Mr. W, the two are not unrelated. The Autumn Looting of a few years ago got so out of control because top brass rozzers were afraid, reportedly, it'd look racist if they cracked down (because the origins, far distant from the ultimate result, related to Mark Duggan's death).
There was a clear and blatant cultural aspect to the crimes, and to the attempts (sadly, largely successful) to reduce freedom of speech if they hurt the feelings of the over-sensitive and commit the pretend crime of blasphemy.
No.
The riots then looting occurred because there was accumulated resentment at treatment by the police which took expression following the Duggan family visit to Tottenham police station. It continued because the rioters realised they could. Rioting then turned to looting. Study after study has shown that while unambiguously criminal, the riots and looting also represented a backlash against that police behaviour and was as much as anything about power.
To include a cultural dimension would be to examine which section of the population felt most aggrieved by the perceived heavy-handedness of the police. And why.
If you watch the interviews with the rioters and looters, you'd find they were just immoral idiots who blame everyone else for their predicament. If they had some sort of logic to opposing the police, they would have attacked police stations, not random shops to steal things.
It was due to their EMA - Electrical Merchandise Allowance
Hah! Harriet Harman has tweeted a screenshot of a Mail Online article showing three 12 year old girls in bikinis.
It's ridiculous, isn't it? Is Harman now trying to say the idea that twelve year olds in swimming costumes is inherently sexual? Bizarre.
Presumably the thought isn't that, it's that the Daily Mail constantly publishes sexualized pictures of children, along with some particularly creepy commentary. More detail on this thought here (skip the first six minutes if you're impatient to get to the point): http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dqNTTdYKY#
No culture accepts a deviance from its social norm in the form criminality. Clearly the rate may vary for a host of sociological reasons but the concept that by nature one culture is more prone to a substantial variance in criminality is one I reject.
That post was an episode in obfuscation. You accept different cultures may have different rates of criminality due to "sociological" reasons? Some definitions:
Sociology: the study of the development, structure, and functioning of human society. Culture: the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time
"Sociological" reasons and "cultural" reasons are the same thing. They both refer to the social functioning of a group of people. Using the term "by nature" is an absurd one for a culture. A culture, and its set of social norms, is inherently man-made.
Mr. W, the two are not unrelated. The Autumn Looting of a few years ago got so out of control because top brass rozzers were afraid, reportedly, it'd look racist if they cracked down (because the origins, far distant from the ultimate result, related to Mark Duggan's death).
There was a clear and blatant cultural aspect to the crimes, and to the attempts (sadly, largely successful) to reduce freedom of speech if they hurt the feelings of the over-sensitive and commit the pretend crime of blasphemy.
No.
The riots then looting occurred because there was accumulated resentment at treatment by the police which took expression following the Duggan family visit to Tottenham police station. It continued because the rioters realised they could. Rioting then turned to looting. Study after study has shown that while unambiguously criminal, the riots and looting also represented a backlash against that police behaviour and was as much as anything about power.
To include a cultural dimension would be to examine which section of the population felt most aggrieved by the perceived heavy-handedness of the police. And why.
Basically, a bunch of "youfs" objected to the lack of "respect" they received from authority.
It is obviously more complex than your rather facile, dare I say it given today's news, Daily Mail-esque responses.
There were many strands involved in the rioting and looting and there was no demarcation between one mode of behaviour and another. As I mentioned there was unambiguous criminality but there was also a sense of grievance and, through the particular set of circumstances, the opportunity to assert power over in this case the police (and other "authority" services).
I have no idea if either or both of you are young black men from Brixton or Tottenham (I am not) but the aforementioned studies, which a quick google will reveal to you, following extensive research, have concluded that this sense of grievance was a factor in the riots.
Harman has moved to to "girls" over "women" (in the language of that article) but her response is still 'messy'. It is about mudslinging; she can't possibly hope to win. Not only is she against a newspaper well versed in such things, but the association (for that is all that it is) at the heart of the matter is just too poisonous. Strange to think she took her time to respond and still opted for that approach; that, I guess, is because of the personal element (unsurprisingly extant).
I think it is the sunshine. In any event, the thread has gone mad.
TLBS you seem a decent enough cove. But what is mildly irritating is you setting yourself up as an arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable or mad or legitimate or interesting or beyond the pale here on pb.
Lose that attitude and get stuck in with some opinions of your own rather than your current meta-comments.
Mr. W, the two are not unrelated. The Autumn Looting of a few years ago got so out of control because top brass rozzers were afraid, reportedly, it'd look racist if they cracked down (because the origins, far distant from the ultimate result, related to Mark Duggan's death).
There was a clear and blatant cultural aspect to the crimes, and to the attempts (sadly, largely successful) to reduce freedom of speech if they hurt the feelings of the over-sensitive and commit the pretend crime of blasphemy.
No.
The riots then looting occurred because there was accumulated resentment at treatment by the police which took expression following the Duggan family visit to Tottenham police station. It continued because the rioters realised they could. Rioting then turned to looting. Study after study has shown that while unambiguously criminal, the riots and looting also represented a backlash against that police behaviour and was as much as anything about power.
To include a cultural dimension would be to examine which section of the population felt most aggrieved by the perceived heavy-handedness of the police. And why.
Basically, a bunch of "youfs" objected to the lack of "respect" they received from authority.
It is obviously more complex than your rather facile, dare I say it given today's news, Daily Mail-esque responses.
There were many strands involved in the rioting and looting and there was no demarcation between one mode of behaviour and another. As I mentioned there was unambiguous criminality but there was also a sense of grievance and, through the particular set of circumstances, the opportunity to assert power over in this case the police (and other "authority" services).
I have no idea if either or both of you are young black men from Brixton or Tottenham (I am not) but the aforementioned studies, which a quick google will reveal to you, following extensive research, have concluded that this sense of grievance was a factor in the riots.
It's not unusual for criminals to feel a very strong sense of grievance towards people in authority in general, and the police in particular. Back in the day, I worked in a firm that did criminal law, and that was a very common attitude among the Defendants.
Yes, yes, we can all throw about insults about each other being "facile" or "Daily Mail-esque". It's generally a sign of people having weak arguments when they resort to such things rather than engage with the actual arguments. Neither myself nor Sean have denied that the rioters involved in the riots had a sense of "grievance". What we are arguing is that that victim mentality is illogical and comes more from the warped attitudes of the criminals involved than from any legitimate injustice.
I think it is the sunshine. In any event, the thread has gone mad.
TLBS you seem a decent enough cove. But what is mildly irritating is you setting yourself up as an arbiter of what is or isn't acceptable or mad or legitimate or interesting or beyond the pale here on pb.
Lose that attitude and get stuck in with some opinions of your own rather than your current meta-comments.
He is so like Bobajob in that respect... any debate that had a strong anti left feel to it, he would popup every five minutes saying " oh guys, do we need to talk about this?" or "oh guys, this is just awful"... why not just not comment or go out and do something less boring instead?
