on them? Why should they get on their bike, move away from their families, friends, everything they know, with little training and little education so they can work in a fairly menial service industry, earn a fairly low wage so they can buy a vastly over priced home and then spend the next 50 years working to pay our pensions, pay off the debts our generation created, and live in a world of dwindling resources because we and the generation before us have wasted what we have. While we sit here calling them an 'underclass' 'chav scum'. I struggle to see what we are giving them as part of this deal.

Nor is it a given right that the savings you made throughout your life and invested should be protected by people who couldnt afford to do so. Nor is it a given right that your home should increase in value exponentially, nor is it a right that the stock market investment growth you make for your pension provision should be treated as a priority. In fact, id say making sure everybody has a decent, affordable home is a vastly greater priority than any of those things. Yet it isnt treated as such, and I can understand why those affected by it are angry.
Similarly, if you want a young person to have a positive view of you, your society, etc you need to make sure they see something positive in you, not simply expecting it because you are older, own a business, are an MP, a copper.


As is the rebellion of youth.
[iYes what they did was pure criminality, there was no protest in it, and yes it was greed, you dont make a point by stealing high-end electrical goods and trainers other than you like high-end electrical goods and trainers, [/i does this not express a negative enough view of it for you?

But it contributed a view of a society that takes from them, gives them nothing back and refuses them the opportunities to improve themselves. Whilst you cant draw a line between the way we treat and what we are taking from our young people and these examples, I think you can draw a line from a society which treats its young people in the way we do and the creation of a society where this would happen.

These people stole some shoes, our generation and the ones before us, have stolen their future. I know where my sympathy lies.
If you want to treat them like the dregs of society, im not surprised they dont give a if you are scared, if they take your stuff, if they ruin your safe little world. Im sure it is of no interest to them. After all, you treat them with such disrespect why should they respect you and your life or your property?

Still don't get it.

I was raised on a council estate by a single mother and didn't take the traditional university route.

There were choices I made, personal choices, that have led me to having all those things you claim are unattainable. Some were difficult choices. There were much easier choices I could have made that might have led me being the kind of individual smashing windows at the Sony Centre this week. It remains personal responsibility.

Presumably you had a modicum of intelligence though.

Do you know what happened to those kids in your class at school who had less drive and less intelligence than you, the ones who left school with few qualifications and no interest in an education system because that system had shown no interest in them ?

You are old enough for those lesser qualified to have taken a manual labouring job and worked their way up from there - its becoming less of a career option now, leave school with no qualifications and you are at a very serious disadvantage and unfortunately at that age and after being ignored by the system to date, those who are in that very vulnerable state are the least able to understand that.

I would have thought there are other less confrontational ways to express your dissatisfaction with Authority than burning down your local High St Smokey. You opine, that perhaps it was because "Nobody cared" I've personally no desire to hug a hoody, nor am I sure why I actually should!



Nice sidestep. Perhaps I should have said 60/80 years ago. Let us agree on the 1930's then. The flea ridden slum areas of many large UK cities with their high crime rates, poor sanitary conditions, overcrowding, unemployment were areas of social deprivation. Perhaps you could compare, in actual living standards how your misunderstood rioters compare today?



And there we have it Comrade Smokey. I believe in choices, and accepting the consequences of those choices. You believe in a left wing Nirvana where simply being born admits you to a lifetime on easy Street. Yes, some have that great good fortune, I would have made a great Prince Charles, sadly it wasn't to be.....



Youth has always questioned and rebelled. It is the nature of the beast, before reallity and maturity kick in. There is a world of difference between legitimate protest and outright vandalism, as most are aware.



As you said in your opening sentence,[i People often tell you things without meaning to.[/i You're original take was a rather flaccid "I'm not saying they were right, or something similar, whilst not condeming the rioters/looters and their actions.



No offence, but IMHO, that is simply a litany of Left wing Psychobabble theory that should be dismissed as tery of the highest order.



Good soundbite there in that first sentence. As always, the reality of the situation ranges from theft, rioting, arson, assault, rape and murder. A tad wider spectrum than you've admitted to Smokey.
And for what it's worth, I am not scared of them. If they appear in my street, then there will be consequences. Perhaps for both them and me, but I am prepared to face up to that, as I suspect are most normal fairly law abiding people.

