245 réponses à ce sujet

[FlintlockJazz]

legion999 wrote...

stewie1974 wrote...

Ulous wrote...



As regrettable as any deaths are only five have been reported, one of which was potentially a looter killing another looter, three in one incident where by all intent and purposes the victims were par-taking in vigilantism, as brave as it was no amount of property is worth dieing for, and one death through pure mindless violence.

Around sixteen people injured, a low figure when compared to the amount of people involved and much less than the invisible injuries left on people from the banking crisis.

All things taken into account things could have been much worse

One 67 year old man beaten to death for stomping out a fire.
One 13 year old girl raped in a back alley next to a church.
Many civilian homes burned
Many Independent NON corperate bussinesses torched.
A disabled woman in a wheel chair pushed out of it and assulted.

That's not the overall toll of course, these are just the reported incidents.

The three people in birmingham were not partaking in vigilantee incidents, they were just standing out in front of their livihood and their non corperate target trying to protect their living. They were not engaging the rioters, they were making themselves a physical and visual pressence.

Any amount of "It could have been worse" is just frankly as good as saying it was all perfectly justifiable in order to launch a political debate....  "Yeah it's bad, but the banks are worse"... yes, I know the banks are raping your 13 year old daughters and killing your children....

Sure the banks are terrible, nobody is debating that, yes the banks need to be punished, agreed... but can we not say that ASWELL as condeming these hoodlems ? You know it is perfectly acceptable to condemn both as terrible.. with out whitewashing what actually happened.

This.

I second that.

[ragemaster]

its really england
http://www.bbc.co.uk...london-14450248

http://www.telegraph...h-violence.html

http://www.guardian....nd-uk-headlines

Scots are too busy whiskey-brewing, farming barley, making tartan and haggises, caber-tossing and clan-feuding in the highlands.

Welsh are too busy coal-mining, growing leeks, rugby-playing, choral singing, sheep-farming and burning down English people's houses

Because were too busy laughing at England?

Plus we're more civilized

http://forums.digita...d.php?t=1514878

my evidence

[chunkyman]

stewie1974 wrote...


I absolutely love the assertion that murderers and rapists are going to approach you from the front and give you time to draw your weapon ...

The "high noon" fallacy that bad men will meet you in the town center outside the saloon and say draw...

truth of the old west, many good and bad men were shot in the back....  Just to say, If I were a criminal living in an armed soceity, I'd use common sense and shoot potential victims in the back just to be safe.

Surely that's just common sense. Sure the criminal might be branded a "coward" but the victim would be branded "dead".... what condition is harder to live with.... oh .. it's dead isn't it?

Even if they do come from the front, chances are they have the weapon already drawn by the time you "make em"... so when presented with a gun to the face, do you then proceed to draw your weapon?, Well they'll shoot first.

All a gun ensures is gun crimes... and the usa has the highest incidents of it.

I'm thinking you've seen too many John Wayne movies, because no one on this thread ever advocated this "high noon" fallacy...


By your logic police don't need guns either, because the criminal will just shoot them in the back first. But that doesn't happen often, does it? Guns are a deterrent to criminals because the vast majority would rather run or surrender than risk getting killed in a shootout. 

Guns are a tool of defense, and banning them only effects law abiding citizens. How many criminals do you think go "Well, I was going to rob a liquor store, but the government says I'm not allowed a gun!". Gun "control" is more appropriately called victim disarmament, because the only people that follow gun laws are people that don't commit serious crimes to begin with.

I seriously don't understand how people are in favor of gun control, the evidence of why it backfires is so vast that being for it is like trying to argue for a flat earth. After the Port Arthur Massacre, Australia banned most guns. Guess what, gun crimes like armed robbery went up by 50%! It's way easier to rob people when you know they are defenseless. 

Cities like New York and Chicago also banned guns, in spite of the fact that crime rates were dropping. After the ban, gun crimes rose dramatically! Criminals look for the path of least resistance, and places where they don't have to worry about victims fighting back make perfect targets. 

Laws aren't magic, look how good gun free zones work. Most massive shootings in America happened at "gun free" zones. Fort Hood, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Luby's cafeteria, The Post Office shooters, The Texas State University massacre, Westroad's Mall, The Amish Schoolhouse massacre, Gabriel Gifford's and a dozen others recent shooting, and many others.