The Daily Mail does have a lack of self awareness. On the one hand it says it campaigns against pornography, and rails at how popstars such as Beyonce and Rhianna use sex to sell themselves, but on the other just revels in showing the aforementioned scantily clad women on its Sidebar Of Smut. It positively loves to show pictures of female celebs accidentally showing their knickers, such as Susanna Reid on the BBC News sofa, or a drunken wife of Steven Gerrard flashing her thong above her trousers on a night out. It just reeks of hypocrisy. Still, I'm not gonna complain if it makes Harman's life a little uncomfortable.
@isam - it's not party political. I would be exactly the same was the Mail's target a Tory. As others have said (eg Richard N) it's a very, very thin story. And it creates an ugly thread.
The Daily Mail does have a lack of self awareness. On the one hand it says it campaigns against pornography, and rails at how popstars such as Beyonce and Rhianna use sex to sell themselves, but on the other just revels in showing scantily clad women on its Sidebar Of Smut. It positively loves to show pictures of female celebs accidentally showing their knickers, such as Susanna Reid on the BBC News sofa, or a drunken wife of Steven Gerrard flashing her thong above her trousers on a night out. It just reeks of hypocrisy. Still, I'm not gonna complain if it makes Harman's life a little uncomfortable.
TFS, what a newspaper hypocritcal ? Next you'll be telling me politicians are too :-)
@isam - it's not party political. I would be exactly the same was the Mail's target a Tory. As others have said (eg Richard N) it's a very, very thin story. And it creates an ugly thread.
Agree 100%. I would find it hard to think of another politician I disagree with or dislike as much as Harman. But in this instance, if ever asked, she would have my full support. This is nothing more than a poorly executed smear campaign that any reasonable person should see through in a moment.
It is sad that some people are putting party politics ahead of common decency when it comes to picking sides in this argument.
Yes, yes, we can all throw about insults about each other being "facile" or "Daily Mail-esque". It's generally a sign of people having weak arguments when they resort to such things rather than engage with the actual arguments. Neither myself nor Sean have denied that the rioters involved in the riots had a sense of "grievance". What we are arguing is that that victim mentality is illogical and comes more from the warped attitudes of the criminals involved than from any legitimate injustice.
Well given today's events I couldn't stop myself. Please forgive me.
I can tell you that not only do I not have a weak argument but actually, it is not my argument. It is the argument of several studies of the riots. Worth reading as we are all citizens of the UK.
@isam - it's not party political. I would be exactly the same was the Mail's target a Tory. As others have said (eg Richard N) it's a very, very thin story. And it creates an ugly thread.
Agree 100%. I would find it hard to think of another politician I disagree with or dislike as much as Harman. But in this instance, if ever asked, she would have my full support. This is nothing more than a poorly executed smear campaign that any reasonable person should see through in a moment.
It is sad that some people are putting party politics ahead of common decency when it comes to picking sides in this argument.
I agree with you Richard, but come on, mate, it's Harriet Harman being made to feel uncomfortable, something that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.
@isam - it's not party political. I would be exactly the same was the Mail's target a Tory. As others have said (eg Richard N) it's a very, very thin story. And it creates an ugly thread.
maybe you're a bit behind the story. The DM ran a piece of history and rather than shrug it off Harman has decided to make it headline news. Even those around her can't figure out what's she's up to. Norman Smith on the lunchtime news observed that Team Ed were keeping their distance today ( unlike earlier ) as they don't know how to read it.
@isam - it's not party political. I would be exactly the same was the Mail's target a Tory. As others have said (eg Richard N) it's a very, very thin story. And it creates an ugly thread.
Fair enough, no reason to doubt your word. I am sure their will be an occasion sooner or later when you can prove to be as good as it
I have tried really hard to get interested in what Harman may have done in her role as legal officer to a charity/campaigning organisation which had some undefined connection with some other organisation who proved after the event to be very dodgy but I just can't do it.
The views expressed in a legal document seem pretty potty, especially by today's standards but there is absolutely nothing that I have seen suggesting that they are her views as opposed to the views of some committee of those that she worked for which may or may not have been infiltrated by unpleasant people with a disgusting agenda.
Frankly, this seems to me on a par with Latvian homophobes as a story, possibly not even as compelling (!) as that.
@isam - it's not party political. I would be exactly the same was the Mail's target a Tory. As others have said (eg Richard N) it's a very, very thin story. And it creates an ugly thread.
Agree 100%. I would find it hard to think of another politician I disagree with or dislike as much as Harman. But in this instance, if ever asked, she would have my full support. This is nothing more than a poorly executed smear campaign that any reasonable person should see through in a moment.
It is sad that some people are putting party politics ahead of common decency when it comes to picking sides in this argument.
I agree with you Richard, but come on, mate, it's Harriet Harman being made to feel uncomfortable, something that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.
If this was just politics I wpuld agree but in the current climate, being accused of being an apologist for or supporter of paedophilia is a lot more than just discomfort.
I do wonder, seeing how this has blown up over the last day or so, whether Harman should have just ignored the Mail entirely. But I can see why that would be very difficult to do.
@isam - it's not party political. I would be exactly the same was the Mail's target a Tory. As others have said (eg Richard N) it's a very, very thin story. And it creates an ugly thread.
Agree 100%. I would find it hard to think of another politician I disagree with or dislike as much as Harman. But in this instance, if ever asked, she would have my full support. This is nothing more than a poorly executed smear campaign that any reasonable person should see through in a moment.
It is sad that some people are putting party politics ahead of common decency when it comes to picking sides in this argument.
I agree with you Richard, but come on, mate, it's Harriet Harman being made to feel uncomfortable, something that gives me a warm fuzzy feeling.
Sums my feelings up precisely. Clearly a smear, but Oh! What a Lovely Smear.
I think she'll survive this, despite Dromey and Hewitt very generously allowing her to hog the limelight.
But..but everyone knows everyone hates the very idea of Coalitions, right? Sadly for Labour and the Cons (the sadness dimmed for Labour by the fact they will likely not need to go into a coalition), things are a little more complicated. It's almost as though just because many people despise the LDs and this coalition, they are still open to the idea in theory at least.
Won't make much difference in current times, with the hated LDs the only likely coalition partners even if it becomes necessary, but one for the future.
The only argument you have made is "But they had a sense of grievance!" When we have responded we didn't dispute that, but that that sense of grievance is both misplaced and to be expected among criminal types, you have just responded "But there are studies!"
If you have an actual counter arguments to our points, then please make it.
I have tried really hard to get interested in what Harman may have done in her role as legal officer to a charity/campaigning organisation which had some undefined connection with some other organisation who proved after the event to be very dodgy but I just can't do it.
The views expressed in a legal document seem pretty potty, especially by today's standards but there is absolutely nothing that I have seen suggesting that they are her views as opposed to the views of some committee of those that she worked for which may or may not have been infiltrated by unpleasant people with a disgusting agenda.
Frankly, this seems to me on a par with Latvian homophobes as a story, possibly not even as compelling (!) as that.
a) why am I commenting on this; but b) the critical issue is that it was not "proved after the event to be very dodgy". It was transparently very dodgy at the time. The clue was in the name.
I can only imagine that her legal advice (LIAMT?) is not to apologise.
Curious position for the Tories to take. Essentially disses their record 2010-15 by saying coalitions are rubbish.
This is going to be a great election: Con: We were rubbish. Lib: We were useless. Lab: Come on guys, some of your policies were pretty good - we intend to carry on with most of them...
