Riots in England - Rats who sh#t in thier own nests... [Archive]

tonyz

08-13-2011, 08:15

A couple of developments that may generate discussion stateside, too, I suspect.

British PM proposes social media ban for rioters

By Doug Gross, CNN

August 12, 2011 -- Updated 1159 GMT

EXCERPTS:

(CNN) -- British Prime Minister David Cameron thinks he's found some culprits to blame in the recent riots that have rocked London and other cities -- Facebook and Twitter.

Saying the "free flow of information" can sometimes be a problem, Cameron's government has summoned those two social-networking sites, as well as Research In Motion, makers of the BlackBerry, for a meeting to discuss their roles during the violent outbreaks.

Cameron said that government officials are working with authorities "to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality."
More than 1,200 people have been arrested nationwide, Cameron told lawmakers. One estimate found that UK retailers lost more than than £100 million ($161 million) in stolen goods and property damage over four nights of rioting.

"Free speech is central to our democracy, but so is public safety and security," said Ivan Lewis, the shadow secretary of culture in the House of Commons, according to London's Guardian newspaper. "We support the government's decision to undertake a review of whether measures are necessary to prevent the abuse of social media by those who organize and participate in criminal activities."

Home Secretary Theresa May has called for meetings with the three companies in the coming weeks, according to British media.

Many UK rioters reportedly used BlackBerry Messenger, a free, private instant-messaging tool, to organize. A recent survey found that 37% of British teens prefer BlackBerrys to other smartphones.

Twitter and Facebook have been used as well, although those sites also have been used to organize cleanup efforts and calls for peace in the wake of riots that started in London's Tottenham district on Saturday after police shot and killed a man.

Representatives of Facebook and Twitter said they're happy to meet with the government, although both would presumably object to being censored or shut down in the UK.

Twitter has said it has no intention to block accounts or delete posts, while Facebook has said publicly that it already shut down pages that explicitly incited violence.

Research in Motion's Inside BlackBerry blog was hacked Tuesday after the Canadian smartphone maker suggested it would cooperate with London police to help identify rioters who may have used BlackBerrys to plan mayhem.

Open-Web and free-speech advocates immediately objected to Cameron's language.

"It may be tempting to smother that kind of speech when a government feels it is under siege, as Britain seems to feel that it is," wrote Matthew Ingram of tech blog GigaOm. "But doing this represents nothing less than an attack on the entire concept of freedom of speech, and that has some frightening consequences for any democracy."

Ingram questioned whether the government would be cracking down on telephone use or people talking about the unrest at their local pub if social media didn't exist. "That seems unlikely (although not impossible). But the British government's apparent willingness to consider shutting down or blocking access to Twitter and BlackBerry's BBM falls into the same category."

On ReadWriteWeb, writer Curt Hopkins said Cameron "joins the long line of powerful men who totally miss the point of social media."

"Banning those convicted of crimes from accessing social networks (the idea being that they used such access to organize criminal activities) is no different than banning the same criminals from accessing goose quills and ink pots," Hopkins wrote. "It will have zero effect on crime, aside from criminalizing social media itself.

"[/I]http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/social.media/08/11/london.riots.social.media/index.html

BBC - online

13 August 2011 Last updated at 09:07 ET

US 'supercop' Bill Bratton says riot arrests not only answer

Bill Bratton: "My assignment is to focus on the American experience dealing with gangs."

Communities cannot "arrest their way out" of gang crime, the prime minister's new crime adviser, US "supercop" Bill Bratton, has warned.

The former New York police chief meets David Cameron next month to discuss violence in English cities and says the issue is for society as a whole.

Embedded video and full story at link below:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14514429

dennisw

08-13-2011, 09:12

Interesting editorial which appeared in our local paper today.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/linda-chavez.html

The riots that have wracked England in the last week should be a sober warning to the United States: This is what happens when a country breeds a generation of welfare dependents who are happy to bite the hand that feeds them. For days, roaming gangs of young people have engaged in looting, setting fires, intimidating citizens, even killing innocents.

Speaking to a special session of Parliament, Prime Minister David Cameron said, "This is not about poverty, it's about culture, a culture that glorifies violence, shows disrespect to authority, and says everything about rights but nothing about responsibilities."

He's right.

Liberals in England and the United States have tried to explain the riots by pointing to the Tory government's proposed austerity plans. But it's not the cutbacks in social services that are the problem but the welfare state itself that has taught generations that society owed them a living; that the government — not parents — were responsible for raising children; that those who worked hard were either suckers or exploiters; that those who didn't work were entitled to the fruits of other people's labor.

Cameron pledged his government would "address our broken society, we will restore a stronger sense of morality and responsibility — in every town, in every street and in every estate." But it's a tall order.

In many respects, Britain is in worse moral decline than the United States. About half of all children in the U.K. are born out of wedlock — a number that has been growing rapidly in recent years. When the Labor Party took control in 1997, the out-of-wedlock birthrate was at 37 percent. It has grown about 1 percent per year ever since and will exceed half of all births in the next couple of years.

In the U.S., out-of-wedlock births are now at 41 percent of overall births, but there is tremendous variation in illegitimate births by race. Such births now are the norm in both the black (72 percent) and Latino (53 percent) communities, but less than a third of white births (29 percent) are illegitimate.

In England, however, race accounts for less of the difference in births outside of marriage, with whites having higher illegitimacy rates than some immigrant groups, most notably South Asians.
More than a decade ago, the social scientist Charles Murray warned that the U.K. was fast developing an underclass similar to the one that plagued the U.S. in the 1960s and '70s. In the Sunday Times in 1996, Murray wrote, "Britain has a growing population of working-aged, healthy people who live in a different world from other Britons, who are raising their children to live in it, and whose values are now contaminating the life of entire neighborhoods — which is one of the most insidious aspects of the phenomenon, for neighbors who don't share those values cannot isolate themselves."

Proof of the validity of Murray's thesis was evident on the streets of Tottenham, Manchester, Birmingham and other neighborhoods and cities this week. Thankfully, the U.S. has not yet succumbed totally to the lure of the welfare state. But the class-warfare rhetoric coming from the White House and liberals in Congress encourages the same kind of entitlement mentality that has infected the U.K.

It is not impossible to imagine an American future with a majority of children growing up in fatherless homes, dependent on government to provide for all of their needs, resentful of the rich and insistent on a larger share of wealth than they have earned. The phenomenon is rampant throughout Europe.

While the American people have, to date, eschewed fully embracing the welfare state, President Obama has tried his best to expand it under his tenure. The only thing that has stopped him has been a weak economy.

The riots in England should be a wake-up call, a reminder to Americans that their instincts in rejecting the welfare state are sound. But the only way to ensure that what has taken place in England and elsewhere in Europe won't happen here is to vote out of office those American politicians who embrace the welfare state.

Linda Chavez is the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal." To find out more about Linda Chavez, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

tonyz

08-13-2011, 09:55

Interesting editorial which appeared in our local paper today.
The riots that have wracked England in the last week should be a sober warning to the United States...

Good post. The truth is that rewarding unproductive idleness - whether it be through government sponsored social welfare programs or just "rich", uninvolved mommies and daddies - breeds an entitlement mentality reflected in the recent riots and maybe even the flash mobs.

Unfortunately, it can also be argued that the street rioters at the “bottom” are merely mirroring the parasitic political elite that are all too common today. Both are grabbing all that they can, while they can, to the detriment of the rest of us.

I fear that the worst is yet to come, here.

Richard

08-13-2011, 09:56

I was listening to the BBC report on this and they offered the following:

Extremely high youth unemployment (under 25 crowd) + lengthy on-going severe economic recession + govt reducing unemployment benefits combined with newly enacted tax increases which have hit those occupying the lowest rungs on the economic ladder the hardest + opportunity = the current mayhem.

UK unemployment = 7.7%
UK youth unemployment = 21%

It will be interesting to see what happens next.

Richard :munchin

rdret1

08-13-2011, 11:54

I fear that the worst is yet to come, here.

I will second that!

PSM

08-13-2011, 16:32

After the '92 riots, here in L.A., the cops caught a lot of the looters on trash pick-up day. ;)

Pat

nmap

08-13-2011, 18:00

Let's see now....social media use an account of some sort. So first, implement strong authentication of identity, thus connecting the account to a particular person.

Require those providing social media communications to retain copies of those communications for a year. With terabyte drives, this shouldn't be too terribly difficult.

When riots break out, do a simple search of the media...probably with a PERL script...redirect into a file...match IDs with real people...then prosecute and prosecute hard. Put them into tent cities in very uncomfortable places with the only entertainment consisting of counting the weevils in their bread ration. (Evil grin).

I suspect the nonsense would end rather quickly.

That said, we won't do it. We'll try to buy off the barbarians, ala Rome. It won't work. The debt will remain, the economy will languish, and lots of innocent people will be hurt.

The Reaper

08-13-2011, 18:10

I was listening to the BBC report on this and they offered the following:

Extremely high youth unemployment (under 30 crowd) + lengthy on-going severe economic recession + govt reducing unemployment benefits combined with newly enacted tax increases which have hit those occupying the lowest rungs on the economic ladder the hardest + opportunity = the current mayhem.

UK unemployment = 7.7%
UK youth unemployment = 21%

It will be interesting to see what happens next.

Richard :munchin

Hmm.

I suspect that most of the people I saw looting and robbing wouldn't do an honest day's work if it ware handed to them on a silver platter.

Liberal justification for the welfare state.

TR

PSM

08-13-2011, 19:21

The orange ticks:

Alex: (v.o.) Then we headed west, what we were after now was the old surprise visit, that was a real kick and good for laughs and lashing of the ultra-violent.

GratefulCitizen

08-13-2011, 19:24

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as
sacred as the law of God, and that there is not a force of law and
public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence."
-John Adams

Willing to bet that riots like those in England will never be seen in Texas.
The difference:

Texas Constitution and Statutes
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;
or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property;
and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means;
or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

BOfH

08-13-2011, 21:28

Interesting article on Cameron's response: Ask the US, and piss off his own police force.

Britain's top cop slams UK role for US crime guru

LONDON (AP) — Tensions between Britain's government and police leaders flared Saturday over Prime Minister David Cameron's recruitment of a veteran American police commander to advise him on how to combat gangs and prevent a repeat of the past week's riots.

The criticism, led by Association of Chief Police Officers leader Sir Hugh Orde, underscored deep tensions between police and Cameron's coalition government over who was most to blame for the failure to stop the four-day rioting that raged in parts of London and other English cities until Wednesday.

Cameron criticized police tactics as too timid and announced he would seek policy guidance from William Bratton, former commander of police forces in Boston, New York and Los Angeles. British police have branded the move misguided and an insult to their professionalism.

"I am not sure I want to learn about gangs from an area of America that has 400 of them," Orde said of Los Angeles, which the 63-year-old Bratton oversaw until 2009.

"It seems to me, if you've got 400 gangs, then you're not being very effective. If you look at the style of policing in the states, and their levels of violence, they are fundamentally different from here," said Orde, a former commander of Northern Ireland's police and deputy commander of London's Metropolitan Police. Orde made his comments to the Independent on Sunday newspaper.

The riots row overshadowed a day of peace on England's streets and continued progress in processing more than 2,100 riot suspects arrested so far, mostly in London, in unprecedented round-the-clock court sessions.

In England's second-largest city of Birmingham, prosecutors charged two males with the murder of three men in a hit-and-run attack Wednesday, the deadliest event during the past week's urban mayhem.

Both males — identified as Joshua Donald, 26, and a 17-year-old whose name was withheld because of his juvenile status — were being arraigned Sunday at Birmingham Magistrates Court on three counts each of murder.

The breakthrough by a team of 70 detectives came less than four days after Haroon Jahan, 20, and brothers Shazad Ali, 30, and Abdul Musavir, 31, were mortally wounded when a car struck them at high speed. The trio had been part of a larger group standing guard in front of a row of Pakistani-owned shops.

The killings threatened to ignite clashes between the area's South Asian and black gangs, but the father of Haroon Jahan made a series of impressively composed public statements in the hours after his son's death pleading for forgiveness, racial harmony and no retaliation.

Hours before Saturday's murder charges were announced, the father, Tariq Jahan, told journalists at a Birmingham news conference he had received thousands of letters from well-wishers worldwide.

"I would like to thank the community, especially the young people, for listening to what I have to say and staying calm," said Jahan, 46, a delivery driver for an electronics chain.

Police in London were continuing to interrogate several suspects linked to the riots' two other killings: of a 26-year-old man shot to death in a car after a high-speed chase involving a rival group of men, and a 68-year-old loner who was beaten to death after arguing with rioters and trying to extinguish a fire they had set.

England's forces of law and order have been on the defensive over their slow initial response to riots that rapidly spread Aug. 6 from the north London district of Tottenham to several London flashpoints and, eventually, to Birmingham, Manchester, Nottingham and other cities with high gang activity.

But police leaders mounted a series of critical interviews Saturday underscoring their view that Cameron was jumping the gun by seeking foreign advice at a time when his debt-hit government was pressing ahead with plans to cut police budgets by 20 percent.

Leaders of the police unions in London and the northwest city of Manchester — which dealt relatively harshly with rioters and quelled trouble there in one night — stressed that Cameron needed to listen to their expertise first, rather than seek to apply lessons from America's better-armed, more aggressive approach to policing.

"America polices by force. We don't want to do that in this country," said Paul Deller of the Metropolitan Police Federation, which represents more than 30,000 officers in the British capital.

Deller, a 25-year Met officer, accused the government of not being serious about following Bratton's recipe for reducing crime.

"When Mr. Bratton was in New York and Los Angeles, the first thing he did was to increase the number of police on the street, whereas we've got a government that wants to do exactly the opposite," he said, warning that planned budget cuts would mean 2,000 officers lose their jobs in London and thousands more nationwide.

Ian Hanson, chairman of the federation's Manchester branch, said local officers knew better how to police their own communities than "someone who lives 5,000 miles away."

Results of an opinion poll published Sunday suggested stronger public support for the police than for Cameron's approach to the crisis.

The poll, commissioned jointly by British newspapers Sunday Mirror and the Independent on Sunday, found that 61 percent thought Cameron and his Cabinet colleagues were too slow to end their foreign summer holidays following last weekend's outbreak of violence. Cameron returned to London from his break in Italy's Tuscany region Tuesday, after almost all of the London rioting had passed.

And strong majorities backed greater support and resources for the police, calling for planned budget cuts to be put on hold. About 65 percent said British troops should be used to reinforce police in event of future riots, while even heavier majorities said police should be permitted to use water cannon and plastic bullets against rioters and impose curfews on unruly communities. All of those measures have been used to control street violence in the British territory of Northern Ireland but never in Britain itself.

The survey of 2,008 people, conducted Tuesday and Wednesday, had an error margin of 3 percentage points.

http://my.earthlink.net/article/int?guid=20110813/13544cf4-7ce3-4259-a511-f0e49649dbc6

Sigaba

08-13-2011, 23:36

tonyz

08-14-2011, 07:27

I am relatively comfortable that America could never suffer outbreaks of anarchy and looting - at least not while the House and Senate looters are both in recess and much of the WH is vacationing on MVI. ;)

dennisw

08-14-2011, 09:24

IMO, Ms. Chavez's analysis is shakey. Suggesting a course of action in America based upon an ongoing event in a country with a markedly different political culture and social structure is teleological presentism at its worst. Moreover, her analysis undercuts the defense of American Exceptionalism she offered last year at this time <<LINK (http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2010/08/15/racial-pandering-from-both-sides-has-to-stop.html)>>.

If one truly believes that America is exceptional, can one credibly argue that the apple will turn into an orange within the span of one president's administration? If she does truly believe that such a drastic change can take place in so short a time, she is greatly at odds with the received understanding of the very concept she exhorts.

(A way to make her two arguments consistent with each other is to say that we have nothing to learn from England or Europe, one way or the other, and to argue that the current administration's policies are misguided on their own merits--or lack thereof.)

My $0.02.

I do not believe one can blame the current administration for every problem we face in our a nation. With that said, there is a trending which has taken place over the last 40 years which seems to be accelerating under Obama. The Obama regime is the poster boy for these problems. Increased dependence on government aid which is only augmented by the economic direction of the current administration.

Ms. Chavez zeroes in on the statistics related to babies born out of wedlock as the banner statistic of the cradle to grave government support mentality which has become an accepted way of life. If we can say that increases in single parenthood is a problem for any nation, then one can see commonality between the two cultures. To say there is "nothing to learn" is an abject statement where little support is provided and common sense would tend to say we can learn something from any situation where human beings are involved.

On slightly elevated note, are we all looking too much to government? Any trending towards liberalism only happens if we allow it. Is it really the Obama administration that's the problem or is it Us who allowed this administration to come into office to begin with. Maybe the Obama administration is a reflection of who we really are, and how we got to where we are is the real issue.

I seem to want to quote Walter from the Big Lebowski when he shouted during the bowling match," Doesn't anybody believe in the rules anymore!" They say that an acute polarization has been created between the parties. I believe it's an acute polarization has taken place in our culture. Not only do a large percentage of the population not believe in the rules any longer; you would be hard pressed to define the rules and get a consensus related to them.

I was talking to a employee of Home Depot yesterday. He said he saw a grandfather type slip some product into his grandson's pocket. When the employee called the grandfather on it, the grandfather slapped the grandson in the face for stealing. Is this incident isolated or is it symbolic of our current culture? How can you expect a culture bereft of integrity and principles of decency to survive?

Richard

08-14-2011, 10:17

Some interesting thoughts on it all {in a macro-sense} from Thomas Friedman.

Richard :munchin

A Theory of Everything (Sort of)
Ths Friedman, NYT, 13 Aug 2011

London burns. The Arab Spring triggers popular rebellions against autocrats across the Arab world. The Israeli Summer brings 250,000 Israelis into the streets, protesting the lack of affordable housing and the way their country is now dominated by an oligopoly of crony capitalists. From Athens to Barcelona, European town squares are being taken over by young people railing against unemployment and the injustice of yawning income gaps, while the angry Tea Party emerges from nowhere and sets American politics on its head.

What’s going on here?

There are multiple and different reasons for these explosions, but to the extent they might have a common denominator I think it can be found in one of the slogans of Israel’s middle-class uprising: “We are fighting for an accessible future.” Across the world, a lot of middle- and lower-middle-class people now feel that the “future” is out of their grasp, and they are letting their leaders know it.

Why now? It starts with the fact that globalization and the information technology revolution have gone to a whole new level. Thanks to cloud computing, robotics, 3G wireless connectivity, Skype, Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, Twitter, the iPad, and cheap Internet-enabled smartphones, the world has gone from connected to hyper-connected.

This is the single most important trend in the world today. And it is a critical reason why, to get into the middle class now, you have to study harder, work smarter and adapt quicker than ever before. All this technology and globalization are eliminating more and more “routine” work — the sort of work that once sustained a lot of middle-class lifestyles.

The merger of globalization and I.T. is driving huge productivity gains, especially in recessionary times, where employers are finding it easier, cheaper and more necessary than ever to replace labor with machines, computers, robots and talented foreign workers. It used to be that only cheap foreign manual labor was easily available; now cheap foreign genius is easily available. This explains why corporations are getting richer and middle-skilled workers poorer. Good jobs do exist, but they require more education or technical skills. Unemployment today still remains relatively low for people with college degrees. But to get one of those degrees and to leverage it for a good job requires everyone to raise their game. It’s hard.

Think of what The Times reported last February: At little Grinnell College in rural Iowa, with 1,600 students, “nearly one of every 10 applicants being considered for the class of 2015 is from China.” The article noted that dozens of other American colleges and universities are seeing a similar surge as well. And the article added this fact: Half the “applicants from China this year have perfect scores of 800 on the math portion of the SAT.”

Not only does it take more skill to get a good job, but for those who are unable to raise their games, governments no longer can afford generous welfare support or cheap credit to be used to buy a home for nothing down — which created a lot of manual labor in construction and retail. Alas, for the 50 years after World War II, to be a president, mayor, governor or university president meant, more often than not, giving things away to people. Today, it means taking things away from people.

All of this is happening at a time when this same globalization/I.T. revolution enables the globalization of anger, with all of these demonstrations now inspiring each other. Some Israeli protestors carried a sign: “Walk Like an Egyptian.” While these social protests — and their flash-mob, criminal mutations like those in London — are not caused by new technologies per se, they are fueled by them.

This globalization/I.T. revolution is also “super-empowering” individuals, enabling them to challenge hierarchies and traditional authority figures — from business to science to government. It is also enabling the creation of powerful minorities and making governing harder and minority rule easier than ever. See dictionary for: “Tea Party.”

Surely one of the iconic images of this time is the picture of Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak — for three decades a modern pharaoh — being hauled into court, held in a cage with his two sons and tried for attempting to crush his people’s peaceful demonstrations. Every leader and C.E.O. should reflect on that photo. “The power pyramid is being turned upside down," said Yaron Ezrahi, an Israeli political theorist.

So let’s review: We are increasingly taking easy credit, routine work and government jobs and entitlements away from the middle class — at a time when it takes more skill to get and hold a decent job, at a time when citizens have more access to media to organize, protest and challenge authority and at a time when this same merger of globalization and I.T. is creating huge wages for people with global skills (or for those who learn to game the system and get access to money, monopolies or government contracts by being close to those in power) — thus widening income gaps and fueling resentments even more.

Put it all together and you have today’s front-page news.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/opinion/sunday/Friedman-a-theory-of-everyting-sort-of.html?_r=1

Hand

08-15-2011, 04:49

QP Richards post contains an excelent analysis of the current situation IMHO.

Ret10Echo

08-15-2011, 06:12

Hmm.

I suspect that most of the people I saw looting and robbing wouldn't do an honest day's work if it ware handed to them on a silver platter.

TR

This e-Petition has received over 200,000 signatures.... (here (http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/7337))

Convicted London rioters should loose all benefits.

Responsible department: Department for Work and Pensions

Any persons convicted of criminal acts during the current London riots should have all financial benefits removed. No tax payer should have to contribute to those who have destroyed property, stolen from their community and shown a disregard for the country that provides for them.

Article in FT here (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c8970a8c-c688-11e0-bb50-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1V689BePt)

Ministers are drawing up controversial plans to remove benefits from those convicted of taking part in the riots that engulfed England last week, in a move Liberal Democrats and independent experts have condemned as counter-productive and overly expensive.

nmap

08-15-2011, 06:23

To add to Richard's post from Friedman...it may be worthwhile to also consider the trend of global food and fuel prices. Not only are a lot of people being squeezed on the income side, they also face problems on the cost side.

Can the mass of people involved in the riots develop the skills to compete in the global market? I doubt it. (Here I emphasize the word can. It isn't just a lack of motivation - I suggest they haven't got the needed capability.) But if they cannot be put to work, what does one do with them? Government make-work projects are simply not viable in the present environment.

I see no easy or pleasant solutions. But we've been buying off the rioters since Watts in 1965. Rhetorical question: What happens when we cease to pay protection money to the various disaffected groups?

tonyz

08-15-2011, 07:01

Upon reflection - IMO, there will be plenty of blame to go around.

Cameron and Miliband go head to head over riots
Allegra Stratton and Andrew Sparrow

guardian.co.uk, Monday 15 August 2011 09.25 BST

Ahead of speeches by PM and Labour leader, Iain Duncan Smith says MPs from all parties must share responsibility for growth of selfish 'life is what you take out of it' culture

Full article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/15/cameron-miliband-head-head-riots?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

Excerpts:

Politicians are partly to blame for the collapse in moral values that contributed to the riots, the work and pensions secretary, Iain Duncan Smith, has said.

In an interview broadcast ahead of major speeches by David Cameron and Ed Miliband on the causes of the riots, Duncan Smith said politicians from all parties needed to share responsibility for the development of a selfish, "life is what you take out of it" culture.

According to extracts from his speech released in advance, Cameron will say Britain has undergone a "slow-motion moral collapse" in the speech he is giving. But he has so far generally avoided making a link between the behaviour of the rioters and the behaviour of people at the top of society, such as MPs.

However, in an interview on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Duncan Smith conceded that the behaviour of MPs involved in the expenses scandal may have contributed to a wider decline in moral standards.

"We all have to put our hands in the air, those of us in leadership positions, and recognise, in the last 15 or 20 years, what has happened to us is that many of us have just decided that life is about what you take out of it, not what you put in," he said.

"You know, stiffing somebody on a debt in the City, or raiding someone's telephone for messages, claiming expenses that you should not have claimed … all of us have to recognise we have to put our own house in order at the same time, and try and change that."

Duncan Smith said that, for too long, those at the top of society had been willing to believe that different moral standards applied to them, and that had to stop. "This process of right and wrong runs for all of us," he said.

According to extracts of his speech released in advance, Miliband is going to make a similar point. He will deliver it at Haverstock school, the north London comprehensive where he was educated.

"It's not the first time we've seen this kind of me first, take what you can attitude," Milband will say.

"The bankers who took millions while destroying people's savings – greedy, selfish, immoral. The MPs who fiddled their expenses – greedy, selfish, immoral. The people who hacked phones to get stories and make money for themselves – greedy, selfish and immoral. Let's talk about what this does to our culture."

Cameron will push his long-held opinion that parts of Britain are broken, despite opinion polls that show the public believes he has not handled events well.
He will say government ministers from both parties will audit their portfolios for policies aimed at mending the "broken society".

In the speech, to be delivered outside London, he will say: "Over the next few weeks, I and ministers from across the coalition government will review every aspect of our work to mend our broken society.

"On schools, welfare, families, parenting, addiction, communities; on the cultural, legal, bureaucratic problems in our society, too, from the twisting and misrepresenting of human rights that has undermined personal responsibility, to the obsession with health and safety that has eroded people's willingness to act according to common sense – and consider whether our plans and programmes are big enough and bold enough to deliver the change that I feel this country now wants to see."

His words again suggest that the government is angling to renegotiate European law, which can overrule domestic legislation, and which they believe has prevented them from devising policies as they would like.

"Irresponsibility. Selfishness. Behaving as if your choices have no consequences.
Children without fathers. Schools without discipline. Reward without effort. Crime without punishment. Rights without responsibilities. Communities without control. Some of the worst aspects of human nature tolerated, indulged – sometimes even incentivised – by a state and its agencies that in parts have become literally de-moralised."

He will add that he believes that the public is "crying out" for the government to act in this way, and "I will not be found wanting". His passion to mend the "broken society" is, he will say, "stronger today than ever".

Miliband is due to speak half an hour later, and will reflect on ideas floated over the weekend by Duncan Smith, who has been appointed to lead a gangs task force.
Duncan Smith said the government would begin "harassing" gang leaders, suggesting dusk to dawn curfews, daily visits and a trawl of their lives and finances to pick up minor infringements.

He suggested gang members possibly should receive a knock on the door once a day from the police and arms of government such as the TV licensing offices, tax authorities and DVLA.

Children out late at night would be offered places at newly-created young offenders academies to "take the anger out of their lives".

Miliband is pushing for a national inquiry. He will say: "A new policy a day, knee-jerk gimmicks unveiled without being properly thought through, are unlikely to solve the problem."

The Labour leader will also taunt the prime minister, saying that when Cameron was developing his analysis of "broken Britain" in opposition, he acknowledged that deprivation mattered as much as culture in explaining antisocial behaviour.

Miliband will say: "I don't understand why he has changed his mind. The world hasn't changed. Maybe it isn't his view of the world that has changed, but his view of what would make him popular that has changed.

"I am clear – both culture and deprivation matter. To explain is not to excuse. But to refuse to explain is to condemn to repeat."

Sigaba

08-15-2011, 07:12

But we've been buying off the rioters since Watts in 1965.How so?

nmap

08-15-2011, 08:52

How so?

These expressions concerned King, and before he left Los Angeles he spoke on the phone with President Lyndon B. Johnson about what could be done to ease the situation. King recommended that Johnson roll out a federal anti-poverty program in Los Angeles immediately. Johnson agreed with the suggestion, telling King: ‘‘You did a good job going out there’’ (Branch, 308).

Later that fall, King wrote an article for the Saturday Review in which he argued that Los Angeles could have anticipated rioting ‘‘when its officials tied up federal aid in political manipulation; when the rate of Negro unemployment soared above the depression levels of the 1930s; when the population density of Watts became the worst in the nation,’’ and when the state of California repealed a law that prevented discrimination in housing (King, ‘‘Beyond the Los Angeles Riots’’).

LINK (http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_watts_rebellion_los_angeles_1965/)

The terms "anti-poverty program" and "federal aid" are the key elements. Protection money by any other name remains the same.

Jefe

08-15-2011, 13:17

LOL; weren't the strict anti gun laws supposed to stop violent crime?

I know we have had our moments (Watt's, LA etc), but can you imagine if you weren't allowed to own a gun and had to watch these people burn your shop/house down?

Thank God for the 2nd Amendment.

PRB

08-15-2011, 13:43

tonyz

08-15-2011, 16:48

The emerging profile of the rioters/looters suggests that in addition to economic poverty - the UK suffers from a certain moral poverty at various social strata.

The possible upside of these riots may be the self-induced prostate exams taking place by both major political parties - the MD’s can correct me if I’m wrong - but you’ve got to pull your head out in order to properly conduct that particular exam - not a bad thing.

Also, IMO the solidarity exhibited by various groups to stand up and fight the misguided, immature, criminal, thug, rioters suggests that maybe - not all are morally bankrupt.

Between Katrina, Vancouver, Toronto G-20, and the London riots, if anyone remains under the illusion that we can depend on the government in the early stages of disaster/street violence - I submit that you might want to disabuse yourself of that notion - certainly for the first couple of nights in London the police could not, or would not, stop the violence.

Sigaba

08-16-2011, 13:54

LINK (http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_watts_rebellion_los_angeles_1965/)

The terms "anti-poverty program" and "federal aid" are the key elements. Protection money by any other name remains the same.Is it your contention that Martin Luther King, Jr. participated in a shake down of the U.S. government?:confused:

BOfH

08-16-2011, 14:08

...at a time when this same merger of globalization and I.T. is creating huge wages for people with global skills (or for those who learn to game the system and get access to money, monopolies or government contracts by being close to those in power) — thus widening income gaps and fueling resentments even more.

There is an equally troubling phenomenon where skilled I.T. workers here are being replaced by those brought in on H1/L1 programs, thanks to the all regulation, the American worker has become too expensive :mad:

See http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/081611-outsourced-and-fired-it-workers-249780.html

nmap

08-16-2011, 14:14

Is it your contention that Martin Luther King, Jr. participated in a shake down of the U.S. government?:confused:

Clearly.

Others did it before he did. Yet others did it afterwards. That does not change the fundamental character of the transaction.

Sigaba

08-17-2011, 14:43

Clearly.

Others did it before he did. Yet others did it afterwards. That does not change the fundamental character of the transaction.Please name your sources. What is your proof that Reverend King sought a pay off? Who are these "others"?

nmap

08-17-2011, 14:53

Please name your sources. What is your proof that Reverend King sought a pay off? Who are these "others"?

OK, I'll name one of the sources "Ralph", and another one "Jill".

If you go back to post 26, you will find a link to the source. Notice that there is a difference between a shakedown and a pay off.

Sigaba

08-18-2011, 11:09

OK, I'll name one of the sources "Ralph", and another one "Jill".

If you go back to post 26, you will find a link to the source. Notice that there is a difference between a shakedown and a pay off.nmap--

First, I read the source you linked when you posted it. The only way it supports your interpretation is if one imagines it to say something entirely different than what it actually says.

Second, what you say in post #32 contradicts what you say in post #34.

Third, for the second time this year, you've presented a very controversial interpretation of two exceptionally volatile topics in American history. As with your musings about slavery, your comments about the civil rights movement in the 1960s in this thread, cynicism seems to trump critical thought.

It is well known that towards the end of his life, Dr. King was increasingly concerned with the connection between poverty and the plight of African Americans. Yet, your take--however you phrase, rephrase, and then unphrase it--is not very credible given your lack of evidence. Innuendo and insinuation do not contribute to intellectually responsible discussions about our past.

My $0.02.

BOfH

08-18-2011, 11:36

I submit that you might want to disabuse yourself of that notion - certainly for the first couple of nights in London the police could not, or would not, stop the violence.

Old news, even here in the US, see: http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html for a quick synopsis; Now, I have the utmost respect for LEO, and I am sure many of them wouldn't think twice about going above and beyond their "legally defined" duties, however, as legally defined by the cases in the above link, their job is to enforce the law and not necessarily protect you from those breaking it, and we know that the law moves with the ever shifting political winds. Additionally, LEO is generally limited to a reactionary role by law of nature(there was a movie that was based on preventing crimes before they happened, reading people's minds remotely and that sort, forgot the name), and while they will try to respond as fast humanly possible, you may very well be dead at that point.

tonyz

08-18-2011, 12:00

Old news, even here in the US, see: http://hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html for a quick synopsis; Now, I have the utmost respect for LEO, and I am sure many of them wouldn't think twice about going above and beyond their "legally defined" duties, however, as legally defined by the cases in the above link, their job is to enforce the law and not necessarily protect you from those breaking it, and we know that the law moves with the ever shifting political winds. Additionally, LEO is generally limited to a reactionary role by law of nature(there was a movie that was based on preventing crimes before they happened, reading people's minds remotely and that sort, forgot the name), and while they will try to respond as fast humanly possible, you may very well be dead at that point.

Old news to some, perhaps, but not to all.

The longer you are here the more you might observe that some guests have yet to acquire or use their first weapon and that many arrive here seeking advice on the subject of proper firearms usage from the QPs.

BOfH

08-18-2011, 12:13

Old news to some, perhaps, but not to all.

The longer you are here the more you might observe that some guests have yet to acquire or use their first weapon and that many arrive here seeking advice on the subject of proper firearms usage from the QPs.

That is true, I have a neighbor who is former cop(NYPD and Nassau) and he was not aware of these cases, I guess they aren't discussed much. The "old news" bit wasn't intended to say "Everyone knows this, your an idiot if you don't" it was more of "Everyone should know this, and you might be on the short end of the stick if you don't".

On the topic of firearms, I am still working on my NYC long gun license, and I have a long way to go with regards to proper firearms handling, so I fall into that category as well :).

nmap

08-18-2011, 13:21

nmap--

First, I read the source you linked when you posted it. The only way it supports your interpretation is if one imagines it to say something entirely different than what it actually says.

Let's review.

Here's the link: LINK (http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/index.php/encyclopedia/encyclopedia/enc_watts_rebellion_los_angeles_1965/). You will note further citations at the link.

Here's the excerpt:

King told reporters that the Watts riots were ