Dear Mr & Mrs Cameron,
Why did you never take the time to teach your child basic morality?
As a young man, he was in a gang that regularly smashed up private property. We know that you were absent parents who left your child to be brought up by a school rather than taking responsibility for his behaviour yourselves. The fact that he became a delinquent with no sense of respect for the property of others can only reflect that fact that you are terrible, lazy human beings who failed even in teaching your children the difference between right and wrong. I can only assume that his contempt for the small business owners of Oxford is indicative of his wider values.
Even worse, your neglect led him to fall in with a bad crowd. He became best friends with a young man who set fire to buildings for fun. And others:
There’s Michael Gove, whose wet-lipped rage was palpable on Newsnight last night. This is the Michael Gove who confused one of his houses with another of his houses in order to avail himself of £7,000 of the taxpayers’ money to which he was not entitled (or £13,000, depending on which house you think was which).
Or Hazel Blears, who was interviewed in full bristling peahen mode for almost all of last night. She once forgot which house she lived in, and benefited to the tune of £18,000. At the time she said it would take her reputation years to recover. Unfortunately not.
But, of course, this is different. This is just understandable confusion over the rules of how many houses you are meant to have as an MP. This doesn’t show the naked greed of people stealing plasma tellies.
Unless you’re Gerald Kaufman, who broke parliamentary rules to get £8,000 worth of 40-inch, flat screen, Bang and Olufsen TV out of the taxpayer.
Or Ed Vaizey, who got £2,000 in antique furniture ‘delivered to the wrong address’. Which is fortunate, because had that been the address they were intended for, that would have been fraud.
Or Jeremy Hunt, who broke the rules to the tune of almost £20,000 on one property and £2,000 on another. But it’s all right, because he agreed to pay half of the money back. Not the full amount, it would be absurd to expect him to pay back the entire sum that he took and to which he was not entitled. No, we’ll settle for half. And, as in any other field, what might have been considered embezzlement of £22,000 is overlooked. We know, after all, that David Cameron likes to give people second chances.
Fortunately, we have the Met Police to look after us. We’ll ignore the fact that two of its senior officers have had to resign in the last six weeks amid suspicions of widespread corruption within the force.
We’ll ignore Andy Hayman, who went for champagne dinners with those he was meant to be investigating, and then joined the company on leaving the Met.
Of course, Mr and Mrs Cameron, your son is right. There are parts of society that are not just broken, they are sick. Riddled with disease from top to bottom.
Just let me be clear about this (It’s a good phrase, Mr and Mrs Cameron, and one I looted from every sentence your son utters, just as he looted it from Tony Blair), I am not justifying or minimising in any way what has been done by the looters over the last few nights. What I am doing, however, is expressing shock and dismay that your son and his friends feel themselves in any way to be guardians of morality in this country.
Can they really, as 650 people who have shown themselves to be venal pygmies, moral dwarves at every opportunity over the last 20 years, bleat at others about ‘criminality’. Those who decided that when they broke the rules (the rules they themselves set) they, on the whole wouldn’t face the consequences of their actions?
Are they really surprised that this country’s culture is swamped in greed, in the acquisition of material things, in a lust for consumer goods of the most base kind? Really?
Let’s have a think back: cash-for-questions; Bernie Ecclestone; cash-for-access; Mandelson’s mortgage; the Hinduja passports; Blunkett’s alleged insider trading (and, by the way, when someone has had to resign in disgrace twice can we stop having them on television as a commentator, please?); the meetings on the yachts of oligarchs; the drafting of the Digital Economy Act with Lucian Grange; Byers’, Hewitt’s & Hoon’s desperation to prostitute themselves and their positions; the fact that Andrew Lansley (in charge of NHS reforms) has a wife who gives lobbying advice to the very companies hoping to benefit from the NHS reforms. And that list didn’t even take me very long to think of.
Our politicians are for sale and they do not care who knows it.
Oh yes, and then there’s the expenses thing. Widescale abuse of the very systems they designed, almost all of them grasping what they could while they remained MPs, to build their nest egg for the future at the public’s expense. They even now whine on Twitter about having their expenses claims for getting back to Parliament while much of the country is on fire subject to any examination. True public servants.
The last few days have revealed some truths, and some heartening truths. The fact that the #riotcleanup crews had organised themselves before David Cameron even made time for a public statement is heartening. The fact that local communities came together to keep their neighbourhoods safe when the police failed is heartening. The fact that there were peace vigils being organised (even as the police tried to dissuade people) is heartening.
There is hope for this country. But we must stop looking upwards for it. The politicians are the ones leading the charge into the gutter.
David Cameron was entirely right when he said: “It is a complete lack of responsibility in parts of our society, people allowed to think that the world owes them something, that their rights outweigh their responsibilities, and that their actions do not have consequences.”
He was more right than he knew.
And I blame the parents.
*** EDIT – I have added a hyperlink to a Bullingdon article after a request for context from an American reader. I have also added the sentence about Nick Clegg as this was brought to my attention in the comments and it fits in too nicely to leave out. That’s the way I edited it at 18:38 on the 11th August, 2011 ***
***EDIT 2 – I’ve split the comments into pages as, although there were some great discussions going on in them, there were more than 500 and the page was taking *forever* to load for some people, and not loading at all for others. I would encourage everyone to have a poke around in the comments, as many questions and points have been covered, and there are some great comments. Apologies if it looks like your comment has disappeared. ***
Related articles
- London riots: David Cameron approves water cannon (telegraph.co.uk)
707 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 10, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Hacked Off
Nice piece and right on the money. Just make sure you only address it to his mother. His father died last year and it would be a shame for a well-constructed argument to be debased by Tories crying foul on your insensitivity.
August 10, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
Yes, I thought about that, but I think it underscores the point that whenever you blame someone’s parents you are doing so in utter ignorance of their situation. Whenever Cameron himself places the blame on parents, he has no idea if he’s talking to widows or the recently bereaved and yet he still feels quite confident in doing it. Yes, it’s crass and insensitive. It’s also exactly what he does.
August 10, 2011 at 2:17 pm
ian
Single parent families! I knew it! The scourge of the decent man.
August 10, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Dan Gates (@Dan_Gates)
The Daily Mail is going to have a field day! 😉
August 10, 2011 at 4:03 pm
parisscarlettlees
Well done you. This piece is magnificent and totally hits the mark. Very clever, very true.
August 10, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Guy Chapman (@SceptiGuy)
Do you know what a rhetorical device is?
August 11, 2011 at 3:07 am
parisscarlettlees
You may like my blog, State of Hate, which explores the role of the police in creating an atmosphere of animosity: http://lastofthecleanbohemians.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/state-of-hate/
August 11, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Pete
He also overlooked the fact that some parents despite their very best efforts have tear-away children sucking their every ounce of energy to try and control them. Also the fact that a percentage of these children are normally quiet decent but unfortunately have been susceptible to peer pressure, who’s parent’s would be shocked and devastated if they had seen them commit these out of character acts of criminality. I agree that the highest percentage of these children are more than likely from bad backgrounds and no doubt some of them where actually encouraged by (perhaps even stood side-by-side) some of their parent’s. The ones I feel sorry for are the genuinely hard done by and patriotic people of this great nation. But even after all their hardships they still took to the street to protect and clean up their communities, some of whom are no doubt the parents/brothers/sisters/children etc of some of the people looting their own neighbourhood. We shouldn’t be looking to just “blame the parents”, dare I say they are a product of their environment and perhaps the parents are aware that their child is a feral future convict and don’t care, perhaps they are trying their hardest to no avail or perhaps their child is a normal teenager at home but have no idea of the things they get up to when out with friends. I don’t know what the solution to all this is but that is why the public didn’t vote for me to do so, It’s the fact our PM doesn’t know that worries me the most, actually it’s the fact he probably doesn’t even realise this is the case that worries me.
August 11, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Tony T
A little too much taking the exception and implanting it as a rule/truth,( ie very good parents with feral children), You and most others know that lazy parenting or the total absence of it, is one of the most important contributing factors in this criminality (in quite a few cases, looters will have been sent out by there parents to do it). The problem is almost nothing to do with MPs expenses, police, racism, poverty, cuts that havent yet or whatever excuse is trendy. The problem has been brooding for years, and started before this generation was even born, that problem is WEAKNESS, and the rapid liberalisation of society, too many do gooders fighting for every ones rights, too much self righteous press power(hows that going, News of the World), giving 100s of thousands of lawless, more and more protection whilst trying to protect a few innocents, a charter for lawlessness. As for the forgetful lefties going on about tories, over a decade of labour weakness, and only 1 year of tory coalition, labour ostriches need to take the blame for years of weakness creating a problem for any one that might take over from them(lawlessness and financial). 90% of these looters are children of a labour society, from a labour era, brought up untouchable at home, in schools and on the street. Once arrested they get a none custodial sentence, and ASBOs, its just a badge of honour to these idiots. Shouting for more police today, but they will be complaining about it tomorrow, because it will be racist.
August 12, 2011 at 5:51 am
TM
Dear tony t I must correct you in saying these looters are of a labour era – I believe that would be a generation not just 13 years and therefore that would take us back to a tory government… Who might I also say due to their incompetent policies led us into mass unemployment forcing masses onto the welfare benefit system where the majority stayed un til 1997. Labour, I believe then created thousands more jobs – more than any conservative government. I would be happy to get you the correct figures. I am assuming you have a response?