Now let's look at massacres at police stations, gun shows, firing ranges, gun stores, hunting lodges, gun clubs, and NRA meetings. Wait a minute, there hasn't been any! But guns equal gun crimes right? Those places should be death traps! 

The Founding Fathers recognized the importance of firearms, and dedicated an entire amendment guaranteeing that the people's right to bear arms cannot be infringed.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make it worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; They serve to encourage rather than prevent homicide, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man".

[Ulous]

stewie1974 wrote...



One 67 year old man beaten to death for stomping out a fire.
One 13 year old girl raped in a back alley next to a church.
Many civilian homes burned
Many Independent NON corperate bussinesses torched.
A disabled woman in a wheel chair pushed out of it and assulted.

That's not the overall toll of course, these are just the reported incidents.

The three people in birmingham were not partaking in vigilantee incidents, they were just standing out in front of their livihood and their non corperate target trying to protect their living. They were not engaging the rioters, they were making themselves a physical and visual pressence.

Any amount of "It could have been worse" is just frankly as good as saying it was all perfectly justifiable in order to launch a political debate....  "Yeah it's bad, but the banks are worse"... yes, I know the banks are raping your 13 year old daughters and killing your children....

Sure the banks are terrible, nobody is debating that, yes the banks need to be punished, agreed... but can we not say that ASWELL as condeming these hoodlems ? You know it is perfectly acceptable to condemn both as terrible.. with out whitewashing what actually happened.

Of course for the best part you are right, but my response was more to say it could be worse with regards to policing, in that I don't believe increased Police brutality would have made things less severe. (with regard to Bill Brattons appointment)

And no Bankers do not rape our children, but don't use that to play down the damage they have done to people in this country and around the world. They have ruined peoples lives with many people even commiting suicide from the sheer amount of pressure they were under from the banks, and to top it off the very people who suffered most are the ones picking up the tab.

And you say the banks should be punished? Yes they should, but have they? No they have not, infact they have been rewarded for it, and that is what really stinks here. The rioters that were caught will be punished regardless of if that punishment is severe enough or not.

Modifié par Ulous, 15 août 2011 - 06:52 .

[FlintlockJazz]

chunkyman wrote...

By your logic police don't need guns either, because the criminal will just shoot them in the back first. But that doesn't happen often, does it? Guns are a deterrent to criminals because the vast majority would rather run or surrender than risk getting killed in a shootout. 

The standard police officer in the UK don't use guns.  Only very specialised and rarely used units have access to guns.  So no, in the UK the police usually don't need guns...

I don't claim that gun control will work in the US, all I know is that it works here and I don't want them.  You like them?  Good for you, glad you live in a country that lets you have them but don't think that every other country in the world wants or even needs them, because we don't.

[Funkcase]

Druss99 wrote...

Weren't there riots in Wales too? There was a bit of unconnected rioting and petrol bombing here over the weekend. So should it be called "The everywhere but Scotland riots"?

Yes there was, I know there was some in Cardiff, and some here in Newport. Only mild compared to England though, the police stopped the trouble makers here very quickly, thankfully.

[Funkcase]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

chunkyman wrote...

By your logic police don't need guns either, because the criminal will just shoot them in the back first. But that doesn't happen often, does it? Guns are a deterrent to criminals because the vast majority would rather run or surrender than risk getting killed in a shootout. 

The standard police officer in the UK don't use guns.  Only very specialised and rarely used units have access to guns.  So no, in the UK the police usually don't need guns...

I don't claim that gun control will work in the US, all I know is that it works here and I don't want them.  You like them?  Good for you, glad you live in a country that lets you have them but don't think that every other country in the world wants or even needs them, because we don't.

This. There is a reason why gun crime is low in the UK, although knife crime is very high.

[FlintlockJazz]

Ulous wrote...

stewie1974 wrote...



One 67 year old man beaten to death for stomping out a fire.
One 13 year old girl raped in a back alley next to a church.
Many civilian homes burned
Many Independent NON corperate bussinesses torched.
A disabled woman in a wheel chair pushed out of it and assulted.

That's not the overall toll of course, these are just the reported incidents.

The three people in birmingham were not partaking in vigilantee incidents, they were just standing out in front of their livihood and their non corperate target trying to protect their living. They were not engaging the rioters, they were making themselves a physical and visual pressence.