... and some folk wonder why Scots are disillusioned with Westminster politics.
chortle
of course Stuart, because the current status of scottish politics is such a model for us all:
unionists : you'll all die and Scotland will fall into the sea nats : free pixie dust and unicorns for all
@Richard T - well said sir. @TFS - come on, you shouldn't wish that on your opponents (I don't think you do deep down)
I don't really hate any human being, but there are a few that I dislike, in as much as they annoy me. Harriet Harmon is one of them. She's a preachy, sanctimonious, entitled, hypocritical, politically correct do gooder. I don't for one moment believe that she condoned what PIE stood for, and as I have stated in the past, David Joy, an early leading light of PIE had quite an effect on the village I was born in, so I know exactly what PIE were all about. She's just so hung up on being seen as holier than thou, that she's tied herself up in knots. If she feels a bit of heat over this, then that's tough. She could easily have said the right thing on News Night, but didn't want to seen as having made an error of judgement, 30 years ago.
... and some folk wonder why Scots are disillusioned with Westminster politics.
So it took exactly 7 posts for someone to spam the thread with Scotland trivia.
Hardly trivial if one of the two founder partners of the United Kingdom is disillusioned with Westminster politics. That fact is actually quite fundamental for understanding what is about to happen in September.
If I wanted to read all things Alba 24/7, I'd plug myself into 'Jings over Scotchland'.
Any chance that we can have a break from it over here?
@isam - it's not party political. I would be exactly the same was the Mail's target a Tory. As others have said (eg Richard N) it's a very, very thin story. And it creates an ugly thread.
Fair enough, no reason to doubt your word. I am sure their will be an occasion sooner or later when you can prove to be as good as it
And yet your post suggests you do doubt it. Is it everyone you have such a low opinion of, or just me?
@Socrates - what about she has never supported PIE, has no sympathy with its views, never has done and never will do, abhors paedophilia and always has done and always will do. What's left?
@Richard T - well said sir. @TFS - come on, you shouldn't wish that on your opponents (I don't think you do deep down)
I don't really hate any human being, but there are a few that I dislike, in as much as they annoy me. Harriet Harmon is one of them. She's a preachy, sanctimonious, entitled, hypocritical, politically correct do gooder. I don't for one moment believe that she condoned what PIE stood for, and as I have stated in the past, David Joy, an early leading light of PIE had quite an effect on the village I was born in, so I know exactly what PIE were all about. She's just so hung up on being seen as holier than thou, that she's tied herself up in knots. If she feels a bit of heat over this, then that's tough. She could easily have said the right thing on News Night, but didn't want to seen as having made an error of judgement, 30 years ago.
I have tried really hard to get interested in what Harman may have done in her role as legal officer to a charity/campaigning organisation which had some undefined connection with some other organisation who proved after the event to be very dodgy but I just can't do it.
The views expressed in a legal document seem pretty potty, especially by today's standards but there is absolutely nothing that I have seen suggesting that they are her views as opposed to the views of some committee of those that she worked for which may or may not have been infiltrated by unpleasant people with a disgusting agenda.
Frankly, this seems to me on a par with Latvian homophobes as a story, possibly not even as compelling (!) as that.
a) why am I commenting on this; but b) the critical issue is that it was not "proved after the event to be very dodgy". It was transparently very dodgy at the time. The clue was in the name.
I can only imagine that her legal advice (LIAMT?) is not to apologise.
I share your reservations but apologise for what? She was the legal officer not the decision maker.
I am just going to leave this. I really don't think it is worth talking about.
The only argument you have made is "But they had a sense of grievance!" When we have responded we didn't dispute that, but that that sense of grievance is both misplaced and to be expected among criminal types, you have just responded "But there are studies!"
If you have an actual counter arguments to our points, then please make it.
You are untypically missing the point. There was a sense of grievance which had accumulated to the point whereby a flashpoint (the Duggan family police station visit) set off the course of events.
I am not seeking to justify what happened I am seeking to understand it.
So why ignore my next question - why do you think there was such a sense of grievance amongst the young black community in Brixton and Tottenham? We have heard anecdotally of eg. David Lammy being stopped in his car by the police and here we have several studies that show that this was commonplace.
Were the people stopped the whole time (let's for argument's sake say this happened) criminals? Well the ones that rioted certainly were on those nights. Does this mean that other behaviours shouldn't be examined such as that of the police towards young black men in those areas? Of course not.
All those "studies" inform the debate. You seem to have some kind of visceral understanding of what happened and why which, sadly, seems to be quite shallow.
I never thought we would get to the point on pb where we dismiss academic insight (of whatever value) as though in being academic studies per se they are disqualified from consideration.
Even Nadine Dorries has backed Harman. To her credit. Which just goes to show how niche the very venomous (and sometimes sinister) posts on here are.
I've yet to hear you make an actual defence of Harman on the issues.
I made a defence yesterday. Harman herself made a very clear defence in her rebuttal in the Telegraph - in spite of them labeling the article in such a way as to make it seem there was a case to answer. The problem is that defending against such a blatant smear is, by its very nature, extremely difficult because the attack is not based upon any facts but upon an attempt to make an association where none exists.
Even Nadine Dorries has backed Harman. To her credit. Which just goes to show how niche the very venomous (and sometimes sinister) posts on here are.
I've yet to hear you make an actual defence of Harman on the issues.
I made a defence yesterday. Harman herself made a very clear defence in her rebuttal in the Telegraph - in spite of them labeling the article in such a way as to make it seem there was a case to answer. The problem is that defending against such a blatant smear is, by its very nature, extremely difficult because the attack is not based upon any facts but upon an attempt to make an association where none exists.
I'd say it's fair to criticise NCCL, and those who held high office within the organisation, for allowing PIE to join it, and for the submissions which the organisation put forward at the time.
Even Nadine Dorries has backed Harman. To her credit. Which just goes to show how niche the very venomous (and sometimes sinister) posts on here are.
I've yet to hear you make an actual defence of Harman on the issues.
I made a defence yesterday. Harman herself made a very clear defence in her rebuttal in the Telegraph - in spite of them labeling the article in such a way as to make it seem there was a case to answer. The problem is that defending against such a blatant smear is, by its very nature, extremely difficult because the attack is not based upon any facts but upon an attempt to make an association where none exists.
I'd say it's fair to criticise NCCL, and those who held high office within the organisation, for allowing PIE to join it, and for the submissions which the organisation put forward at the time.
This is my view. Shami Chakrabati has apologised - why can't Harman?
Even Nadine Dorries has backed Harman. To her credit. Which just goes to show how niche the very venomous (and sometimes sinister) posts on here are.
Venomous, maybe, but "Sinister"? Come on get real.
Why the Mail has decided to resurrect this NCCL/PIE story after all this time I don't know but I think I am glad it has. I remember being outraged at the time. PIE was so repugnant that it even got a mention in a Tom Sharpe novel (the second in the Wilt series from memory) and accorded the same depth of scorn that Sharpe reserved for the apartheid regime.
Hewitt, Dromey and Harman got off far too lightly at the time so maybe there is some justice in their judgements of those days being brought to the surface again.