August 12, 2011 at 8:29 am
Mark Joy
Except you weren’t were you?
August 13, 2011 at 5:38 pm
CG
You forget, clearly, that you are addressing an individual, he is addressing a body of people, the assumption that most have a full set of parents is not an uncommon one.
August 13, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
Not uncommon, perhaps, but still sweeping, uninformed, and crass.
August 10, 2011 at 8:08 pm
haley
Thank you. The hypocrisy of our ‘leaders’ is sickening to the core. They can steal outright and call it expenses, blatantly abuse their power and have no one to answer to. They are some of the most dangerous people in the world as they truly believe in their own entitlement, moral rectitude and superiority.
I would rather be faced with an angry youth stealing a TV, throwing a brick, hurling abuse because at least that has authenticity albeit a rageful and dangerous one.
Remind me again how easy it is to be moral when you are trapped in a life where you are disempowered or humiliated daily; where there is no future open to you where you could possibly own your own TV or car or your own house or go on even one holiday, why not live just for the moment? The leaders sell the idea of hope and a future but if you repeatedly discovered that this was a tantalising lie how resentful, how angry might you become?
I am lucky, consequences mean something to me because I can anticipate a future that I want and I can achieve and would not jeopardise. It is this that affords me morality. Give them the REAL possibility of a future too.
August 11, 2011 at 6:48 am
anne power
thank you for a brilliant response. Inspirational. Green Party member supports this analysis.
Anne Power
August 11, 2011 at 10:24 am
val
If the “angry young men” do not have a future here, they may go to live in Somalia; the live there is easy. Nobody is poor here, they a bored and do not respect Society.
August 11, 2011 at 12:33 pm
Als Simmons
This is so true!!
You keep hearing about hope and being inspired, but when you know or find out that this is an outright lie… yeah, even I get angry. When they say that they are listening, but you speak out, you march.. yet you are ignored.. I can see how this went out of control.
http://lion-essence.blogspot.com/2011/08/let-them-eat-cake.html
August 11, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Ruth
What an excellent response, thankyou.
August 11, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Esme Solnick
Haley
I agree sincerely with most of what you have said (not the angry youth bit ! too scared), but particularly your point about people with no hope and no future striking out for what they can get.. As an elderly tax payer I agreed at first with the premise put forth by some politicians ‘destroy shops and homes in your community and lose your benifits’. Then I thought again, and what happens then to these feral destructive youths? Do we condemn them to be a suppurating menacing underclass forever without hope ? The only solution I have ever come up with is some sort of educational pipe dream where the people who have created this mayhem are not sealed up in conventional prisons but instead in big constructive work camps perhaps run on semi military lines. That we then treat them as damaged people who have to be repaired, they would be taught skills, across the board, anything from bricklaying to music (Venezuela our example) give them access to the Arts their days completely filled with everything works towards a fit and proper view of sociiety (lots of exercise too).
AND THIS IS WHERE THE” BIG SOCIETY” IDEA COULD TAKE HOLD.
This is a costly project for us to undertake in these straitened times? There are enormous skills abounding amongst us ‘oldies’ we could take on teaching these people about a new way of fitting in and contributing meaningfully to our society.
I know what you are going to say ‘you can lead a horse to water etc.’ well that’s where “on military lines” and a bit of ‘carrot and stick’ would have to be employed and there Haley, I rest my case. I fear it will be up to you and your fellows to hold on tight to your principles and seek solutions.Esme
August 11, 2011 at 3:11 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
Thank you, Esme, that’s a really inspiring post. I’m reminded of the prison group in America where they have found that book groups and creative writing classes significantly reduced rates of reoffending. I seem to remember Crispin Blunt and Ken Clarke suggested something like this last year, but instantly reversed their position when the Sun started describing it as ‘discos for inmates’, and when the plans were swiftly vetoed by Number 10.
Is there any way we could organise a pilot scheme of mentoring from senior citizens? How do you think it would work? Would you have safety concerns? What sort of skills do you think would be appropriate to offer?
August 11, 2011 at 5:20 pm
hackney resident
Like a lot of people who’ve been affected by these riots (I live in Hackney), I am trying to make sense of what is going on and understand the cause of the riots. While I appreciate this very eloquent comment, I am not sure it’s completely on the mark. What has upset and disturbed people most – or at least me the most – is not the sight of people of carting off tvs and bikes from national chains like Halfords and Currys but of local shopkeepers and their families, who’ve built up businesses and reputations over many years, and who’ve had their shops ransacked for no good reason at all. It’s the little guys who pay. We all know Halfords is going to survive. And rather than capturing the thing that’s driving these riots, the above comment actually identifies what seems to have been missing: real anger. Rather, what’s been much more consistently exhibited by looters is a kind of gleeful opportunism as people turn on each other and their communities. The carnivalesque feel of it comes close to Burgess’s description of ‘wilding’ in Clockwork Orange or something out of JG Ballard.
Even though I know this wasn’t the intent of the above comment, I think we need to be really careful not to legitimize or romanticize the rioters or their motives in any way. Their behavior was ugly and destructive and, in many many cases, hurt those who least deserved it.
August 11, 2011 at 5:22 pm
hackney resident
Like a lot of people who’ve been affected by these riots (I live in Hackney), I am trying to make sense of what is going on and understand the cause of the riots. While I appreciate Haley’s very eloquent comment, I am not sure it’s completely on the mark. What has upset and disturbed people most – or at least me the most – is not the sight of people of carting off tvs and bikes from national chains like Halfords and Currys but of local shopkeepers and their families, who’ve built up businesses and reputations over many years, and who’ve had their shops ransacked for no good reason at all. It’s the little guys who pay. We all know Halfords is going to survive. And rather than capturing the thing that’s driving these riots, the above comment actually identifies what seems to have been missing: real anger. Rather, what’s been much more consistently exhibited by looters is a kind of gleeful opportunism as people turn on each other and their communities. The carnivalesque feel of it comes close to Burgess’s description of ‘wilding’ in Clockwork Orange or something out of JG Ballard.
Even though I know this wasn’t the intent of Haley’s comment, I think we need to be really careful not to legitimize or romanticize the rioters or their motives in any way. Their behavior was ugly and destructive and, in many many cases, hurt those who least deserved it.
August 12, 2011 at 9:41 pm
El Tel
Wonderful moral relativism. Morality is linked to how many TV’s you have? Give me a break. Stop patronising people. Stop setting different standards of behaviour for different socio-economic groups – you’re not helping anyone, least of all those you profess to care about.
August 13, 2011 at 5:48 pm
CG
Is it a lie, really? How so? Are you telling me that not everyone has access to free schooling systems that they are free to take from what they will? Are you telling everyone that certain jobs are out of their reach because of attributes out of their hands? Are you saying that people don’t have the opportunity to own a TV or a car? Because they sure do. You exaggerate the oppression in this society. People can, it’s whether or not they have the mindset to do so, whether or not they want to do so in the correct manner. The idea that the possibility of owning a TV or a car – as you narrowed life’s goals down to – is a lie, is actually the lie. What is stopping anyone from doing so, from working hard to obtain a desired job, to earn the money to then spend as they wish on TVs or charity, whichever? I’m interested to know.
You don’t have to be trapped in a life of ‘dis-empowerment’ and ‘humiliation’, from who anyway?
August 15, 2011 at 11:57 am
Alexa
“I would rather be faced with an angry youth stealing a TV, throwing a brick, hurling abuse because at least that has authenticity albeit a rageful and dangerous one.”
Clearly you’ve never been in this situation. I would much rather be faced by a corrupt politician or banker who manipulated a legal system for their own gains. At least you can discuss issues with them (even if their ears are closed) and know you’re not going to be called vile things, spat at in the face and possibly beaten to death by a crowd for “disrespecting” them.
“Remind me again how easy it is to be moral when you are trapped in a life where you are disempowered or humiliated daily; where there is no future open to you where you could possibly own your own TV or car or your own house or go on even one holiday, why not live just for the moment?”
It’s very easy actually. Poverty and lack of opportunity does not make people into animals. Even suggesting otherwise is an insult to every genuinely poor person; i.e. the people who didn’t go out and destroy shops and homes. My own family were in deep poverty two generations back, and there were no opportunities for them. They and everyone like them would never in a million years have committed the crimes we saw last Monday – because they were moral people. I’m willing to bet that the losers who went out and destroyed and looted were not poor, and that most of them already have at least one TV…
Stop insulting genuine working classes – the crimes we saw were powered by greed, arrogance and a total lack of authority.
August 11, 2011 at 9:38 am
Rampant of Rishton, Lancashire
Just so.
August 11, 2011 at 12:14 pm
Knut Autogrill
Excellent letter. Are you familiar with Charlie McMurdie? “The head of the national police unit set up to tackle internet crime told lies under oath about her involvement in a plot to damage the career of a junior detective, a judge has said.” How not to inspire confidence in the Police.
Info and links here:
https://nodpi.org/forum/index.php?topic=4088.0
August 11, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
THANK YOU, DANIEL, I WILL TRY TO TO BETTER IN FUTURE!!!!!!!!
August 11, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Daniel Potter
I am guessing you meant TRY TO *DO* BETTER. Obviously not a very good writer, you cant even spell correctly.
August 13, 2011 at 3:24 am
bob
great work, very true. Just need to make sure everybody knows the real truth!