Any amount of "It could have been worse" is just frankly as good as saying it was all perfectly justifiable in order to launch a political debate....  "Yeah it's bad, but the banks are worse"... yes, I know the banks are raping your 13 year old daughters and killing your children....

Sure the banks are terrible, nobody is debating that, yes the banks need to be punished, agreed... but can we not say that ASWELL as condeming these hoodlems ? You know it is perfectly acceptable to condemn both as terrible.. with out whitewashing what actually happened.

Of course for the best part you are right, but my response was more to say it could be worse with regards to policing, in that I don't believe increased Police brutality would have made things less severe. (with regard to Bill Brattons appointment)

And no Bankers do not rape our children, but don't use that to play down the damage they have done to people in this country and around the world. They have ruined peoples lives with many people even commiting suicide from the sheer amount of pressure they were under from the banks, and to top it off the very people who suffered most are the ones picking up the tab.

And you say the banks should be punished? Yes they should, but have they? No they have not, infact they have been rewarded for it, and that is what really stinks here. The rioters that were caugth will be punished regardless of if that punishment is severe enough or not.

And so because the bankers get away with it that makes it unfair that the rioters don't?  It's a good thing they are being made to pay for their actions and the point Stewie was making was that you should not use the bankers getting away with it to justify the actions of these scum.  In both situations it is everyone else who is being made to suffer for the benefit of these self-centred bastards. 

Don't like how the bankers get away with it?  Then fight to get them to answer for their crimes, but not at the expense of downplaying what these rioters have done, because they are the same scum, the only difference being one wears a suit and one wears a hoodie (yes stereotyping I know I was going for dramatic license).

[chunkyman]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

chunkyman wrote...

By your logic police don't need guns either, because the criminal will just shoot them in the back first. But that doesn't happen often, does it? Guns are a deterrent to criminals because the vast majority would rather run or surrender than risk getting killed in a shootout. 

The standard police officer in the UK don't use guns.  Only very specialised and rarely used units have access to guns.  So no, in the UK the police usually don't need guns...

I don't claim that gun control will work in the US, all I know is that it works here and I don't want them.  You like them?  Good for you, glad you live in a country that lets you have them but don't think that every other country in the world wants or even needs them, because we don't.

Hasn't crime been rising in the UK for the last  few decades, despite more and more gun laws? I'm not sure I would consider the UK a success, because it has more crimes per capita than the US...

[stewie1974]

chunkyman wrote...

stewie1974 wrote...


I absolutely love the assertion that murderers and rapists are going to approach you from the front and give you time to draw your weapon ...

The "high noon" fallacy that bad men will meet you in the town center outside the saloon and say draw...

truth of the old west, many good and bad men were shot in the back....  Just to say, If I were a criminal living in an armed soceity, I'd use common sense and shoot potential victims in the back just to be safe.

Surely that's just common sense. Sure the criminal might be branded a "coward" but the victim would be branded "dead".... what condition is harder to live with.... oh .. it's dead isn't it?

Even if they do come from the front, chances are they have the weapon already drawn by the time you "make em"... so when presented with a gun to the face, do you then proceed to draw your weapon?, Well they'll shoot first.

All a gun ensures is gun crimes... and the usa has the highest incidents of it.

I'm thinking you've seen too many John Wayne movies, because no one on this thread ever advocated this "high noon" fallacy...


By your logic police don't need guns either, because the criminal will just shoot them in the back first. But that doesn't happen often, does it? Guns are a deterrent to criminals because the vast majority would rather run or surrender than risk getting killed in a shootout. 

Guns are a tool of defense, and banning them only effects law abiding citizens. How many criminals do you think go "Well, I was going to rob a liquor store, but the government says I'm not allowed a gun!". Gun "control" is more appropriately called victim disarmament, because the only people that follow gun laws are people that don't commit serious crimes to begin with.

I seriously don't understand how people are in favor of gun control, the evidence of why it backfires is so vast that being for it is like trying to argue for a flat earth. After the Port Arthur Massacre, Australia banned most guns. Guess what, gun crimes like armed robbery went up by 50%! It's way easier to rob people when you know they are defenseless. 

Cities like New York and Chicago also banned guns, in spite of the fact that crime rates were dropping. After the ban, gun crimes rose dramatically! Criminals look for the path of least resistance, and places where they don't have to worry about victims fighting back make perfect targets. 

Laws aren't magic, look how good gun free zones work. Most massive shootings in America happened at "gun free" zones. Fort Hood, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Luby's cafeteria, The Post Office shooters, The Texas State University massacre, Westroad's Mall, The Amish Schoolhouse massacre, Gabriel Gifford's and a dozen others recent shooting, and many others.

Now let's look at massacres at police stations, gun shows, firing ranges, gun stores, hunting lodges, gun clubs, and NRA meetings. Wait a minute, there hasn't been any! But guns equal gun crimes right? Those places should be death traps! 

The Founding Fathers recognized the importance of firearms, and dedicated an entire amendment guaranteeing that the people's right to bear arms cannot be infringed.

As Thomas Jefferson said, "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make it worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; They serve to encourage rather than prevent homicide, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man".

Oh yeah, well should perhaps look at countries like somelia where guns are rapidly available to civilians, and you know what, they also have a free market. Such a success story you won't usually hear from advocates of either system.

If you think guns are a deterrent for crime you've obviously also a firm believer that the death penality is a deterrent to crime too... as that same logic of "Hey who wants the risk of being shot" is exactly the same as "Hey who wants to risk being caught and executed".... Deterrents to crime simply do not prevent crime. A criminal will assult you wether you are armed or not....

The cases you mentioned of gun clubs and firing ranges, well that's just a risk assessment... so you might arm all civilians of age, fine , eventually the criminals will go for the old and infirm, or the young preschooler... there's always going to be a softer target in gun utopia.

If only people spent as much on investigating the causes of crime, rather than looking at is as part and parcel of living in a civilized world....... <-spot the irony

Modifié par stewie1974, 15 août 2011 - 07:19 .

[Ulous]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

Don't like how the bankers get away with it?  Then fight to get them to answer for their crimes, but not at the expense of downplaying what these rioters have done, because they are the same scum, the only difference being one wears a suit and one wears a hoodie (yes stereotyping I know I was going for dramatic license).

And you don't think by letting the bankers get away with it that it didn't set some kind of precedent? Not even slightly? That it is okay to destroy people lives and cause hundreds of billions of pounds worth of damage and get away scot free?

[Ulous]

chunkyman wrote...



Hasn't crime been rising in the UK for the last  few decades, despite more and more gun laws? I'm not sure I would consider the UK a success, because it has more crimes per capita than the US...

Can't be sure but i'll have to take your word for this, what i do know is that murder in the USA is much higher per capita, which possibly invalidates your point.

[stewie1974]

Ulous wrote...

chunkyman wrote...



Hasn't crime been rising in the UK for the last  few decades, despite more and more gun laws? I'm not sure I would consider the UK a success, because it has more crimes per capita than the US...

Can't be sure but i'll have to take your word for this, what i do know is that murder in the USA is much higher per capita, which possibly invalidates your point.

We possibly have the lowest rate of gun related accidents involving children and friendly fire incidents ((you know when a bystander gets caught by a stray bullet)) Swings and round abouts..... If only the "Predator" from the movies was real....

but take a look at japan.... tight gun control laws, next to zero crime. Hmmmm

Disclaimer... NEXT to zero does not EQUAL zero, of course there is SOME crime.... but really any Japanesse person can proudly claim superiority on their low crime rates.

Of course, Japan is a police state ..... so swings and round abouts.... but hey, it seems to work.

Modifié par stewie1974, 15 août 2011 - 07:35 .

[chunkyman]

Ulous wrote...

chunkyman wrote...



Hasn't crime been rising in the UK for the last  few decades, despite more and more gun laws? I'm not sure I would consider the UK a success, because it has more crimes per capita than the US...

Can't be sure but i'll have to take your word for this, what i do know is that murder in the USA is much higher per capita, which possibly invalidates your point.

The US murder rate is higher, but the total crime rate is actually lower than the UK. The US has 80 crimes / 1000 people, and the UK is about 85 crimes / 1000 people. Also, crime rates over time have dropped in the US, but have went up in the UK.

[Ulous]

chunkyman wrote...


The US murder rate is higher, but the total crime rate is actually lower than the UK. The US has 80 crimes / 1000 people, and the UK is about 85 crimes / 1000 people. Also, crime rates over time have dropped in the US, but have went up in the UK.

Yes but how can you link just crime to gun laws? If murder happens more in a country where people use guns for protection then surely that is telling us something?

Modifié par Ulous, 15 août 2011 - 07:37 .

[FlintlockJazz]

chunkyman wrote...

Ulous wrote...

chunkyman wrote...



Hasn't crime been rising in the UK for the last  few decades, despite more and more gun laws? I'm not sure I would consider the UK a success, because it has more crimes per capita than the US...

Can't be sure but i'll have to take your word for this, what i do know is that murder in the USA is much higher per capita, which possibly invalidates your point.

The US murder rate is higher, but the total crime rate is actually lower than the UK. The US has 80 crimes / 1000 people, and the UK is about 85 crimes / 1000 people. Also, crime rates over time have dropped in the US, but have went up in the UK.

You are making the assumption that the two are connected, from your own statement the UK had lower crime rate and the US had a higher crime rate since you're claiming that the rates are increasing here and decreasing in the US, yet neither one made significant changes in their gun control laws to warrant such behaviour.  Also, what period of time are you considering and why?  At one point crime was decreasing in the UK and raising in the US, and I'm sure they will again, swings and roundabouts.

You have to come up with correlation in order to make claims of cause and effect.  If you saw that a man dying of cancer ate a lot of carrots would you make the assumption that the carrots is what caused the cancer?  No, you use the scientific method to find a link before making that claim, same here.  Show me where they are linked and I will consider it.  Until then, I have to question why it bothers you so much that we have gun control when it doesn't affect you one bit, I always considered the differences across the world to be a blessing...

Modifié par FlintlockJazz, 15 août 2011 - 07:46 .

[stewie1974]

Gun's make it easier to kill people. You don't need to get close, you don't need to be brave, you are not even directly attached to your victim as you are with melee style weapons.. You certaintly don't have to get close enough to see your victims eyes.

It's a great tool for -remote- killing and distancing yourself from the humanity of a person, a person becomes an abstract shape which while animated isn't really alive...

[Ulous]

stewie1974 wrote...

while animated isn't really alive...

Sounds like someone I work with

[chunkyman]

FlintlockJazz wrote...

chunkyman wrote...

Ulous wrote...

chunkyman wrote...



Hasn't crime been rising in the UK for the last  few decades, despite more and more gun laws? I'm not sure I would consider the UK a success, because it has more crimes per capita than the US...

Can't be sure but i'll have to take your word for this, what i do know is that murder in the USA is much higher per capita, which possibly invalidates your point.

The US murder rate is higher, but the total crime rate is actually lower than the UK. The US has 80 crimes / 1000 people, and the UK is about 85 crimes / 1000 people. Also, crime rates over time have dropped in the US, but have went up in the UK.

You are making the assumption that the two are connected, from your own statement the UK had lower crime rate and the US had a higher crime rate since you're claiming that the rates are increasing here and decreasing in the US, yet neither one made significant changes in their gun control laws to warrant such behaviour.  Also, what period of time are you considering and why?  At one point crime was decreasing in the UK and raising in the US, and I'm sure they will again, swings and roundabouts.

You have to come up with correlation in order to make claims of cause and effect.  If you saw that a man dying of cancer ate a lot of carrots would you make the assumption that the carrots is what caused the cancer?  No, you use the scientific method to find a link before making that claim, same here.  Show me where they are linked and I will consider it.  Until then, I have to question why it bothers you so much that we have gun control when it doesn't affect you one bit, I always considered the differences across the world to be a blessing...

My original comment about crime statistics was a refutation of your comment where you said "I know it works here". My whole point was to show that you were making a totally unsupported assertion that gun control worked. I'm wasn't trying to pin the rising crime rates squarely on gun control, I was giving one piece of data that could conflict with your notion that gun control was working. You are claiming I'm ignorant for making unsupported causations for crime, yet you made the baseless assumption that "it works here". A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[FlintlockJazz]

chunkyman wrote...

My original comment about crime statistics was a refutation of your comment where you said "I know it works here". My whole point was to show that you were making a totally unsupported assertion that gun control worked. I'm wasn't trying to pin the rising crime rates squarely on gun control, I was giving one piece of data that could conflict with your notion that gun control was working. You are claiming I'm ignorant for making unsupported causations for crime, yet you made the baseless assumption that "it works here". A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Yeah right, sure it was.  'It works here' is based on the fact that our society works fine without guns, and that we have never felt the need for them, just as your society works fine with guns, yet you seem unable to accept the fact that some people don't want what you are preaching, why?  Is it some sort of buyer's remorse, wherein the value of your beliefs is only relevant if others come to agree with you and that it has to be true for all? 