I had missed your question - apologies. I'm not sure there is a uniform sense of grievance among young black males in Tottenham. I imagine it was highest in those regularly engaged in criminal or legal but antisocial behaviour, and regularly get questioned by the police. That makes people feel they are in a submissive position, which causing grievance among those in a culture where "status" is highly valued.
I would also question the high prominence put on this sense of grievance. Sure, if you ask people, "why did you do it?" they come up with excuses, but does that mean if those excuses weren't present that they wouldn't have done it otherwise.
Were these people criminals if you ignore the rioting itself as an offence? Overwhelmingly, yes. Three quarters had prior convictions, and that's ignoring those that have committed crimes and not been caught yet, as the low-level criminal activity like vandalism and theft has very low conviction rates: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/sep/15/three-quarters-rioters-criminal-convictions
My understanding of the riots is not "visceral". It is a judgment based on my experience of years of reading coverage of events in London, speaking to people that directly observed the rioting, volunteering in disadvantaged London communities, and speaking in depth with many teacher friends of mine that know these sorts of kids well.
I am not dismissing academic study. It has a role to play. But if we are to have a debate, then the academic studies you are referencing should have ultimate points backed up by evidence in them that you can bring to this debate in order to challenge my conclusions. You haven't done that, and that's what I'm criticizing.
@isam - it's not party political. I would be exactly the same was the Mail's target a Tory. As others have said (eg Richard N) it's a very, very thin story. And it creates an ugly thread.
Fair enough, no reason to doubt your word. I am sure their will be an occasion sooner or later when you can prove to be as good as it
And yet your post suggests you do doubt it. Is it everyone you have such a low opinion of, or just me?
@Socrates - what about she has never supported PIE, has no sympathy with its views, never has done and never will do, abhors paedophilia and always has done and always will do. What's left?
On PB I guess you are one of those I have quite a low opinion of
But good point, I don't know why I said the first bit, I do doubt your word if I am honest
One thing's for sure. The Daily Mail scent blood. I expect Harriet Harman and/or Patricia Hewitt will feature on the front page of the Mail tomorrow in some way.
I'm a bit conflicted on this one. One on hand, it's fantastic to read a thread which doesn't major on the Scottish currency, and whether or not Salmond is lying in the interests of gaining power which he believes will be used for the benefit of his electorate (clue: he's a politician). On the other hand, it does seem a classic smear campaign which is almost as unanswerable as the classic enquiry about whether one has ceased one's wife-beating activities.
Surely the analysis has to be that political activity is a messy business, and any group has lunatics at its fringe who hold views that are unacceptable. Find anyone who's had a life in politics over a number of decades with different standards and different norms, and you'll find someone who has had a degree of association with advocates of views that we consider beyond the pale.
Apologies if this has been raised already, but does this have any more merit than a 3-day front page campaign seeking to draw links between David Cameron and the "Hang Mandela" movement? As far as I can see, both would have equal merit and be equally indefensible, and both would leave an unjustified negative perception about their victim. The only difference seems to be that (these days) Labour lack anyone who will stoop as low as Crosby, and don't have much of the tabloid press to do their bidding.
One thing's for sure. The Daily Mail scent blood. I expect Harriet Harman and/or Patricia Hewitt will feature on the front page of the Mail tomorrow in some way.
I like the comment "As an act of diplomatic crassness this can have no equal"
I suggest that a small amount of Googling would find a few hundred examples of greater crassness.
And Baroness Ashton was elected by the governments of the European countries. Just as the PM is elected by the members of the House of Commons.
Like @Socrates, I am uncomfortable about nth degree democracy. But it is nevertheless the case that people across Europe voted for people who voted for Baroness Ashton.
a) Betfair have just suspended their Indy Ref market.
b) The Betdaq betting Exchange has just launched its IndyRef market
Seems to be a lot of interest in the market today: 3 bookies have lengthened their No prices today. New poll in the offing?
Why would Betfair suspend it because of that?
I didn't say that they had. I was rather suggesting that the 3 bookies lengthening their No prices, to the longest prices since May 2013, may be a sign of news in the pipeline?
One thing's for sure. The Daily Mail scent blood. I expect Harriet Harman and/or Patricia Hewitt will feature on the front page of the Mail tomorrow in some way.
In bikinis?
...at the age of 15, "displaying a maturity and a lifestyle beyond their years"...
a) Betfair have just suspended their Indy Ref market.
b) The Betdaq betting Exchange has just launched its IndyRef market
Seems to be a lot of interest in the market today: 3 bookies have lengthened their No prices today. New poll in the offing?
Why would Betfair suspend it because of that?
I didn't say that they had. I was rather suggesting that the 3 bookies lengthening their No prices, to the longest prices since May 2013, may be a sign of news in the pipeline?
I guess it is related ie People in the know bet on the outcome knowing what a new poll in the offing says, so bookies move prices on trade
Betafair hasn't moved though, and that is the real guide
One thing's for sure. The Daily Mail scent blood. I expect Harriet Harman and/or Patricia Hewitt will feature on the front page of the Mail tomorrow in some way.
In bikinis?
...at the age of 15, "displaying a maturity and a lifestyle beyond their years"...
I think the Mail's customary description would be "all grown up"
a) Betfair have just suspended their Indy Ref market.
b) The Betdaq betting Exchange has just launched its IndyRef market
Seems to be a lot of interest in the market today: 3 bookies have lengthened their No prices today. New poll in the offing?
Why would Betfair suspend it because of that?
I didn't say that they had. I was rather suggesting that the 3 bookies lengthening their No prices, to the longest prices since May 2013, may be a sign of news in the pipeline?
There is a 3% arb between Hills and Betfair at the moment.
One thing's for sure. The Daily Mail scent blood. I expect Harriet Harman and/or Patricia Hewitt will feature on the front page of the Mail tomorrow in some way.
Getting Harriet to eat humble PIE is now a second priority for the Mail.
Thanks to the Hon Mr Justice Sweeney, it is now Tony Blair and Peter Hain who urgently have to answer for their past decisions.
One thing's for sure. The Daily Mail scent blood. I expect Harriet Harman and/or Patricia Hewitt will feature on the front page of the Mail tomorrow in some way.
Getting Harriet to eat humble PIE is now a second priority for the Mail.
Thanks to the Hon Mr Justice Sweeney, it is now Tony Blair and Peter Hain who urgently have to answer for their past decisions.
a) Betfair have just suspended their Indy Ref market.
b) The Betdaq betting Exchange has just launched its IndyRef market
Seems to be a lot of interest in the market today: 3 bookies have lengthened their No prices today. New poll in the offing?
Why would Betfair suspend it because of that?
I didn't say that they had. I was rather suggesting that the 3 bookies lengthening their No prices, to the longest prices since May 2013, may be a sign of news in the pipeline?
There is a 3% arb between Hills and Betfair at the moment.
At least 4 and a half grand queuing up to back NO at a shorter price than Hills suggests Hills are out on a limb
a) Betfair have just suspended their Indy Ref market.
b) The Betdaq betting Exchange has just launched its IndyRef market
Seems to be a lot of interest in the market today: 3 bookies have lengthened their No prices today. New poll in the offing?
Why would Betfair suspend it because of that?
I didn't say that they had. I was rather suggesting that the 3 bookies lengthening their No prices, to the longest prices since May 2013, may be a sign of news in the pipeline?