That was me. I left school with 1 O'level. I took a job earning a few pence more than I could've earned on the dole. I put myself through night school.

Some of my contemporaries did take up trades etc and I accept the opportunities to do likewise today are lesser than they then were.

But, it remains about personal choice. I had no greater advantages than any others. Others chose to accept a similar amount in benefits and spend all day in the pub and or the bookies whilst i was a tea boy for a few pence more. They didn't make that choice because they were less intelligent than me or because they had less opportunities. They did so because it was easier and they weren't going to lower themselves making cups of tea and filing for a bit more than the dole. I'm sure there are many people making the same choices today for the same reasons. If those people feel any sense of entitlement they are misguided.

Possibly the most sensible thing I've ever read on this forum.

Life is all about personal choices. The environment we live in, economically or otherwise, will always be a contributory factor to the way different people perceive their choices, but they are choices all the same.

It's about time people took responsibility for their actions, or inactions, and faced the consequences, positive or negative, imposed by a fair, balanced and supportive society (which I appreciate we currently are not by the way).

One became a professional boxer who ended up being found floating face down in the River Aire.

Another went into business with Freddie Starr and ended up bankrupt and facing fraud charges IIRC.

Successful school, ours.

You don’t have to. You can treat them how you treat them now. But don’t be surprised if they continue to refuse to play by the rules you are setting. You complain that their approach is ‘confrontational’ yet your approach is just as confrontational.
And did we not have riots or civil disobedience in the 1930’s? Im not sure that arguing these kids have it better than paupers in the 1930’s is really going to influence anybody or convince young people it isn’t so bad. Especially when it comes from somebody who wasn’t a young adult suffering these hardships in the 1930’s.
I asked you a question. You have avoided it and simply tried to label me. That tells us a lot about the confidence you have in your I also believe in choices. I believe that people can choose to be involved in an unfair and unequal society where the lottery of birth has a huge bearing on your future, or they can choose not to. You don’t seem to like it when they have chosen not to. There is a world of difference between legitimate protest and outright vandalism. In fact I haven’t argued that what happened was a legitimate protest. I just argued that it was a consequence of the world we have created for young people. If you want to take a superficial overview and dismiss a large section of society as ‘bad’ and ‘underclass’ or ‘scum’ feel free. It is your right to do so. Just don’t be surprised when they don’t give a f’ck about your rules, your world and your property.
No, I copied it word for word
And again, your inability to formulate an argument and reliance on labelling other people says more about your argument than it does mine.
Murderers will be punished. They will be punished as murderers are whether they were rioters, jealous husbands. The person who murdered 6 people in Jersey yesterday, policemen or whoever. Im just not willing to label a whole swathe of people as murderers and rapists because of the actions of a tiny minority. You apparently are.

I think you'll find that i observed that there was less confrontional ways to register your protest.....nary a complaint in sight. Perhaps a bit less supposition on your part might help?



Actually, you were the one claiming "Social Deprivation" I simply gave you an example of real social deprivation and invited you to compare or do likewise. I'm still waiting for any evidence that stands comparison, or indeed validates your original claim. You want another more up to date one? Easterhouse in the 1960's in Glasgow. 50,000 houses....not one shop...no youth clubs....no pubs.



You asked why should they live by Society's rules. Simple. If you wish to be part of that Society and accept all that it entails, for good and for bad, then I think it's reasonable to expect an individual to perhaps make some sort of contribution to the greater good. Or not, if you can't really be d. What is not acceptable, is those who choose not to make an attempt at civilised behaviour should expect anything other than condemnation for their sporadic outbursts of crimenality. The fact that you express surprise that I take exception to the antics of rioters and looters, is in itself, surprising!



Oh, I think we are bang on the money with my label Comrade. Why so defensive? There used to be a fairly large swathe of the population that held those sort of political views. Most grew out of it, but I suppose some have never really got over the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Again, your assumptions diminish your argument, as does repeating ad nauseum "don't be surprised etc etc"

Trust me, I am not really surprised Smokey, except perhaps the involvement of this rlsocially deprived guyrl.Hardly the poor downtrodden stereotype so beloved of the Left, eh?

As I don't see any common ground as to how we respond to the events of the past few days, I think it's time to draw a line.

Shotguns don't clean themselves you know!