London riots / UK riots: verified areas • Hacker News Board

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#111

Post by Tichy » Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 5:58 AM UTC

techiferous wrote: post #71

bokonist wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Forty years ago Harvard Professor Edward Banfield wrote a chapter in his book about the riots of the 1960's. From what I can tell, almost everything he wrote applies to these current riots in London. The primary reason that people riot is that rioting is fun. It gives an immense surge of adrenaline and other hormones, it gives the thrill of chaos and action, of the power of mindless destruction. In order for a riot t…

the thrill of chaos and action, of the power of mindless destruction. I find that really hard to relate to, although I do see this in some people. I wonder if these people have ever had the thrill of creation--birthing something beautiful and unique into the world? That's quite a rush, too. Are riots ultimately a symptom of a failure to educate, to guide, to nurture?

I suppose if you lived in London, you could try it out for yourself.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#112

Post by baguasquirrel » Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 6:06 AM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #78

temphn wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental problem is that the police are not free to use the force necessary to put down the riot. If rioters knew they would be shot on sight, they would stop rioting. As it is, police are afraid to crack down for fear that they'll be brought up on charges of "police brutality". Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms. EDIT: Amazed that someone downvoted this…

Don't bet on it. The group dynamic (deindividuation[1]) behind rioting is exactly the same as the group dynamic used to build armies that are willing to risk their lives on orders. Introducing military on the streets like was done in Northern Ireland[2] is a recipe for decades of pain and division. The military are not police; you don't want that. [1] http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/02/10/deindividuation/ http://en.…

Whatever dude. Just ask anyone who grew up in anything resembling a ghetto. There's lots of us who begin to think that shooting rioters on sight is not a bad idea. Where do you think Boondock Saints came from? Honestly, at some point, you just get sick of the shit and you want it to stop, and solutions like the military become appealing.

And therein lies the problem. We know it's inhumane. We know it degrades us further to succumb to that shoot-the-fuckers mentality. It is understood then, that for riots like this to happen at all, we've already lost. That there are scarcely any viable solutions merely brings to surface the existing societal decay.

The point then, is not that you are right and he is wrong or vice versa. The point is that ultimately, the military is brought in for riots of LA-scale intensity because the people want them to be brought in, because in a lose-lose situation, you'd prefer the choice that affords peace.

p.s. It is interesting then, that folks like Jefferson were against standing armies because they were only necessary for oppressing the populace.

p.p.s. Looks like people can't handle the notion that society can slide into nihilism. =P

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#113

Post by rickmb » Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 6:48 AM UTC

temphn wrote: post #61

SandB0x wrote: post #14

I'm in my flat in NW2 and I can hear police cars going down the Edgware Road. Fucking terrifying. The police can't keep up, according to the news they're showing up hours late to everything and they don't have any water cannons. Bad times. Edit: #riotcleanup tomorrow morning all over town: http://twitter.com/#!/search/riotcleanup

The fundamental problem is that the police are not free to use the force necessary to put down the riot. If rioters knew they would be shot on sight, they would stop rioting. As it is, police are afraid to crack down for fear that they'll be brought up on charges of "police brutality". Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms. EDIT: Amazed that someone downvoted this…

It's a good thing that in the real world, we have people in charge with some restraint. Which is why most riots in the West end without bloodshed, shots fired or the military being abused to fight it's own citizens.

Order is rarely restored through some short-sighted power-fantasy that disregards the value of human lives. But lots of dictatorships started that way though. And often with the best of intentions.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#114

Post by temphn » Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 6:59 AM UTC

rickmb wrote: post #113

temphn wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental problem is that the police are not free to use the force necessary to put down the riot. If rioters knew they would be shot on sight, they would stop rioting. As it is, police are afraid to crack down for fear that they'll be brought up on charges of "police brutality". Ultimately it will only end when the military is called in and can brandish actual firearms. EDIT: Amazed that someone downvoted this…

It's a good thing that in the real world, we have people in charge with some restraint. Which is why most riots in the West end without bloodshed, shots fired or the military being abused to fight it's own citizens. Order is rarely restored through some short-sighted power-fantasy that disregards the value of human lives. But lots of dictatorships started that way though. And often with the best of intentions.