There is a 3% arb between Hills and Betfair at the moment.
At least 4 and a half grand queuing up to back NO at a shorter price than Hills suggests Hills are out on a limb
You might want to hold off on the blood pressure pills if this upset you - the blogger has just updated to say that his source story in the DT has been pulled.
I would also question the high prominence put on this sense of grievance. Sure, if you ask people, "why did you do it?" they come up with excuses, but does that mean if those excuses weren't present that they wouldn't have done it otherwise.
Were these people criminals if you ignore the rioting itself as an offence? Overwhelmingly, yes. Three quarters had prior convictions, and that's ignoring those that have committed crimes and not been caught yet, as the low-level criminal activity like vandalism and theft has very low conviction rates: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/sep/15/three-quarters-rioters-criminal-convictions
My understanding of the riots is not "visceral". It is a judgment based on my experience of years of reading coverage of events in London, speaking to people that directly observed the rioting, volunteering in disadvantaged London communities, and speaking in depth with many teacher friends of mine that know these sorts of kids well.
I am not dismissing academic study. It has a role to play. But if we are to have a debate, then the academic studies you are referencing should have ultimate points backed up by evidence in them that you can bring to this debate in order to challenge my conclusions. You haven't done that, and that's what I'm criticizing.
Well first off it sounds like you are seeking a black and white ("ultimate points") conclusion which doesn't exist. As the authors of the studies point out, much more than criminality was involved. "Grievance, lack of opportunity, shared identity and empowerment" are the consistent themes that emerge. Much like the 1980s and many other historical riots here and in the US also, as a matter of fact. Are those ultimate points? If not and they are all "criminals" (they were of course criminals) then where does that leave us with solutions?
(as to your point about prior criminality it is a trivial to show that to say 75% of those arrested (within the first 24 hours only, not ultimately, incidentally) had criminal convictions is a long way from saying 75% of those involved in the riots were criminals plus where would you expect the police to begin to look for perpetrators if not known criminals but I digress.)
Your own investigations sound interesting but you undermine them when you expect (it sounds like you expect) a clear cut conclusion as to what the riots were about. They were about many things; in all your enquiries was none of the above mentioned? I find it hard to believe or perhaps you were in the wrong place.
Suffice to say that calling all the rioters "criminals" while accurate is insufficient to understand the complex causes yet if anything is to be done to address the underlying issues, they have to be approached with more of an open mind than you seem to have done.
(edit: apologies snipped your first para so that the response would fit)
One thing's for sure. The Daily Mail scent blood. I expect Harriet Harman and/or Patricia Hewitt will feature on the front page of the Mail tomorrow in some way.
Getting Harriet to eat humble PIE is now a second priority for the Mail.
Thanks to the Hon Mr Justice Sweeney, it is now Tony Blair and Peter Hain who urgently have to answer for their past decisions.
Apologies if I'm missing something (only had a quick skim of the BBC report) but this appears to be a procedural error on the part of PSNI, coupled with (what sounds like) the reasonable point made by Hain that the government has to act within the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, and that this kind of error can't be undone without greater injustice. Not to minimise the pain of the victims' families and friends, but presumably there were many terrorists who have escaped what would be seen as justice in order to achieve the peace settlement in NI?
Mr Justice Sweeney dismisses prosecution of John Downey for the 1982 Hyde Park Bombing
But lawyers for Mr Downey argued in a two week abuse of process hearing at the Old Bailey that it was unfair to prosecute him and that it would threaten a key agreement in the Northern Ireland peace settlement.
Mr Justice Sweeney, who prosecuted several IRA cases during his career, agreed and threw out the prosecution, allowing the details of the case to be made public for the first time. He said there had been a “catastrophic failure” in the case, compounded by the fact nothing was down when the error was spotted.
In a scathing ruling, he said “no sensible explanation” for the various failures has been given.
He concluded that the public interest in ensuring people accused of serious crime are tried was “very significantly outweighed” by the interests in ensuring that “executive misconduct” does not bring the criminal justice into disrepute and state officials are held to the promises they made.
“Hence I have concluded that this is one of those rare cases in which, in the particular circumstances, it offends the court’s sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the defendant,” he said.
One thing's for sure. The Daily Mail scent blood. I expect Harriet Harman and/or Patricia Hewitt will feature on the front page of the Mail tomorrow in some way.
Getting Harriet to eat humble PIE is now a second priority for the Mail.
Thanks to the Hon Mr Justice Sweeney, it is now Tony Blair and Peter Hain who urgently have to answer for their past decisions.
Up until now, I wasn't aware that members of the government could grant people immunity from prosecution. That's more the sort of thing one would expect to see in Russia or the Ukraine.
a) Betfair have just suspended their Indy Ref market.
b) The Betdaq betting Exchange has just launched its IndyRef market
Seems to be a lot of interest in the market today: 3 bookies have lengthened their No prices today. New poll in the offing?
Why would Betfair suspend it because of that?
I didn't say that they had. I was rather suggesting that the 3 bookies lengthening their No prices, to the longest prices since May 2013, may be a sign of news in the pipeline?
There is a 3% arb between Hills and Betfair at the moment.
At least 4 and a half grand queuing up to back NO at a shorter price than Hills suggests Hills are out on a limb
Wonder what bet size Hills will take on No :P ?
I really don't know.. I would have though a pittance to be honest, esp at arb prices
Maybe some Mugarooo has back YES with them rather than aat a bigger price on Betfair but I cant imagoine so... bookies dont take big bets
One thing's for sure. The Daily Mail scent blood. I expect Harriet Harman and/or Patricia Hewitt will feature on the front page of the Mail tomorrow in some way.
Getting Harriet to eat humble PIE is now a second priority for the Mail.
Thanks to the Hon Mr Justice Sweeney, it is now Tony Blair and Peter Hain who urgently have to answer for their past decisions.
Up until now, I wasn't aware that members of the government could grant people immunity from prosecution. That's more the sort of thing one would expect to see in Russia or the Ukraine.
It's amazing isn't it? Even jaw dropping. Makes you wonder who else has received one of these letters.
I like the comment "As an act of diplomatic crassness this can have no equal"
I suggest that a small amount of Googling would find a few hundred examples of greater crassness.
And Baroness Ashton was elected by the governments of the European countries. Just as the PM is elected by the members of the House of Commons.
Like @Socrates, I am uncomfortable about nth degree democracy. But it is nevertheless the case that people across Europe voted for people who voted for Baroness Ashton.
I am amused by your zig-zagging path rcs1000. Ashton was put there by Brown as it was Britain's turn to provide the new EU foreign minister. Other heads of state then nodded her through. As democracy in action, it stinks. An oligarchy voted her to her present position. 300 million europeans never even had a chance to say boo to this, let alone vote. But thats the EU in action; it's also how Fascist and Communist tyrannies work. Are you really satisfied with that?
Well first off it sounds like you are seeking a black and white ("ultimate points") conclusion which doesn't exist. As the authors of the studies point out, much more than criminality was involved. "Grievance, lack of opportunity, shared identity and empowerment" are the consistent themes that emerge. Much like the 1980s and many other historical riots here and in the US also, as a matter of fact. Are those ultimate points? If not and they are all "criminals" (they were of course criminals) then where does that leave us with solutions?