You tried to claim that my comment was as baseless as yours, yet I put forward my evidence for why I believe it to be the case (that our police have been able to maintain peace without resorting to guns, which they have been able to do, the riots being the exception examples of which I can find in American history as well) whereas your evidence did not show any correlation between itself and the argument at hand.

[ragemaster]

im the hero they want
http://t2.gstatic.co...PUztSGBIlfUz5aw

[Ulous]

Here is an interesting extract I read from an article recently if you care to take the time to read it, I don't agree with all of it but it is definitely thought inducing.

Great Britain has been racked by riots. At least five civilians have been killed, scores of police officers injured, and local jails are packed beyond capacity. An early estimate guesstimates that the riots have already caused over $325 million in property damage. The final cost will be higher.
Initially, the riot seemed to result from racial tensions between blacks and English police. But as the riots continued, photographs revealed that the young rioters were almost as often white as black. More, the riots weren’t confined to one neighborhood but instead exploded in a dozen or more locations across England.
These riots’ racial and geographical diversities indicate the presence of a systemic problem in Great Britain. The people and politicians of Great Britain are lefts shaken, bewildered and wondering… What has gone wrong with our society?
I contend that the government of England has lost its “moral authority” and riots are the result.

• According to the New York Times (“London Sees Twin Perils Converging to Fuel Riot”),

“Frustration in this impoverished neighborhood . . . has mounted as the government’s austerity budget has forced deep cuts in social services. At the same time, a widely-held disdain for law enforcement here, where a large Afro-Caribbean population has felt singled out by the police for abuse, has only intensified through the drumbeat of scandal that has racked Scotland Yard . . . .
“The [riots] began as a small and peaceful march . . . to protest the killing of a local man, Mark Duggan, in a shooting by police officers last week. The police officers involved in the shooting have been quoted in newspapers as saying that they had come under fire, which slightly wounded one of the officers, before they began to shoot.”

But subsequent investigations indicate that Mr. Duggan—a reputed gangster, crack and illegal gun dealer—was carrying a firearm when he died, but did not shoot at police. Thus, the original demonstration was inspired by the belief that Duggan had been murdered by the police.
Duggan’s death precipitated riots in England much the same as the self-immolation of Tunisian street vendor triggered the recent “Arab Spring” that toppled at least two governments and threatened several more. Just as the suicide of a single Tunisian peddler can’t topple several governments unless there are enormous underlying, systemic problems in the Middle East, the death of one English crack dealer shouldn’t ignite nation-wide riots unless there was already big trouble, systemic trouble, in England.
But what is the nature of that trouble?
The English newspaper Guardian reported that the context behind the London Riots was completely ignored—unbridled corruption and police brutality which the corporate media refuses to report. “Since 1998 there have been 333 deaths in police custody and not one single conviction, . . . the police are not on our side and there’s a movement to remove the media barons and federal elite from power.” Result? Anarchy spreading across England.

• In fact, England has installed the world’s most extensive network of surveillance cameras. Big Brother is increasingly watching England. The English people’s right to own firearms has been gutted. Draconian laws are routinely passed. England has become one of the world’s foremost police states. Until the recent riots, the “authority” of the police seemed indisputable.
Are the riots evidence of the growing conflict between the police state and the English people? Are the riots based on a conflict over power—or, does the cause go deeper to questions of authority?
We can wonder which “side” (rioters, police, bankers, politicians) is telling the truth about the riots and which side is lying. But clearly, there are at least two “sides” in this conflict and the breadth, diversity and passion of these sides indicates that Great Britain is a fragmented society. “England isn’t England, any more.” For some strange reason, the “bobby” who once policed England with nothing but a badge and night stick was more effective at maintaining order than the current generation of “coppers” covered in Kevlar and packing automatic weapons. Today’s police have more power—but less authority.
Why?

•The New York Times wrote, “It was unclear where things went wrong on Saturday night.”
I’d say the question of “where” things went wrong at the August 6th demonstration is almost irrelevant. The “when” and “why” behind these riots go back years, even decades, earlier. I’d say the “when” was the time the British government decided to embrace the objectives of globalism and a multi-racial and multi-cultural society—contrary to the desires and best-interests of the indigenous English people. The government of England brought racial, cultural and economic division to England. That division is manifesting in the riots. As government betrayed its duty to serve the English people and chose instead to serve the New World Order, that government began to lose its moral authority. This loss has taken a generation or more to manifest, but it will not be easily restored. Once moral authority is lost, it is extremely difficult to regain.

• The average person might not consider a government’s “moral authority” to be significant. Who cares about “moral authority” so long as the coppers have automatic weapons (power) and the people don’t?
But I see the loss of moral authority as crucial—and central to a report by the U.K.’s Mail Online (“We don't do water cannon, we rely on consent”):

“As officers lost control of the streets locals were forced to take the law into their own hands, arming themselves with sticks and chasing looters away from their properties. As police were slammed for appearing to let looters run riot, Home Secretary Theresa May explained, ''We need robust policing but we also need to ensure that justice is done through the courts. The way we police in Britain is not through use of water cannon. The way we police in Britain is through consent of communities.’”

Home Secretary May is correct—or, more properly, she was correct in that England formerly “policed” though the “consent” of the people.
In fact, all stable governments are absolutely dependent on the consent of their people to enforce the laws. There aren’t enough police to force everyone to drive at the speed limit. People obey the speed limits primarily as a consensual act. There aren’t enough tax agents to force people to pay income taxes. People pay taxes in direct proportion to their willingness to consent to the powers of government. The government must depend on the people’s consent because government can’t be big enough to compel everyone’s obedience. That consent always depends on the public’s belief in their government’s moral authority. No one “consents” to the edicts of an immoral government.
The reason for this dependence on moral authority is that government is a non-productive consumer (some might say “parasite”) that can only survive by predating off the productive elements of society. So long as government is relatively small and dedicated to serving the people, the predominant majority of productive people can “consent” to provide economic support for government. As government grows, there are relatively fewer private producers to support for government consumers. Unable to support both themselves and the government, producers withdraw their consent to support government.
Government typically responds with overt force to extort support from the remaining producers. The people, realizing that government is not there to serve the people but rather to exploit them, withdraw their consent.
Once government is perceived to be an exploiter rather than a servant, government loses its moral authority. Without moral authority, there is no consent. Without the public’s consent, the nation becomes lawless.
Ohh, the people will obey the police—so long as there’s a policeman close at hand to threaten them. But there’s no way to produce one copper to monitor and control each producer. Instead, the police can only impact a relatively few individuals while the majority go free to routinely ignore or even defy the existing police state “laws”.
Without moral authority, there is no “consent”. Without public consent, a government may become violent, but is increasingly ineffective, counter-productive and destructive of the nation.
• By working contrary to the best interests of the English people, the government of England has lost its moral authority. The result has been riots which the police (without moral authority) lack sufficient power (guns, jails, etc.) to control.
The “bobby” of old didn’t carry a gun, but he carried moral authority and the people consented to obey him. Today’s copper tries to substitute Kevlar body armor and automatic weapons for moral authority, but their power is insufficient to inspire the public’s consent. Without the public’s consent, the nation spirals downward towards fragmentation, chaos and even collapse.
More, a decline in a government’s “moral authority” will have a negative impact on all things which rely on the public’s confidence in government. Fiat currencies, government bonds and “free” markets come to mind. Who will really have “confidence” in such institutions insofar as a national government is riddled with corruption, determined to exploit and control, rather than serve, its people?

[Chuvvy]

A friend of mine is about twenty minutes outside of Manchester, some people tried to start stuff in his town, apparently the police put the smack down on them.

[GodWood]

stewie1974 wrote...
Of course, Japan is a police state

No it isn't

[Han Shot First]

We possibly have the lowest rate of gun related accidents involving children and friendly fire incidents ((you know when a bystander gets caught by a stray bullet)) Swings and round abouts..... If only the "Predator" from the movies was real....

but take a look at japan.... tight gun control laws, next to zero crime. Hmmmm

Japan's low crime rate has nothing to gun control and everything to do with Japanese culture.

Japan also isn't a police state. Obviously you've never been there.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 16 août 2011 - 07:56 .