Ok. So youths are burning a building across the street from your apartment. And it's a dictatorship if you want men with guns to stop them from doing this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14446548

Here's a video of British police without guns running from rioters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4pcbiO4flY

And take a look at what the rioters are doing on Youtube. Some would submit that the people with the "power fantasy" are the rioters who are burning buildings, beating random passerby bloody, and looting businesses.

We also have different premises on what is the more plausible immediate threat: fascist dictatorship or arson and anarchy. It's doubtful that we'll resolve those differences in this comment box, so let's just agree to disagree.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#115

Post by potatolicious » Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 7:38 AM UTC

watmough wrote: post #39

itg wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Started off as a protest against a police shooting (details will depend on which side you ask) and then escalated. Now it is just vandalizing, destroying property, and looting. Some BBC commenters were saying that for the young guys, the austerity measures with a combination of feeling marginalized, unemployed, and no hope for a future plays a part in this too.

Yes, the eighties austerity, cuts, unemployment and we had riots then too. Local council budgets are being cut. Libraries and swimming pools, after school activities, policing. All being eroded. From what I see of the news, it's somehow different this time. Perhaps more nihilistic, versus the more confrontational riots in the eighties. It definitely seems there's a goal of hitting shops full of 'shinys'. Of course, m…

I remember growing up and watching demonstrations and protests on TV - unless my memory is seriously impaired, something has changed in the decade and half since then. It seems in recent years black bloc tactics have taken over protesting, to the point where one rarely sees peaceful protests anymore.

Black bloc animals will seize upon any cause, just or otherwise, as an excuse to loot and cause mayhem - and the worst part is, their mere presence erodes the credibility of otherwise legitimate groups with legitimate grievances.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#116

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 7:39 AM UTC

temphn wrote: post #114

rickmb wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good thing that in the real world, we have people in charge with some restraint. Which is why most riots in the West end without bloodshed, shots fired or the military being abused to fight it's own citizens. Order is rarely restored through some short-sighted power-fantasy that disregards the value of human lives. But lots of dictatorships started that way though. And often with the best of intentions.

Ok. So youths are burning a building across the street from your apartment. And it's a dictatorship if you want men with guns to stop them from doing this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14446548 Here's a video of British police without guns running from rioters: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4pcbiO4flY And take a look at what the rioters are doing on Youtube. Some would submit that the people with the "power fantasy…

[deleted]

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#117

Post by ColinWright » Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 8:06 AM UTC

ColinWright wrote: post #2

What would be really useful would be to have this colour coded by day so we could see the evolution through time.

This page has a colour-coded map: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14450248

Not a good one, but at least it's something.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#118

Post by yread » Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 8:38 AM UTC

abcd_f wrote: post #15

LoonyPandora wrote: post #11

I'm a Londoner near some of the affected areas. The sky is not falling, London is not degenerating into lawlessness, and from what I can see from my flat window, police are responding quickly. Other areas may be different, but London is a very large city - commenters should remember that in discussions.

So what was the trigger that started the riots?

I really liked this commentary http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/tottenha... although you might disagree with him, at least it states quite clearly a reason why are people rioting.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#119

Post by estel » Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 9:19 AM UTC

geboyr wrote: post #95

jamesbritt wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't anybody there armed? Is it illegal to use a weapon to defend your home?

Apparently most of the police do not carry guns as well. I saw that it was questioned earlier if some of the forces being used to maintain order are now carrying guns, but I don't think there was a definitive answer. The Metropolitan police might(?)

Firearms are only carried by limited numbers of specially trained units, and will likely only be deployed if there is reason to suspect that they're going against other armed individuals. Tasers have recently been more widely issued across most forces.

Re: London riots / UK riots: verified areas

#120

Post by corin_ » Tue, Aug 09, 2011, 9:28 AM UTC

tvon wrote: post #89

hartror wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of the 1998 movie The Siege. Terrorists are bombing New York and the politicians are discussing bringing in the army to hunt them down. Bruce Willis is a hard ass general and this is what he has to say on the subject: "Make no mistake, Senator. We will hunt down the enemy, we will find the enemy, and we will kill the enemy. And no card-carrying member of the ACLU is more dead set against it than I am.…

Another line that is spot on, IMO, from Battlestar Galactica: > " There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people. " So, I guess the screenwriters guild gets it...

Lefties in Hollywood? There's a shocker! :D