(as to your point about prior criminality it is a trivial to show that to say 75% of those arrested (within the first 24 hours only, not ultimately, incidentally) had criminal convictions is a long way from saying 75% of those involved in the riots were criminals plus where would you expect the police to begin to look for perpetrators if not known criminals but I digress.)
Your own investigations sound interesting but you undermine them when you expect (it sounds like you expect) a clear cut conclusion as to what the riots were about. They were about many things; in all your enquiries was none of the above mentioned? I find it hard to believe or perhaps you were in the wrong place.
Suffice to say that calling all the rioters "criminals" while accurate is insufficient to understand the complex causes yet if anything is to be done to address the underlying issues, they have to be approached with more of an open mind than you seem to have done.
(edit: apologies snipped your first para so that the response would fit)
The thing is I see nothing there that acts as a mitigating factor, in assessing the behaviour of those who rioted. These are the standard excuses given by, and on behalf of, those who commit crimes.
One thing's for sure. The Daily Mail scent blood. I expect Harriet Harman and/or Patricia Hewitt will feature on the front page of the Mail tomorrow in some way.
Getting Harriet to eat humble PIE is now a second priority for the Mail.
Thanks to the Hon Mr Justice Sweeney, it is now Tony Blair and Peter Hain who urgently have to answer for their past decisions.
Apologies if I'm missing something (only had a quick skim of the BBC report) but this appears to be a procedural error on the part of PSNI, coupled with (what sounds like) the reasonable point made by Hain that the government has to act within the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, and that this kind of error can't be undone without greater injustice. Not to minimise the pain of the victims' families and friends, but presumably there were many terrorists who have escaped what would be seen as justice in order to achieve the peace settlement in NI?
Without fully knowing the details, I think that there is a fundamental difference between someone being found guilty and then being released / having a sentence commuted, and not trying someone. Maybe it seems more idiotic to others in terms of waste of court time, but I would have thought a trial but only a suspended sentence if found guilty would be more in keeping with the Agreement.
What are people's thoughts on turnout for the IndyRef? Obviously if it looks like No is running away with it it might be depressed, but generally you'd have thought an existential question such as this ought to be able to command the interest of 75%+ of a populace, no?
That's 3/1 with betfair, but my nap would be over 66% @ 4/6 with William Hill.
Sweeney will be Sweeney, and he unfortunately will be in action tomorrow as well. I am very surprised that the Attorney has not sought to appeal this ruling though. Edit: I am not sure an appeal lies against the decision of the Central Criminal Court on this matter.
a) Betfair have just suspended their Indy Ref market.
b) The Betdaq betting Exchange has just launched its IndyRef market
Seems to be a lot of interest in the market today: 3 bookies have lengthened their No prices today. New poll in the offing?
Why would Betfair suspend it because of that?
I didn't say that they had. I was rather suggesting that the 3 bookies lengthening their No prices, to the longest prices since May 2013, may be a sign of news in the pipeline?
There is a 3% arb between Hills and Betfair at the moment.
At least 4 and a half grand queuing up to back NO at a shorter price than Hills suggests Hills are out on a limb
Wonder what bet size Hills will take on No :P ?
I really don't know.. I would have though a pittance to be honest, esp at arb prices
Maybe some Mugarooo has back YES with them rather than aat a bigger price on Betfair but I cant imagoine so... bookies dont take big bets
To be fair that is the only explanation I can think as to why Hills would cut YES... a big staking mug punter has backed it with them at 7/2 even though there is 9/2 available on Betfair, and they have seen it as good business on a market they have no opinion on, but shortened it any way
Good bet to take, appalling trading by Hills (if that is the case)
I like the comment "As an act of diplomatic crassness this can have no equal"
I suggest that a small amount of Googling would find a few hundred examples of greater crassness.
And Baroness Ashton was elected by the governments of the European countries. Just as the PM is elected by the members of the House of Commons.
Like @Socrates, I am uncomfortable about nth degree democracy. But it is nevertheless the case that people across Europe voted for people who voted for Baroness Ashton.
I am amused by your zig-zagging path rcs1000. Ashton was put there by Brown as it was Britain's turn to provide the new EU foreign minister. Other heads of state then nodded her through. As democracy in action, it stinks. An oligarchy voted her to her present position. 300 million europeans never even had a chance to say boo to this, let alone vote. But thats the EU in action; it's also how Fascist and Communist tyrannies work. Are you really satisfied with that?
Personally, I would leave the EU. You know the vision of the world I prefer (I.e the pre 1914 British one) based on free trade, and free movement of people.
But I think comparing the EU to fascist and communist tyrannies is laughable.
It is indirect democracy - in that the heads of government choose. But those heads of government are chosen by voters.
I would also point out that the democractically elected European parliament has the ability to reject commioners.
I think a much more sensible objection to the EU - which I think is the one proposed by @MorrisDancer and @Sean_F - is that the people who make up the EU are not a polis.
EDIT: actually, as the European Parliament has only a 'straight-up, straight-down' vote on commisioners, it is not quite as democratic as I suggested.
EDIT 2: I changed 'EU is not a polis' to 'people who make up the EU are not a polis'
One thing's for sure. The Daily Mail scent blood. I expect Harriet Harman and/or Patricia Hewitt will feature on the front page of the Mail tomorrow in some way.
Getting Harriet to eat humble PIE is now a second priority for the Mail.
Thanks to the Hon Mr Justice Sweeney, it is now Tony Blair and Peter Hain who urgently have to answer for their past decisions.
Apologies if I'm missing something (only had a quick skim of the BBC report) but this appears to be a procedural error on the part of PSNI, coupled with (what sounds like) the reasonable point made by Hain that the government has to act within the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, and that this kind of error can't be undone without greater injustice. Not to minimise the pain of the victims' families and friends, but presumably there were many terrorists who have escaped what would be seen as justice in order to achieve the peace settlement in NI?
Polruan
It is the secrecy of the process which granted Downey "immunity" which has been revealed by the Court and which is unacceptable.
The Good Friday Agreement expressly granted early release for prisoners convicted of IRA terrorist offences. Some people may not have agreed with the decision at the time but at least it was disclosed to the public.
The GFA did not resolve the issue of what should be done about 'on the run' suspects. This was left to informal and secret undertakings made to Sinn Fein by the Prime Minister (Tony Blair) and in letters sent by the SoS for Northern Ireland (Peter Hain) to individuals (such as Downey) risking arrest and detention.
The issue is whether the executive arm of a government should be permitted to grant immunity from prosecution in secret as a consequence of a peace agreement which failed to resolve the matter in dispute during the negotiation process.
Before the Honourable Mr Justice Sweeney For Sentence: T20137224 ADEBOLAJO Michael A T20137220 ADEBOWALE Michael Orders made under section 4(2) of the Contempt of Court Act 1981; Defendants to attend.
a) Betfair have just suspended their Indy Ref market.
b) The Betdaq betting Exchange has just launched its IndyRef market
Seems to be a lot of interest in the market today: 3 bookies have lengthened their No prices today. New poll in the offing?
Why would Betfair suspend it because of that?
I didn't say that they had. I was rather suggesting that the 3 bookies lengthening their No prices, to the longest prices since May 2013, may be a sign of news in the pipeline?
There is a 3% arb between Hills and Betfair at the moment.
At least 4 and a half grand queuing up to back NO at a shorter price than Hills suggests Hills are out on a limb
Wonder what bet size Hills will take on No :P ?
I really don't know.. I would have though a pittance to be honest, esp at arb prices
Maybe some Mugarooo has back YES with them rather than aat a bigger price on Betfair but I cant imagoine so... bookies dont take big bets
To be fair that is the only explanation I can think as to why Hills would cut YES... a big staking mug punter has backed it with them at 7/2 even though there is 9/2 available on Betfair, and they have seen it as good business on a market they have no opinion on, but shortened it any way
Good bet to take, appalling trading by Hills (if that is the case)
Well they've been traded here on this very forum at evens but only if you are SeanT !
Comments
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r9dqNTTdYKY#
Sociology: the study of the development, structure, and functioning of human society.
Culture: the beliefs, customs, arts, etc., of a particular society, group, place, or time
"Sociological" reasons and "cultural" reasons are the same thing. They both refer to the social functioning of a group of people. Using the term "by nature" is an absurd one for a culture. A culture, and its set of social norms, is inherently man-made.
It is obviously more complex than your rather facile, dare I say it given today's news, Daily Mail-esque responses.
There were many strands involved in the rioting and looting and there was no demarcation between one mode of behaviour and another. As I mentioned there was unambiguous criminality but there was also a sense of grievance and, through the particular set of circumstances, the opportunity to assert power over in this case the police (and other "authority" services).
I have no idea if either or both of you are young black men from Brixton or Tottenham (I am not) but the aforementioned studies, which a quick google will reveal to you, following extensive research, have concluded that this sense of grievance was a factor in the riots.
http://www.iaindale.com/posts/2014/02/25/harman-the-nccl-what-has-the-bbc-really-learnt
Harman has moved to to "girls" over "women" (in the language of that article) but her response is still 'messy'. It is about mudslinging; she can't possibly hope to win. Not only is she against a newspaper well versed in such things, but the association (for that is all that it is) at the heart of the matter is just too poisonous. Strange to think she took her time to respond and still opted for that approach; that, I guess, is because of the personal element (unsurprisingly extant).
The spring madness is coming from your woman Harman and her boss Milli LBS.
Why are they getting involved with the Mail like this??? they must be crackers.
I think it is the sunshine. In any event, the thread has gone mad.
Lose that attitude and get stuck in with some opinions of your own rather than your current meta-comments.
Yes, yes, we can all throw about insults about each other being "facile" or "Daily Mail-esque". It's generally a sign of people having weak arguments when they resort to such things rather than engage with the actual arguments. Neither myself nor Sean have denied that the rioters involved in the riots had a sense of "grievance". What we are arguing is that that victim mentality is illogical and comes more from the warped attitudes of the criminals involved than from any legitimate injustice.
http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article1430884.ece/ALTERNATES/s2197/COPYRIGHT UNKNOWN Peter Sutcliffe with Jimmy Savile and Frank Bruno-1430884
You could put one thought bubble above all three heads - "...you freak."
On the one hand it says it campaigns against pornography, and rails at how popstars such as Beyonce and Rhianna use sex to sell themselves, but on the other just revels in showing the aforementioned scantily clad women on its Sidebar Of Smut. It positively loves to show pictures of female celebs accidentally showing their knickers, such as Susanna Reid on the BBC News sofa, or a drunken wife of Steven Gerrard flashing her thong above her trousers on a night out. It just reeks of hypocrisy.
Still, I'm not gonna complain if it makes Harman's life a little uncomfortable.
They sort of deserve each other.
It is sad that some people are putting party politics ahead of common decency when it comes to picking sides in this argument.
I can tell you that not only do I not have a weak argument but actually, it is not my argument. It is the argument of several studies of the riots. Worth reading as we are all citizens of the UK.
amazon.co.uk/Mobs-Englishmen-Myths-realities-riots-ebook/dp/B006654U9U
amazon.co.uk/Riot-City-Protest-Rebellion-Capital/dp/1137029358
amazon.co.uk/Reading-Riots-Investigating-Englands-disorder-ebook/dp/B006LLOCII
@TFS - come on, you shouldn't wish that on your opponents (I don't think you do deep down)
The views expressed in a legal document seem pretty potty, especially by today's standards but there is absolutely nothing that I have seen suggesting that they are her views as opposed to the views of some committee of those that she worked for which may or may not have been infiltrated by unpleasant people with a disgusting agenda.
Frankly, this seems to me on a par with Latvian homophobes as a story, possibly not even as compelling (!) as that.
I do wonder, seeing how this has blown up over the last day or so, whether Harman should have just ignored the Mail entirely. But I can see why that would be very difficult to do.
I think she'll survive this, despite Dromey and Hewitt very generously allowing her to hog the limelight.
Won't make much difference in current times, with the hated LDs the only likely coalition partners even if it becomes necessary, but one for the future.
The only argument you have made is "But they had a sense of grievance!" When we have responded we didn't dispute that, but that that sense of grievance is both misplaced and to be expected among criminal types, you have just responded "But there are studies!"
If you have an actual counter arguments to our points, then please make it.
b) the critical issue is that it was not "proved after the event to be very dodgy". It was transparently very dodgy at the time. The clue was in the name.
I can only imagine that her legal advice (LIAMT?) is not to apologise.
If the venom I read below is because of Harriet's slightly rubbish handling of the story that I might agree.
But it's not.
@DavidL - was she once accused of being Latvian?!
She's just so hung up on being seen as holier than thou, that she's tied herself up in knots. If she feels a bit of heat over this, then that's tough. She could easily have said the right thing on News Night, but didn't want to seen as having made an error of judgement, 30 years ago.
@Socrates - what about she has never supported PIE, has no sympathy with its views, never has done and never will do, abhors paedophilia and always has done and always will do. What's left?
I am just going to leave this. I really don't think it is worth talking about.
I am not seeking to justify what happened I am seeking to understand it.
So why ignore my next question - why do you think there was such a sense of grievance amongst the young black community in Brixton and Tottenham? We have heard anecdotally of eg. David Lammy being stopped in his car by the police and here we have several studies that show that this was commonplace.
Were the people stopped the whole time (let's for argument's sake say this happened) criminals? Well the ones that rioted certainly were on those nights. Does this mean that other behaviours shouldn't be examined such as that of the police towards young black men in those areas? Of course not.
All those "studies" inform the debate. You seem to have some kind of visceral understanding of what happened and why which, sadly, seems to be quite shallow.
I never thought we would get to the point on pb where we dismiss academic insight (of whatever value) as though in being academic studies per se they are disqualified from consideration.
Not really but she is certainly in quite extraordinary good shape for 63
I agree about HH. You know that if the story had been about someone she disliked politically, she'd be all in favour.
All politicians are hypocritical but she's a specialist.
So it's unfair, but life isn't always fair.
UKIP @UKIP
Are you coming to UKIP's Spring Conference? Details here: http://www.ukip.org/spring2014 #UKIPSpring pic.twitter.com/isEGWn5XRg
Why the Mail has decided to resurrect this NCCL/PIE story after all this time I don't know but I think I am glad it has. I remember being outraged at the time. PIE was so repugnant that it even got a mention in a Tom Sharpe novel (the second in the Wilt series from memory) and accorded the same depth of scorn that Sharpe reserved for the apartheid regime.
Hewitt, Dromey and Harman got off far too lightly at the time so maybe there is some justice in their judgements of those days being brought to the surface again.
They'll be in a black bin liner with the Register from Glenrothes, and the missing Norman Scott files.
I had missed your question - apologies. I'm not sure there is a uniform sense of grievance among young black males in Tottenham. I imagine it was highest in those regularly engaged in criminal or legal but antisocial behaviour, and regularly get questioned by the police. That makes people feel they are in a submissive position, which causing grievance among those in a culture where "status" is highly valued.
I would also question the high prominence put on this sense of grievance. Sure, if you ask people, "why did you do it?" they come up with excuses, but does that mean if those excuses weren't present that they wouldn't have done it otherwise.
Were these people criminals if you ignore the rioting itself as an offence? Overwhelmingly, yes. Three quarters had prior convictions, and that's ignoring those that have committed crimes and not been caught yet, as the low-level criminal activity like vandalism and theft has very low conviction rates: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/sep/15/three-quarters-rioters-criminal-convictions
My understanding of the riots is not "visceral". It is a judgment based on my experience of years of reading coverage of events in London, speaking to people that directly observed the rioting, volunteering in disadvantaged London communities, and speaking in depth with many teacher friends of mine that know these sorts of kids well.
I am not dismissing academic study. It has a role to play. But if we are to have a debate, then the academic studies you are referencing should have ultimate points backed up by evidence in them that you can bring to this debate in order to challenge my conclusions. You haven't done that, and that's what I'm criticizing.
But good point, I don't know why I said the first bit, I do doubt your word if I am honest
You are right, erm, Bill?, goodbye. I'll leave you to it.
a) Betfair have just suspended their Indy Ref market.
b) The Betdaq betting Exchange has just launched its IndyRef market
Seems to be a lot of interest in the market today: 3 bookies have lengthened their No prices today. New poll in the offing?
I'm a bit conflicted on this one. One on hand, it's fantastic to read a thread which doesn't major on the Scottish currency, and whether or not Salmond is lying in the interests of gaining power which he believes will be used for the benefit of his electorate (clue: he's a politician). On the other hand, it does seem a classic smear campaign which is almost as unanswerable as the classic enquiry about whether one has ceased one's wife-beating activities.
Surely the analysis has to be that political activity is a messy business, and any group has lunatics at its fringe who hold views that are unacceptable. Find anyone who's had a life in politics over a number of decades with different standards and different norms, and you'll find someone who has had a degree of association with advocates of views that we consider beyond the pale.
Apologies if this has been raised already, but does this have any more merit than a 3-day front page campaign seeking to draw links between David Cameron and the "Hang Mandela" movement? As far as I can see, both would have equal merit and be equally indefensible, and both would leave an unjustified negative perception about their victim. The only difference seems to be that (these days) Labour lack anyone who will stoop as low as Crosby, and don't have much of the tabloid press to do their bidding.
http://raedwald.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/is-catherine-ashton-completely-mad.html
I suggest that a small amount of Googling would find a few hundred examples of greater crassness.
And Baroness Ashton was elected by the governments of the European countries. Just as the PM is elected by the members of the House of Commons.
Like @Socrates, I am uncomfortable about nth degree democracy. But it is nevertheless the case that people across Europe voted for people who voted for Baroness Ashton.
Betafair hasn't moved though, and that is the real guide
Thanks to the Hon Mr Justice Sweeney, it is now Tony Blair and Peter Hain who urgently have to answer for their past decisions.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-26330327
(as to your point about prior criminality it is a trivial to show that to say 75% of those arrested (within the first 24 hours only, not ultimately, incidentally) had criminal convictions is a long way from saying 75% of those involved in the riots were criminals plus where would you expect the police to begin to look for perpetrators if not known criminals but I digress.)
Your own investigations sound interesting but you undermine them when you expect (it sounds like you expect) a clear cut conclusion as to what the riots were about. They were about many things; in all your enquiries was none of the above mentioned? I find it hard to believe or perhaps you were in the wrong place.
Suffice to say that calling all the rioters "criminals" while accurate is insufficient to understand the complex causes yet if anything is to be done to address the underlying issues, they have to be approached with more of an open mind than you seem to have done.
(edit: apologies snipped your first para so that the response would fit)
But lawyers for Mr Downey argued in a two week abuse of process hearing at the Old Bailey that it was unfair to prosecute him and that it would threaten a key agreement in the Northern Ireland peace settlement.
Mr Justice Sweeney, who prosecuted several IRA cases during his career, agreed and threw out the prosecution, allowing the details of the case to be made public for the first time.
He said there had been a “catastrophic failure” in the case, compounded by the fact nothing was down when the error was spotted.
In a scathing ruling, he said “no sensible explanation” for the various failures has been given.
He concluded that the public interest in ensuring people accused of serious crime are tried was “very significantly outweighed” by the interests in ensuring that “executive misconduct” does not bring the criminal justice into disrepute and state officials are held to the promises they made.
“Hence I have concluded that this is one of those rare cases in which, in the particular circumstances, it offends the court’s sense of justice and propriety to be asked to try the defendant,” he said.
http://bit.ly/1hP9oSW
Maybe some Mugarooo has back YES with them rather than aat a bigger price on Betfair but I cant imagoine so... bookies dont take big bets
His favourite High Court Judge has spoken!
That's 3/1 with betfair, but my nap would be over 66% @ 4/6 with William Hill.
Good bet to take, appalling trading by Hills (if that is the case)
But I think comparing the EU to fascist and communist tyrannies is laughable.
It is indirect democracy - in that the heads of government choose. But those heads of government are chosen by voters.
I would also point out that the democractically elected European parliament has the ability to reject commioners.
I think a much more sensible objection to the EU - which I think is the one proposed by @MorrisDancer and @Sean_F - is that the people who make up the EU are not a polis.
EDIT: actually, as the European Parliament has only a 'straight-up, straight-down' vote on commisioners, it is not quite as democratic as I suggested.
EDIT 2: I changed 'EU is not a polis' to 'people who make up the EU are not a polis'
It is the secrecy of the process which granted Downey "immunity" which has been revealed by the Court and which is unacceptable.
The Good Friday Agreement expressly granted early release for prisoners convicted of IRA terrorist offences. Some people may not have agreed with the decision at the time but at least it was disclosed to the public.
The GFA did not resolve the issue of what should be done about 'on the run' suspects. This was left to informal and secret undertakings made to Sinn Fein by the Prime Minister (Tony Blair) and in letters sent by the SoS for Northern Ireland (Peter Hain) to individuals (such as Downey) risking arrest and detention.
The issue is whether the executive arm of a government should be permitted to grant immunity from prosecution in secret as a consequence of a peace agreement which failed to resolve the matter in dispute during the negotiation process.
La Baroness Ashton 0.54 onwwards - never once troubled herself with getting elected.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLuwfWeyjrM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25949029