August 13, 2011 at 10:38 am
Frank
An excellent article. I would add two points if I may. We should not forget the obscenity of bankers who ran loss-making banks and paid themselves massive bonuses (shouldn’t bonuses be paid out of profits?)
And the source of society’s dysfunction can be traced directly to Thatcher destroying our major manufacturing industries and promoting a ‘self-first, self-last’ culture. Of course, the only people able to take advantage of this situation were those at the top which is why the wage divide between shop floor workers and the top management of companies has grown so large.
August 10, 2011 at 1:37 pm
iain (@JimMacrae64)
(standing ovation)…………..author,author.
August 10, 2011 at 1:46 pm
Archbishop Cranmer
Mr Cameron sadly passed away last year.
August 10, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Guy P
It was already said at the top of the page.
August 10, 2011 at 10:27 pm
kenburch
Then again, YOU passed away in 1556…
Which begs the question…where ARE you posting from?
August 11, 2011 at 2:33 pm
jackshat
Good!
August 11, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
Um, Jack, using the same rhetorical trope as someone to point up how crass and insensitive it is, is not the same thing as revelling in a bereavement. I am not glad David Cameron has lost his father, I would not wish that upon anyone. I am sorry he has lost his father, I am sorry anyone should lose any parent, but I made a conscious decision to try and highlight how foolish it is to blame parents in a blanket fashion without knowing the specifics of any particular case.
If that’s the sort of thing that pleases you, you may be happier commenting elsewhere.
August 15, 2011 at 11:38 am
Timothy R
Yes, Archbishop Cranmer, I should think he passed away sad,
seeing what had become of his once-hopeful lad.
August 10, 2011 at 1:52 pm
M. Leninist
Excellent stuff!
August 10, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Jon Knowles
Brilliant indictment! Guilty as charged…
August 10, 2011 at 2:08 pm
Hamish Allan
Great post, although I fear that tarring 650 people with the same brush undermines your point a little.
August 10, 2011 at 2:11 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
Perhaps not all 650 indulged in rule-breaking, there are occasional exceptions I can think of. However, I think that they are all complicit in fostering a culture where venality is accepted as a part of life, and in failing to police themselves. As, sadly, are the police.
August 10, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Hamish Allan
MPs are only individuals, and have to pick their battles. If it’s so straightforward for an MP to effect such a purge single-handedly, why have you not done it yourself?
August 10, 2011 at 2:39 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
They can choose not to abuse rules they themselves devised to get money from the taxpayer to which they are not entitled. And many of them failed to choose that.
I have successfully never breached parliamentary rules on expenses. Partly because I’m not an MP. Mainly because I have a little self-respect.
August 10, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Hamish Allan
We’ve already moved on from talking about fiddling their expenses; you’ve acknowledged that you can’t tar them all with that brush.
So now we’re talking about whether they’re “complicit in fostering a culture where venality is accepted as a part of life”.
Having yourself failed to become an MP and make everything perfect overnight, I don’t see that they are any more complicit in that than you are.
August 10, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
Do you really not remember that all of the information given out by the Speaker’s Office was redacted? MPs did not volunteer the details of their expenses claims, a source revealed what was in the redacted parts. They were *all* complicit.
More than 50 MPs cheated on their council tax, more than 40 cheated on their income tax, 7 ministers had to resign. Are you really suggesting this was a couple of bad apples?
And I still don’t understand why you think I should have stopped MPs fiddling their expenses. And I’m not sure you can describe someone as having ‘failed to become’ an MP unless they have actually made some effort to become one. I’ll accept it, but only because you’re a failed astronaut, failed particle physicist, and failed woman.
August 10, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Hamish Allan
I guess I don’t understand what you mean by “they were all complicit”. Are you saying that the Speaker’s Office asks each MP individually whether it’s okay to redact things, and only does so if they get 650 Ayes? Or are you saying that 50 + 40 + 7 = 650?
I’m not saying that you should have stopped MPs fiddling their expenses. You are saying that every single MP is severally liable for failing to stop all MPs fiddling their expenses, and I’m asking you why you limit this liability to MPs.
August 10, 2011 at 3:31 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
But the abusers weren’t just those 97, were they? I haven’t included in that any of the shadow cabinet, anyone who claimed relief they were not entitled to (snarf!) through flipping (snarf!), that doesn’t include those who furnished homes they were not entitled to furnish. That is a small sample.
I am saying that if you help design a system that is open to abuse, elect the person who is to administer that system, allow them to issue incomplete information to the public, and then fail to speak up when abuses are uncovered (it was a civil servant, not an MP, who provided the information that tied the abuse with individual MPs) then, yes, you are complicit. I limit the liability to MPs because they, and no one else, invented the system they abused.
August 10, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Hamish Allan
So let’s say someone wanted to change the system, and stood as a candidate for parliament. Are you saying that as soon as they become elected they immediately and retroactively become the inventor of that system?
August 10, 2011 at 6:18 pm
Andy Howarth
Don’t forget the scurrilous press also.
August 11, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Als Simmons
A good read is “The Triumph of the Political Class” by Peter Oborne.
August 11, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Tom
Haven’t politicians tarred all the rioters with one brush – i.e. all of them are amoral scum capable of burning factories, mugging Malaysian men who are bleeding or running people over… instead of a vastly mixed group of people probably getting angry and crazy for a variety of complex and not so complex reasons.
August 13, 2011 at 7:41 pm
Who Me (@Hairyloon)
I think it is time we held a vote of no confidence in the whole parliamentary system.
It evolved from the feudal lords, a system where generally the nastiest bullies had most power, and the fact that it has been veneered with the illusion of democracy does not make it a whole lot different.
It is not fit for purpose and it is time it was replaced with a system designed for the job.
And since this is the 21st Century, we ought to be able to do that in a civilised manner and not have to descend into civil war.
August 11, 2011 at 2:44 pm
jackshat
Hamish lad, you just clutchin at straws now. Leave it be, they’re scum.
August 10, 2011 at 2:34 pm
Tottenham - Page 26 - DesignersTalk
[…] Originally Posted by Maerk Which we don't have the cash for of course. The bankers have all the cash. The MPs stole because they were jealous of the bankers. And we wonder why there's a misplaced sense of entitlement. Too true. This makes for an interesting read. […]
August 10, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Dan Gates (@Dan_Gates)
Fantastic. As good as the job Cameron has done ignoring the root cause of these riots.
August 10, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Guy P
Although Mr Cameron passed away last year, he still had a part in Dave’s “up-bringing”. Now when can we vote for another goon?
August 10, 2011 at 2:51 pm
Mike Spudgun (@spudgun01)
2 Points.
1/ I’m at a loss as to why your missive is addressed to the CAMERONS, when the vast majority of the protagonists mentioned here are SOCIALISTS; and
2/ Given point 1, above, I’m at a loss as to why it is you should turn the despicable crimes recently witnessed into a Tory affliction.
It’s a pity you couldn’t find time in the article for pointing out that it was LABOUR who created the ridiculous Children’s Act and the Human Rights legislation that allowed these attrocities to take place with such ease.
And no, I have NEVER voted for a political party and am NOT Conservative.
August 10, 2011 at 2:56 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
2 Answers.
1) I addressed it to the Camerons because it was their son, this morning, who blamed the parents of the looters for their behaviour.
2) I don’t. I never mention the Conservatives specifically as a party beset by this. They are as bad as Labour, but it would be difficult to argue that they were worse (especially when those who have gone to prison for their expenses claims have been overwhelmingly Labour). I quite clearly say that we have to stop looking to any politicians for moral guidance, whilst addressing it to those whose moralising has been most vocal over the last 24 hours.
You may think it is a pity that I couldn’t find time to mention things that were irrelevant to my argument. I do not.
August 11, 2011 at 1:43 pm
interested bystander
Of course those things are relevant as Cameron is only reaping the rewards of Blair/Brown policies.
August 13, 2011 at 2:41 pm
me
Actually, one can argue that Tories are more corrupt: they didn’t need to fiddle their expenses because they’ve already been rewarded by other means for loyalty to their sponsors over the British people as a whole.
August 11, 2011 at 9:02 am
Anna
Have you read the Children Act of 2004 or the Human Rights act of 1998? Can you explain how they “allowed these attrocities (sic) to take place with such ease”? Just wondering.
August 11, 2011 at 12:37 pm
Mike Pellatt (@mpellatt)
The original Children Act (NOT “Children’s Act”) was enacted whilst the previous Conservative government was in office. The subsequent amendment did not significantly alter the thrust of said legislation.
The European Convention on Human Rights was enacted after WWII with the aim of preventing the sort of abuses that the Nazis had perpetrated as a state power. The UK Act simply enshrined our international commitments into UK legislation with the intent of reducing the number of cases being decided outside of the UK legal system. Any other interpretation of the Act and its intention is misleading posturing :-). And in general, it has sweet FA to do with the EU……
August 12, 2011 at 9:04 am
Daffy, Witney
1) Cameron was responsible as a member of the Bulllingdon Club for damage caused.
2) In no stretch of the imagination can New Labour be Socialists. You only have to look at their socio-economic policies to see this.
August 13, 2011 at 6:49 am
Jim Dandy
I think you’re missing the point here, Mike. Regardless of political persuasion, there seems to be one law for the rich and another for the poor. As that old master Anon said in the 17thC:
“They hang the man, and flog the woman,
That steals the goose from off the common;
But let the greater villain loose,
That steals the common from the goose.”
August 13, 2011 at 2:43 pm
me
What’s the difference between a CEO and a pirate captain? The number of levels of management.
August 10, 2011 at 2:55 pm
Stu Paul Kingston
the governments are corrupt and have been since before guy fawkes
(whose failure we still celebrate)
our mp’s in the majority part are dishonest and corrupt and have been creaming cash off of everything we do for centuries.
give it time and they will tax the air we breath for the amount inhaled per lung size.
our country has been going downhill since they took away the hanging,national service and teachers rights,
bring these 3 things back and the discipline would return,
people would not commit serious crime if they had the threat of the gallows,
kids would have more respect if the teachers had more control of discipline,
a clip round the ear from a teacher or policeman kept previous generations in check.
August 10, 2011 at 2:59 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
Stu, you make a lot of interesting points. I’m not sure I understand any of them.
To pick one: “people would not commit serious crime if they had the threat of the gallows” which must be why there is no serious crime in America. No murder at all. None. To think otherwise would just be plain silly. (Or is lethal injection just fundamentally less scary than the gallows?)
August 11, 2011 at 4:34 am
V
of Fawkes. As a kid we celebrated his failure, however for most of the last 30 years we’ve celebrated the attempt.
August 11, 2011 at 9:16 am
Brent DeJong (@dejongbrent)
Actually, yes. Public torturous death is much more intimidating than a quick lethal injection, to people not very involved. Problem with America might be that our punishments aren’t bad enough. Look at Singapore’s crime rates.
August 12, 2011 at 7:01 pm
Stu Paul Kingston
uk crime rate has been steadily increasing since the 60’s .make examples out of serious criminals and the crime rate would drop overnight,it is no surprise our country has riots from the younger generations when you look at the decline in permitted discipline from teachers and parents,mum n dad can’t smack kids to put them in their place nor can a teacher or policeman clip you round the ear anymore.
didn’t do us older lot any harm ,my generation doesn’t go looting and rioting,riot was all driven to secure police jobs as theyv’e been severely cutback these past months,
August 13, 2011 at 12:18 pm
Jemma Hill (@tottwriter)
Stu, so, according to you, there were never riots in previous generations?
I can think of one hell of a lot of examples which beg to differ.
The death penalty has nothing to do with it. (And, looking at the US, those states with the death penalty often actually have higher crime rates than those without it.) The problem is simply the enormous hypocrisy of the system of government we have in place, whereby the rich get away with a slap on the wrist (if that) for what the poor are imprisoned for, and who people like yourself seem to want to exterminate.
In the 19th century “the people” got fed up with the corruption which was endemic in parliament, and caused mass disruption and upheaval which eventually resulted in reform. Now, it’s easy to look back on all that and say “Ah, yes, but they are protesting, that was different, this is just a riot.” That’s what hindsight does. I very much doubt that every single person who took part in the mass protests back then actually felt politically motivated. Like people today, they were disenfranchised and ignored, and they got angry, or they joined in because everyone else was doing it. It’s just that there was no social media for them to announce that to the world, so they get counted with those who did have a political motivation.
And interestingly, many of the large numbers of prisons and workhouses which were built at the time are no longer in use. I wonder if that could be because they didn’t work?
August 10, 2011 at 6:19 pm
Linda Lancashire.
I agree, but would like to add that when governmental departments are employed only to deny any wrong doings by their own,as in M.Ps., Local Gov. etc., either by refusing to reply ( Communities and Local Gov.) or in the case of L.G.O. refusing to accept a wrong which in the case of the residents of Westonhill Chalet Park (see website) was actually admitted in a court of law,it isn’t surprising that respect for the law and politicians is at an all time low. Voting for another party changes nothing.
When people in high positions use those positions merely for their own or their parties gain, it isn’t surprising that hate and disrespect prevail.
August 11, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Gary
When I was at school we learned in History lessons that people would pick the pockets of crowds attending public executions of thiefs. This is the only fact you need to know about the effectiveness of execution as a deterent. They could see, just yards away, someone being executed for the very thing they were doing. People who commit crime either don’t expect to get caught or have such low self-esteem that they don’t care about their own welfare.
If you are honest you will admit wanting executions is just about making yourself feel good.( Which you should worry about;- why do you want other people to die?) It does not DO any good.
August 10, 2011 at 3:07 pm
David Evans
Very enjoyable!
August 10, 2011 at 3:25 pm
robertjessetelford
Caroline Lucas is an MP. So it’s only 649, and there are a few other VERY good ones.
Remember when Nadine Dorries MP said that you will “need to be a millionaire or a monk” to be an MP after the expenses scandal? I think she was right. Well, not the millionaire part. But, yes, public figures do have to be monks. They have to have higher standards than the rest of us, otherwise how can they effectively represent us? (You may believe that no one should represent you. Form a group to campaign for direct democracy.)
If you read this piece and agreed with it, I suggest you stand as a councillor/MEP/MP next time there’s an election and start to change the situation yourself. The world is what we make of it. Get involved.
August 10, 2011 at 3:58 pm
Martin Whiteley
And in that second-to-last sentence lies the true point.
August 10, 2011 at 6:56 pm
Linda Lancashire.
From my experience of the last four years I can tell you that:- Councillors, whose expenses can amount to the tune of £25,000 per year do nothing to help the members of the public. Well, not in this part of the world. No matter what evidence is put forward, they support the council which pays them and obviously they have no conscience which seems to be one of the main requirements. Councillors who are actually on the Standards Committe, refuse to reply when written to and at the moment the staff of S.D.D.C. aren’t allowed to communcate with the residents of Westonhill Chalet Park (see website).
MEPs——-I know nothing about.
MPs? Even those who genuinely thought that they could make a difference, in my opinion don’t stand a chance. Debates take place like conversations at a dinner party, and then are forgotten.
See how quickly action is taken when the Prime Minister (whoever that maybe),is threatened, as in the Murdoch and Rioting affairs, or the M.Ps. want a salary increase———immediate action! Everything else which would be of benefit to the public which put them in power drags on for years.
For many years a loyal subject, I will never vote again.
August 11, 2011 at 5:14 am
Iain
You might want to check out motions by Green Party members about the treatment of employees by the party, and pay-offs to avoid ETs and to silence former staff, before you beatify Ms Lucas and her colleagues.
August 10, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Andrew Pritchard
Whilst most of what you have written is very well thought out and interesting, I want to comment about the “failure of the police”. The police have been doing a fantastic job on the streets during the riots. Their budgets have been slashed by successive governments trying to save the taxpayers money. But even if they had twice as many on the streets as they did over the last few days, there would still have been a lot of mass destruction and looting? Why? Because they were outnumbered, sometimes by as many as 10 to 1.
August 10, 2011 at 5:40 pm
Andrew Pritchard
I would further add, that if they had the numbers to come out with equal numbers to the rioters, I can guarantee that many would have complained that the police were being heavy handed, and that it was a waste of tax payers money.
August 10, 2011 at 6:17 pm
Jen
the police started the whole thing by being ‘too heavy-handed’..and kept fanning the flames by behaving like savages…
August 11, 2011 at 11:23 am
tim wood
Be in no doubt that the real front line police officers capable of doing something (thus ruling out all those who were only allowed to join for pc reasons and wouldn’t really want to get involved) are as furious about having to ‘stand by’ as any of those who wanted them to get stuck in. They would have been held back by commanders who were terrified of asking for more officers or escalating the situation and thus blotting their copy books. Careers can be ruined by doing something far more easily than by doing nothing!
Such ‘restraint’ has been going on for years. Good honest coppers want to ‘protect life and property’ but they need the support of their employers and government to be able to do so.
What use are PCSOs in these situations? For every PCSO a real officer post has been lost. The inability to deal with large scale public disorder is the price many of us knew would have to be paid one day.
August 11, 2011 at 1:51 pm
tim wood
Just found this. Think it makes my point better than I could.
PC speaks out about taking on mob at Catford retail park
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14485130
August 10, 2011 at 6:54 pm
mariamuir
The police were told to stand back and let it happen, and in case you have forgotten, they are also responsible. They shot a young man, lied, tried to cover it up. Next, at a peaceful rally for the young man, a 16yr old girl was trying to explain to the police about the injustice. They didn’t want to know and attacked her. That’s what caused the violence to begin with. Do stop defending the police. They are complicit. I do not condone the violence that escalated, there is no justification. There is no point in blaming Labour or any other party, they are all complicit.
August 10, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Andrew Pritchard
Mark Duggan was carrying an gun which had been illegally converted to fire live rounds. Let’s not forget he was a criminal. It is the job of the police to catch criminals. Duggan was targeted as part of a wider police operation to catch criminals.
Or are you telling me that it’s not their job?
August 11, 2011 at 9:18 am
deathlizard
If witness reports are to be believed, she “tried to explain to the police about the injustice” by throwing a glass bottle at them.
August 11, 2011 at 12:12 pm
tim wood
Although the IPCC have yet to complete and publish their findings you seem to be one step ahead. You ignore the fact that under certain tightly prescribed circumstances the police may lawfully shoot and kill people, indeed it is their duty to do so to protect life and injury. Anyone who carries anythings that may be perceived as a lethal weapon really should appreciate the risks they run.
But let’s wait for the IPCC report.
In the meantime though I can assure you that the police do not take the responsibility of potentially killing another human being lightly. I knew the officer who had Michael Ryan, the Hungerford muderer, in the sights of his rifle at one point. This was after Ryan had killed 16 people (including a colleague of the officer) with the rifle. Asked why he did not shoot Ryan he explained that, at the time he had him in his sights he was a threat to nobody. He added that he was not an executioner. There are few countries in the world apart from the UK where an officer would show such restraint.
Ryan shot himself soon after- though with such a closed mind I expect you will assert that he was murdered and it was a conspiracy cover up.
August 11, 2011 at 3:10 pm
Pete
great response Tim I feel people are making accusations toward to police without knowing any of the actual facts. In my eyes if he was carrying a gun, a lethal weapon, i’m sure the police gave him every opportunity not to get shot, before having to unfortunately do so. If he didn’t give the officer the opportunity to do so, then again, the correct decision was made. The police risk their lives everyday for us, It sickens me to see everyone turning on them. What sickens me more is the people who attacked the Fire Sevice in Chapel Town in Leeds for putting out an exploded car, I wonder if they would react in the same way of they where trying to rescue them from a burning building?
August 11, 2011 at 6:44 pm
ziggy
So……..mariamuir you must have been an eye witness to last Saturdays shooting? Are you saying that the police shot an innocent, law abiding young man? Are the reports of this young man carrying and aiming a gun at police not true? Was this young man not a known criminal? And the police are now also attacking 16 year old girls,,,,,,,,,?
Really??
August 11, 2011 at 9:18 pm
Gary
Ok Tim and Pete ,Your belief in the good judgement, fairness and professionalism of armed police in this country is touching.
Let me just remind you of a few incidents in recent years.
Police on the south coast raided a flat of a suspected drug dealer in the early hours and shot dead a naked man in bed. It was the wrong flat.
Harry Stanley was killed in my road for carrying a table leg in a plastic bag.
The armed police carry a card with them which lays out the rules for discharging their weapon. It says that the officer must be sure that using the weapon will save his own life or a member of the publics.
How come they can shoot an innocent naked man in bed, or a man with a table-leg in a bag? Sounds a tad trigger-happy to me. Oh, and by the way in each of those cases the police tried to cover up the truth, incredibly in Harry Stanleys case they got away with it, despite their testimony being contradicted by forensic evidence. The police even threatened to go on strike over the fact that the officers were being investigated!
Another true story that illustrates the proffessionslism of our armed police is from about 15 years ago. The officer in charge of weapons training in a northern police force (I forget which one) checked that a gunned was not loaded BY LOOKING DOWN THE BARREL! it went off shooting him in the face.
I know the police have a difficult job to do. Cat-burglary is a difficult job, so what? Having a difficult job does not mean you are not responsible for your actions.
August 11, 2011 at 3:00 pm
Kevin Hughes (@M0sstr00per)
The police were doing such a “fantastic job”? It was their treatment of the people of Totenham that drove them onto the streets in the first place.
In the last thirty years, over a thousand people have died at the hands of British police. From Blair Peach & Liddle Towers, to Steven Waldorf & Harry Stanley. To Ian Thomlinson. Police have kicked, punched, batoned, battered, strangled, mown down & shot entirely innocent members of the public. Yet NOT ONE serving police officer has EVER been the subject of criminal proceedings. Not one. NOT EVER!
August 11, 2011 at 3:35 pm
tim wood
I think that you would have difficulty substantiating either that over a thousand people have died at the hands of British police, or that no officer has ever been charged- but I am willing to listen and consider if you can provide some evidence.
By the way, evidence matters!
August 11, 2011 at 9:57 pm
Kevin Hughes (@M0sstr00per)
Tim I think you yourself would have absolutely no difficulty discovering that what I haver said is true.The information supporting both these facts is freely available. Though I should perhaps have said Criminal “conviction” rather than “proceedings”. I agree completely. The evidence does indeed matter.
A quick search of the names I have quoted & how they died might open your eyes. No serving police officer has ever been the subject of
Steven Waldorf was a completely innocent man sitting in a car. Waiting outside of a kebab shop in London. An armed police officer mistaking him for someone else, shot him 14 times times. (No challenge or warning was given) Wittnesses then testified that the officer dragged Waldorf from his car & proceded to beat him over the head with the but of his gun. Unbelievably, no charges were brought
against the officer.
5 year old John Shorthouse was shot dead whilst asleep in his bed when armed police raided his home in Leeds in 1985. The officer responsible claimed he put the gun down on a table beside the bed & it “went off by itself”. Officer aquited of all charges. Causing anger to spill over on to the sreets of Yorkshire.
August 10, 2011 at 3:27 pm
Jordan Glossop
congratulations, you have a new reader
August 10, 2011 at 3:38 pm
chiller
Beautiful. Congrats and thanks for writing this.
August 10, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Bella Slade
Brilliant post. I’m glad not everyone has forgotten that our politicians are just as greedy.
August 10, 2011 at 4:04 pm
MarinaS (@marstrina)
Brilliant – and let’s not forget that Young Dave is also technically part of the workless underclass, never having successfully applied and interviewed for a job in his life. Surfing the wave of nepotism is not an option one can access via a Job Centre.
August 10, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Twitted by almostandy
[…] This post was Twitted by almostandy […]
August 10, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Mark Watson
I have never seen so many liberals wetting themselves over the prospect of their failed social experiment being dismantled. Blaming this coalition for the outright failure of 13 years of labours catastrophic social experiment is the height of wilful delusion. These rioting kids have been brought up almost entirely under labour government. Their social deprivation was shaped by continuous, intrusive labour policy. These riots are very much the result of labour’s catastrophic failure.
August 10, 2011 at 4:18 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
Hi Mark, thanks for dropping by.
Here’s a tip: when commenting on a blog post, do try to find the time to read the blog post you’re commenting on. You’ll find that it makes formulating a comprehensible response much, much easier.
For instance, go back and look for any point at which I blame The Coalition (which, by the way, contains lots and lots of liberals). See it? No.
I blame the same person any right-minded person does: the parents.
August 11, 2011 at 9:19 am
Anna
Do you know much about New Labour, their political ideologies and the pragmatic approach they took? I think you need to appreciate the economic policies established in America by Regan, and by Thatcher in the UK, during the 1980s, to fully appreciate the context of New Labour. Also, you negate your point quite significantly by suggesting the riots can be blamed by isolating 13 years of a particular government. A final point, ‘these rioting kids’? The man who killed three men in Birmingham, who were protecting their properties, was 32.
August 12, 2011 at 6:27 am
TM
Mark
Please see my blog above. Social deprivation under labour? If I remember rightly the 1980s (tory govn) saw mass unemployment forcing people onto the welfare benefit system where the majority stayed until 1997. Labour created more jobs than any other govn. Deprivation was caused by a conservative govn.
August 15, 2011 at 10:15 pm
tarotworldtour
I am not for blanket welfare spending that is not tied to work, but public sector jobs such as the Blair, Carter, and Clinton administrations was very sensible because it boosted confidence, kept more money in the system, etc. People think that cutbacks are just these hypothetical cuts of excess, but most of the excess is people’s jobs.
How I long for the late 1990s and early 2000s. I can remember in the Midwest US when my school had such a huge budget, they could not spend it all. I am not sure how the UK works, but in most of the US, they have to use the money immediately, or else face cuts the next year. If they had been permitted some kind of saving mechanism, the decade long recession would not have pinched so badly.
August 10, 2011 at 4:15 pm
TackiestOnes
Excellent point. We feel okay about people in suits destroying communities and stealing our money. I wonder why that is.
August 10, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Phil
David Cameron’s father died last year, if youre going to take the piss, at least get the basics right (A Labour voter).
August 10, 2011 at 4:25 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
Yes, appallingly crass and insensitive, sin’t it, when people offer blanket condemnations of others’ parents without doing the slightest research into their actual situation? Let us deplore that together, Phil.
August 10, 2011 at 4:42 pm
robertjessetelford
Phil, if you read the FIRST comment that was made, you will see that this was purposeful on the author’s part.
August 11, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Shanae
His father died last year but was alive for 44yrs of his life so the letter still applies…
August 10, 2011 at 4:29 pm
David
Yes, very funny.
What I don’t find amusing is the lack of any suggestion to an alternative to a democratically elected government. The only hint towards which is slap bang in the middle of Cameron’s own ‘big society – not big government’ campaign.
If you are any sort of real comedian; it would be a similar hazing for ‘the other lot’ so I won’t accuse you of being pro-labour (although you do neglect to mention just as many of their failings on morality and choose only to focus on the current government.)
Instead; I’ll take this on face value which I can only assume to be a piece designed to stir those who only have half a brain (the “let’s think of a way to blame the government” half) and ignore the important things here: how best to stop what is going on NOW and look at the causes when people feel safe again.
August 10, 2011 at 4:56 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
Where is it I neglect to mention Labour’s moral failings? Is it where I mention Hazel Blears? Or David Blunkett? Or Mandelson? Or Hewitt, Hoon & Byers? Anyone might think you had skim-read to find what supported your prejudice rather than paying attention to what I actually said.
August 11, 2011 at 7:41 am
David
OK; I was fairly caught out missing the obvious Labour bashing.
But you have ignored the other valid points here.
If politicians are just as bad as the looters, where is your alternative to government?
Where is your suggestion as to how we stop what is going on now?
Interesting that you have, again, failed to miss the important questions.
August 11, 2011 at 7:57 am
Nathaniel Tapley
I agree that I have failed to miss the important points. Utterly failed to miss them.
I’m not arguing that all politicians must be bad, I am saying that those we have are bad. Our low expectations for them, our failure to hold them account for their misdemeanours, or encouragement of their sense of entitlement is all contributing to a culture in which riots like these happen.
We stop it in the way that has been effective since the first night, through communities uniting to deny looters the opportunity of doing damage in their neighbourhood.
August 10, 2011 at 7:20 pm
Chris
Don’t use semicolons if you don’t understand them.
August 11, 2011 at 7:51 am
David
Hi Chris,
I assume you have performed a thorough spell and grammer check on all the posts on this page?
I missed some important points and was rightly caught out by the author. This is because I didn’t have (and therefore, take) enough time to properly absorb the article.
You, on the other hand, seem to have had enough time to read everything in great detail but have chosen not to post something yourself.
So how about you stop being a clever dick and either post your views about what is happening to our country or use all this time you have on your hands to go and get a life?
August 11, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Mike Pellatt (@mpellatt)
You ask what is the alternative to democratic government ??
I’m with WSC on this one – it’s a terrible system, except for all the alternatives.
My suggestions to improve, rather than dismantle it:
1) Outlaw the whips’ office.
2) Outlaw the whips’ office.
3) Outlaw the whips’ office.
Much of the complicity of the 650 members that Nathaniel rightly rages against can be laid at the door of the whipping system. Step out of line more than a couple of times and you can wave bye-bye to any position of influence. Or, like Frank Field, be tossed the poisoned chalices. Repeatedly.
It was through the Whip’s offices’ work that Parliament came within a whisker of refusing to publish ANY information about members’ expenses. If Gordy hadn’t backed down in the face of the public campaign, they’d all have gone through the designated lobby like little sheep.
Seriously, though, other less transparent (as if that were possible…) means to keep the Party Members in line would then spring into place if whipping were abolished.
I’m firmly of the belief that we need to make it easier for intelligent Independents to be elected. MPs prime accountability has to be to their electorate, not their party.
August 12, 2011 at 12:29 am
Mr. Empathy.
Do we have a special star guest here, replying to Mr. Tapleys most excellent and intelligently worded open letter?
I apologise if not, but you really do read like “Call me Dave”.
If you are “Call me Dave” Dave, it is the ‘Yes, very funny.’ that gave you away, as there is nothing funny about this article at all, it is very serious and quite frankly accurate.
A large part of the problems we face is the lack of empathy at the top for the situation large portions of our society are faced with.
August 10, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Jonny Tompo
ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT. Bang on the money.
August 10, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Jonny Tompo
I’m surprised no-one, prior to this piece, has latched onto the rank hypocrisy of the government’s response and the fact that these riots are merely a socially deprived re-enactment of OUR OWN PRIME MINISTER’S ACTIONS (amongst other senior politicians) at the Bullingdon Club. Ridiculous
August 10, 2011 at 4:39 pm
Twitted by littledipp
[…] This post was Twitted by littledipp […]
August 10, 2011 at 4:39 pm
In the news - Page 190 - London Fixed-gear and Single-speed
[…] https://nathanieltapley.com/2011/08/1…erons-parents/ apologies if this is a repost […]
August 10, 2011 at 4:45 pm
tom101
Yes it is Labour’s fault. And it’s Cameron’s. And mine and yours and the whole of this f*cked up society that we live in. Whether you blame Cameron or Blair, we’ve all been chasing the “to have” dream instead of the “to be” dream. Our materialism and intense competition in society has created massive inequality. It won’t go away just by a few policy changes.. it is in all of us.
August 11, 2011 at 6:06 am
Richard
Sorry I meant to press like not dislike. I agree 100%.
August 11, 2011 at 8:19 am
Puppy Sandwich
Competition isn’t a bad thing. Without competition there is very little drive towards innovation. Competition is what drives people to be better. It’s a distinct lack of a sense of competition in some quarters that has contributed to the current situation.
August 13, 2011 at 6:09 am
Jim Dandy
Free marketeers trot out the ‘competition is good’ line regularly. I don’t think it stands up to examination. If you actually think about it competition is, more often than not, stupid and counter-productive. Every major technological and social innovation I can think of (pennicillin, antisepsis, powered flight, the internet, mobile phones, teflon, velcro, AC power etc etc) has been developed either by lone nutters standing against an (at best) disinterested system, or by publically (under)funded bodies engaged in non-competitive blue-sky science, such as NASA.
Take NASA as an example – you might argue that their greatest achievements were driven by competition with the Soviet Union. This argument is bullsh*t – even in the Apollo era, NASA’s funding was vastly overshadowed by US military funding, with the military chewing through the equivalent of NASA’a annual budget every three days: a direct consequence of competition on a vast scale. Additionally, had Houston co-operated with Baikonur (sharing knowledge instead of wasting time and resources by having to make the same discoveries in isolation), the benefits that later flowed to society at large would have been attained much more cheaply and efficiently.
To state that the current ugly mess in the UK is due to a lack of competitive spirit is, to put it mildly, laughable. The rioters are smashing and stealing because they can see no other means of competition, no other method to attain the material wealth they are constantly told is the measure of success in our competition-driven society.
So, Puppy Sandwich, you’re an idiot. Go compete with yourself…
August 11, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Patricia
After reading all the comments, I have to say that Tom has got it right with his “to be” and “to have” dreams. That is the question but what is the answer?
August 13, 2011 at 5:18 am
nadia
Hit on the nail, tom. Our innate competitive drive has been maligned to consuming as much as possible, with disasterous results for our environment, society, and our inner peace on an individual level. Puppy sandwich – agree with you, perhaps we need to cultivate a sense of competition in bettering our own character and bettering our social interactions with one another? It’s possible and I know it happens in certain pockets of our world.
August 10, 2011 at 4:45 pm
sheriffof0 (@sheriffof0)
Thousands of people waking up today in London to the fact that despite a well-armed militia, when the mob rises the illusion of law simply vanishes. The Home Secretary will now try to restore that illusion by claiming that rioters will be identified, caught and punished. Of course, the truth is that beyond the tokenism of a few arrests the very same lack of resources that permitted the unchecked rioting will prevent the capturing, trying and sentencing of literally thousands of looters.
The necessary illusion of State control over the population must be maintained at all costs. It is only when people find they need justice that they don’t get it. Prior to that they are absolutely encouraged to believe it exists. The shock that this discrepancy causes them is often quite profound. The same is true of many of the necessary illusion under which we are encouraged to labour.
We now regard The Watts riots of ’65 as ‘justified’ yet it was full of looting, violence & murder. History repeats itself first as tragedy then as farce.
It is of no use whatsoever restating the truism that the mob is ‘mindless’ or ‘thuggish’. This is obvious. All riots are ugly and brutish; nearly all involve looting. Martin Luther King called them ‘the language of the unheard’ and as such it is inarticulate. Riots occur because the conditions for them to do so are ripe and as such they are ‘allowed to happen’. There is no simple causality but there is always a trigger and in this case it was a badly handled and suspicious police shooting.
The causes of these riots are complex and involve disenfranchisement, real and perceived racism, disproportionate distribution of wealth and opportunity, swingeing government cuts and alienation. How are we to deal with these problems? The knee-jerk reactions of the internet & media stream would seem to suggest more of the same tired old platitudes involving crackdowns, widespread disgust, curfews, squaddies &c. Because these have always worked in the past…… right?
There’s an excellent piece on the ’causes’ of the troubles here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/context-london-riots
August 10, 2011 at 6:54 pm
OllyB
Interesting piece. My problem (or my worry), is that there has been huge, HUGE, amounts of money spent on this section of society over the last 15 years or so. But apparently these kids are still disenfranchised, disillusioned and hopeless.
So what are we to do now about the state of affairs? As a society I think a lot of us are feeling some kind of mass guilt about why these kids are doing this, but should we actually be feeling like this? Are we saying that we should actually have been paying even more into the welfare state over the last decade or would it have been good money after bad? Is the welfare state a ‘bottomless pit’ – no matter how much we spend on it, a certain section of society are always going to reject what’s on offer?
And what hope for the next few years when money’s going to be tighter? Is there a point in worrying about it…? Is this kind of thing cyclical and inevitable?
August 10, 2011 at 9:23 pm
Rich H
Olly, you are quite right to suggest that despite the vast amounts of money spent on these communities, facing issues directly related to their poverty, it has had seemingly little effect.
Is the response “ought we to spend more?!”, or does your own conclusion suggest that spending (money) is not THE answer to the problem.
Perhaps communities, families and self worth is more benefited by a well balanced society, where love, respect and appreciation is in its right place. this is not to say that the answer is a sappy “the community solves all of its own problems”, but it is a start. National politics and government play their part inproviding leadership once it has created real forums for people to be heard and participate in the communities that in turn nurture.
August 11, 2011 at 12:15 am
Maurice O
The Caucasian Spring
August 10, 2011 at 7:02 pm
jill bedfod
this is execllent stuff…fantastic to read siomething measured and not knee jerk reactions
August 10, 2011 at 8:11 pm
tarotworldtour
“The causes of these riots are complex and involve disenfranchisement, real and perceived racism, disproportionate distribution of wealth and opportunity, swingeing government cuts and alienation.”
That is an amazing reply, and I have been trying to write a version of this elsewhere up until now. What I wonder is if the incidents in Norway also acted as a trigger to what happened? The passive nature of Europe and political correctness also kept these declines going unabated.
£250,000 for average property and most people making £8-9 per hour, if they can find something… no core, proud identity to fall back on… recipe for problems.
August 10, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Geoff
LOL really enjoyed that. Doe’s have a point though. every time there is something like this all the politicians start to bang on about traditional British family values. Which will only make them look stupid when they inevitably end up in a corruption scandal.
August 10, 2011 at 4:50 pm
Paul
Rather facile, and tu quoque to boot. Still, who am I to criticise, I once stole a packet of sweets from my mum. Keep up the good work trolling in the comments 😉
August 10, 2011 at 4:51 pm
Charlotte Cowell
I think it’s time for non-violent, peaceful people of whatever class to take a stand against lawlessness and to make a genuine commitment – based on logical, practical – ie, achievable – solutions. Yes we pity the children of broken homes, but should we not also pity and care for the innocent victims of their crimes? It’s time to stop the vicious circle and implement some kind of boot camp system for tearaway teens, away from the malign influence of criminal parents and broken homes. If they want to behave themselves then fine, they stay in school and at home, but if they want to turn into thieving violent thugs they need taking in hand. It has to stop somewhere, the nanny state did precisely nobody any good whatsover The weak got weaker and more dependent and the strong lost sympathy when the systematic abuses went beyond taking the ‘p*ss’ and started to threaten the livelihood of those keeping this ship afloat. (ie, ordinary working people and especially people without kids, who bear a bigger burden than others for fewer benefits). I agree the banker w*anker types need taking in hand too, but that is more of a global problem at the minute, the tapework economy stretches right round the world several times. Let’s at least make the streets safer first. I don’t believe the majority of people were rioting and looting for any cause much greater than a new iPhone and pair of Nikes. Of course this speaks volumes about the degenerate consumer culture, but all classes are guilty of being taken in by that, they’ve created the demand that’s being met by current supply. Or do we want to go down the íntelligent/moral dictator route to stop all that stuff once and for all? Who could handle that I wonder….
August 10, 2011 at 8:16 pm
tarotworldtour
Great point made, so long as the policing is not menacing.
I always say “never reward mediocrity.” A mistake I made as a teacher and learned through my profession of identifying spiritual causes for issues is that we direct so much attention, both positive and negative, to problems or bad things. Attention is a form of reward. However, when someone does something productive, go overboard with adulation and help to keep the momentum.
The UK is an interesting experimentation at the moment as the central/federal power cuts down to nothing and the country is forced to self-run.
August 10, 2011 at 10:49 pm
vicky
CHARLOTTE COWELL its comments like yours that really make my blood boil, you have just tarred every broken home with the same brush. My son is from a broken home, it has been me that as raised him to be a kind, caring, polite and respectful young boy. Not everyone that comes from a broken home think that it is right to go out and take what isn’t theirs and cause mindless distruction out of simple greed. My son knows that to have nice things he as to work hard for it.
My son don’t need pity because he’s from a broken home he knows that he is loved. I’m also not a criminal which you seemed to suggest go hand in hand with coming from a broken home.
Watching the news these last few days most of the coverage has shown mainly black people who have been looting etc, would you sit there and say that all black people are the same?? No you wouldn’t because it isn’t true.
The way I see it if you’re a single parent you need to be strong, I haven’t needed to have a man around to teach my son good manners and respect and I definitely haven’t needed a man by my side to discipline my son when needed either.
We’re from East London we lived in a rough area. I can stand tall and say I’m proud of my son for who he is and for the young man he’s turning into.
I’m also proud of myself for teaching him right from wrong and guiding him along the right path.
August 11, 2011 at 11:18 am
azir
Hurrah – thank you Vicky. I too have a knee-jerk reaction when I hear about absent fathers and broken homes in this sort’ve context. My brother and I were raised in a single-parent family after my father left when we were 5 and 3 respectively. My mother did an amazing job on a low income and in a deprived area in Leeds. We don’t need pity, my mother doesn’t need patronising rhetoric about family values – I hate that the “family” is equated with a narrow-minded and wholly inadequate conception of man+women+kids.
August 11, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Vina
Vicky, I don’t believe that Charlotte was attacking so-called “broken” families, or even implying that all children from such families are ignorant hooligans who don’t know right from wrong. I know from personal experiences that the vast majority of single-parent families are honest, hard-working, morally-upstanding and generous people (both parents and children), but also that **some** (both parents and children) have an extremely poor attitude because they have been handled with kid gloves and had piteous “Oh poor you! You’re acting out because your spouse/parent left you! It’s alright.” comments and actions lavished upon them. This will eventually build to a perceived entitlement for little or nothing in return, an illusion that bad attention=better than none, “the man”/richer people/everybody else is to blame for everything they do, and a general lack of understanding that what they do has serious consequences for other people.
I genuinely applaud you for raising your son to be such a wonderful young man, and hope that someday I may be able to do the same.
August 11, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Nellie
Perhaps you should read Charlotte’s comments properly. She does not suggest single parents or children from broken homes are all criminals. She was rather replying to those who whinge on about these thugs, criminals and looters being poor little petals from broken homes. Perhaps it’s them you should be launching your vitriol at.
August 14, 2011 at 9:09 am
JonT
This reminds me of the point about the lapse of morality that allowed the British to plunder “their colonies” of their assets – sure it goes back a few years but the fact remains that the pirates of the British navy, sanctioned by crass capitalism and notions of racial superiority, and fully supported and sanctified by the state, plundered their colonies purely on the basis that they had guns and could. So this argument about who is to blame for the loss of morality in the recent riots goes back to a state sanctioned venality that is conveniently forgotten.
August 10, 2011 at 4:52 pm
Cameron to Step Down, Recognize Rioters as Legitimate Government « nominedeus
[…] Chinless Lampooning click here […]
August 10, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Mary Tracy (@MaryTracy)
OMG. This is so amazing, must retweet.
August 10, 2011 at 5:00 pm
SW/AWW
Cameron is promising that those who destroy local communities will be prosecuted. Yet his government’s decision re: Thameslink is effectively destroying a local community in Derby.
The world’s a bit more complicated and connected than many like to think.
August 10, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Ed Seyfried
It wasn’t Cameron’s decision to make; it was an EU directive that forced the decision to go to the cheapest tender: Siemens.
August 10, 2011 at 7:47 pm
SW/AWW
There appears to be some debate about that:
http://www.thisisderbyshire.co.uk/Proof-rail-deal-scrapped/story-13023504-detail/story.html
However, my point was that things are rarely as simple as some make them out to be and everything is connected. Everyone’s decisions–from Cameron’s to the looters’ to mine–have effects, whether we choose to acknowledge them or not.
August 10, 2011 at 5:01 pm
HS2429
I think those arguing the details in this blog – I’m looking at you Mr. Allan – need to have a word with themselves and think about what I think is Mr Tapley’s wider point: We’re part of a system that promotes greed, the quick buck, etc. (you could easily throw X-Factor and the like into the argument too), so what did we expect? And what do we do? The problem is that you’re talking about a total change in ideals, social structure, etc., and that’s tough, but it’s what needs to be promoted. On a lighter note, a good read mate. thanks. Although, as a failed doctor, I think I could have done a better job!
August 10, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Hamish Allan
I did take his wider point — have another look at my first post — but then I got caught up in “someone is wrong on the internet” with his insistence that every last one of the 650 MPs is culpable. To be honest I’m just disappointed because I’d link people here if he hadn’t come out with something so patently ridiculous.
August 10, 2011 at 7:58 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
But that isn’t what I said. I said those who were MPs at the time were complicit, not culpable. Oh, and you must have missed the bit when I said “not all 650 indulged in rule-breaking, there are occasional exceptions I can think of. ” to you. I can’t help but feel that you’re being wilfully disingenuous here, picking up on a rhetorical flourish and running with it far further than is sensible.
My fault for encouraging it, but it is tempting to wrangle with people over minutiae.
August 10, 2011 at 9:37 pm
Hamish Allan
http://www.google.com/search?q=culpable&tbs=dfn:1
August 10, 2011 at 9:52 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
Hamish, I really don’t know what you’re trying to prove. I have never used the word ‘culpable’, you’re the only person who has. You might not be able to understand how anyone can say that that 650 MPs are culpable because *no one has*.
August 10, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Hamish Allan
Sorry, when you said “650 people who have shown themselves to be venal pygmies, moral dwarves at every opportunity over the last 20 years”, somehow I got the impression that you thought that they were deserving of blame. Now that you’ve clarified your position, we are in agreement.
August 10, 2011 at 10:19 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
To be complicit in the widespread abuse of a system is to be a moral dwarf. And I clarified and said that I could think of some exceptions, but you seem determined not to either listen to or engage with any clarification I’ve given.
August 10, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Hamish Allan
On the contrary, when I asked you for clarification in the thread above about how an MP on their first day at parliament is as complicit as one who has been there their whole life, the silence was deafening.
Since you don’t seem to be able to understand this point in the abstract, let’s take a concrete example, say, Caroline Lucas. What, specifically, has she done to deserve your branding as a “moral dwarf”?
August 10, 2011 at 11:05 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
What part, specifically, of my saying that I could think of individual exceptions (in my very first response to you), are you having difficulty with?
August 10, 2011 at 11:22 pm
Hamish Allan
Let me quote you that response:
“Perhaps not all 650 indulged in rule-breaking, there are occasional exceptions I can think of. However, I think that they are all complicit in fostering a culture where venality is accepted as a part of life, and in failing to police themselves.”
In other words, the exceptions only apply to the rule-breaking; there are no exceptions to the complicity. In a later post you use asterisks to emphasise the point:
“They were *all* complicit.”
And then you say:
“To be complicit in the widespread abuse of a system is to be a moral dwarf.”
I’ll ask you again: what, specifically, has Caroline Lucas done to deserve your branding of her as a “moral dwarf”?
August 10, 2011 at 11:38 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
And I repeat that you are being deliberately obtuse about a piece of figurative language, as you well know. You’re not arguing in good faith, but rather out of some vain attempt to get me to apologise for using hyperbole in a humorous article. Which, by the way, is not going to happen.
In answer to your question (again): she has done nothing to deserve it, which is why I have not done it. I talked about 650 MPs as a complicit and venal whole. I also said that *all* MPs who designed, abused, and tried to cover up the abuse of the expenses system were complicit. As she was not in Parliament at the time it’s clear that this doesn’t refer to her.
In answer to any future questions you might have: I have no evidence that Michael Gove’s lips are wetter than other people’s; Hazel Blears is not *actually* a peahen; I actually do not think that the Camerons are responsible for their child’s behaviour.
August 11, 2011 at 12:02 am
Hamish Allan
Ah, the old “I was joking all along” defence.
Credit your readers with some intelligence.
August 11, 2011 at 12:41 am
Nathaniel Tapley
I did, hence spending so long attempting to discuss something with you. Clearly, an overestimate.
Good luck constructing your next straw man.
August 11, 2011 at 1:24 am
Nathaniel Tapley
Actually, I take that back. It was a cheap shot. Sorry.
Here’s the thing, Hamish. I’m pretty sure this discussion has gone about as far as it can online.
The substantive issue (if you were ever interested in one) was that you felt that I had made an unfair generalisation about the House of Commons,. You felt that the examples I gave weren’t enough to see corruption as endemic, widespread, systemic. Fine. We disagree on the number of bad apples there need to be in a barrel before you can condemn it as a bad barrel of apples.
However, your use of highly selective and partial quotation, and your deliberate setting up of straw men occupying positions that weren’t mine (and faux-apologetic retractions of them: “Oh,. hey, I must have misunderstood…” Well, yes, you did. have the good grace to acknowledge it.), leads me to believe that you’re not interested in discussing anything on which we have any chance of coming to a closer understanding.
So I’m not going to argue with you any more. If you want to discuss any of this, I’m more than happy to meet for a drink and mull it over. I think there are substantive issues to be addressed with regards to the amount of respect our politicians are due, and I’ll discuss them below with people like Al who actually want to.
Sorry if I have upset you, and for saying things that weren’t called for.
August 11, 2011 at 4:20 pm
cupid
get your coat Hamish, you’ve pulled!
August 14, 2011 at 1:36 am
fightthepower
You’re a moron making an utterly stupid argument. It’s called a rhetorical device, Einstein. It would be stupid to list every single MP that broke the rules. Nathaniel is right. They created a culture of thievery and those who did not steal never spoke out, which is just as bad as stealing money in the first place.
To the slow readers: Nathaniel is not pushing for moral relativity or in any way saying that the riots were justified. He is pointing out hypocrisy. When you are a hypocrite, you prove to the world that you do not believe in whatever statement or action you support. Go back to grade school and learn basic logic, and then try again.
August 10, 2011 at 5:03 pm
Antoine Becaglia
A great write-up… As a French person living in the UK since 2003, I would not dare commenting on neither the British politics nor Social failure ( France has the same issues and we had our share of riots) but this letter to parents is excellent ( even if one of them is deceased)… Worth being translated in French!
August 10, 2011 at 5:04 pm
ben varney
Reading through the responses to the rioting is fascinating – nice one mate for putting Camerons hypocrisy so firmly into perspective, though I am sure there is plenty more to be said on the subject. The widespread attempts to be ‘reasonable’ in the face of a corrupt government and intently murderous towards a massively disparate group of people reacting (very badly) with broadly diverse motives to the conditions created by our political leaders & business leaders. How many people have signed the petition to bring in the army? How many people feel we should be shooting rioters? All very English.
August 10, 2011 at 5:07 pm
poetart
Excellent article! No, we cannot look to ‘our leaders’ for guidance moral or otherwise, which many of us knew well before the rioting, looting, swag-handling chickens came home to roost.
August 10, 2011 at 5:09 pm
Kevin steward
Nathaniel,
I do like your article, however i do not like your crass putting down of any comments on here like they are not intellectually good enough. i think some fair points have been made here by local people affected by these riots for what ever reason. and you just seem to want to legibly (which you are very good at) make them seem small because your English is better than their’s. please forgive my useless English and forgive other peoples opinions a little. its all too polarised.
August 10, 2011 at 5:21 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
Hi, Kev, apologies for making you feel like that.
I have no problem with addressing points that come out of the blog post. However, the comments of which I have been dismissive have been ones that I have felt either were not addressing the points in the post (there are plenty of other places for people to air their concerns about other aspects) or have been openly combative.
Perhaps I have misread some, and perhaps I have been hasty in answering them. If so, I do apologise.
August 10, 2011 at 5:16 pm
Gav
Its a good article, that should have been published at the time of the acts. If we have to wait a year or two for the comment on what is going on now then I am afraid I wont find your voice in the sea of bloggers.
Do two wrongs make a write? No of cause not, The public is aware of most if not all of what you have talked about, but they still voted for them. There was a muted out cry, but nothing like these riots hey?
So I guess you have to say justice has been done. Its the public you should be most ashamed of, as they just roll over and accept it. Sure they will read this post and others and go out to the pub and talk about it for a while, but they will eventually just move on to the next thing.
The people deserve the government they get in a democracy.
August 10, 2011 at 8:15 pm
Liz
Gav, I completely agree with this article and your comment. I feel like I am a walking contradiction now, because I am that public you talk of too. But seriously, what can we do? Other than take to the streets with our brooms what the hell else can we do?
August 14, 2011 at 11:05 am
greencentre
Wow, now there’s a question. March the streets with brushes and pans to Downing Street comes at once to mind – to continue the clean up. And then? New Brooms, Clean Sweep, Spring Clean – the metaphors flow and so should the cobwebs and the grime of our complacent and torpid governance. It’s not a party political thing as there is no “party” for change but surely recent events – not just the riots – point to the necessity for change.
August 10, 2011 at 5:16 pm
The Fine Art of Rioting | Captain Jul's Mission Log
[…] … but that’s not the full story – Paul Lewis & James Harkin, The Guardian; An Open Letter to David Cameron’s Parents – Nathaniel Tapley; In this crisis, I need to stick my head in a bucket of shit – […]
August 10, 2011 at 5:19 pm
An Open Letter to David Cameron’s Parents « Nathaniel Tapley « Netcrema – creme de la social news via digg + delicious + stumpleupon + reddit
[…] An Open Letter to David Cameron’s Parents « Nathaniel Tapleynathanieltapley.com […]
August 10, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Stewart Cowan
Police Were Ordered To Stand Down As London Burned – it seems to be part of an agenda for the “authorities” to declare martial law. The police were told to stand and watch the looting so the public demands even more restrictions on our freedom http://www.infowars.com/police-were-ordered-to-stand-down-as-london-burned/
August 10, 2011 at 5:22 pm
tashmac91
I love you. I really do. Brilliant piece.
August 10, 2011 at 5:23 pm
MN
So what David and Boris’s parents think/say when their sons did this: http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=7344#
August 10, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Nathaniel Tapley
That quotation’s not genuine, I’m afraid, it was made up by someone as a joke last December and has done the rounds ever since. Although members of the Bullingdon were certainly arrested for breaking window with a flowerpot the night that DC legged it. (Source: FT http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/04/exclusive-david-cameron-and-the-bullingdon-night-of-the-broken-window/#axzz1UeFhzGyx)
August 10, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Kevin steward
And does this kind of writing/comment help those who have lost family and friends. Does it really help England? to me it just makes people more and more cynical therefore creating a worse society. To everyone here including the author, buy a broom, get in your car and help clean up the streets making your fellow countryman affected feel safer and inclusive!
August 11, 2011 at 6:59 am
Nathaniel Tapley
Hi Kevin,
Given that you were so desperately concerned not to be polarising a moment ago, it’s good to see you found the strength somewhere to overcome your qualms and indulge in some good, old-fashioned polarising of your own.
Does being aware of the corruption and hypocrisy of those who purport to lead us help England? I would hope so.
August 10, 2011 at 5:28 pm
lousyncsounds
Great article, spot on Nathaniel
August 10, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Sanchez
Anyone who is seriously quoting infowars.com needs a slap.
Secondly, onto my point. You, sir, are clearly a very well learned writer and make your points with clear passion and elegance. For that, you are to be commended.
I don’t agree with everything you have said here, however, the vast majority I do agree with. I do feel obliged to quiz you on a certain point. You mention that the police have failed in their jobs here. You clearly have a lot of opinions so let us play fantasy for a second here. You in charge of the MET Police. How would you have your officers react?
August 10, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Stewart Cowan
A lot of people cannot cope with reality. Do you believe the Daily mail then, Sanchez? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024412/London-riots-Police-soft-looters-ordered-stand-observe.html
August 10, 2011 at 5:34 pm
thesociallinguist
Amen to this, absolutely on the money. When will those higher up the ladder start to work for the benefit of the country they say they serve, instead of lining their own pockets?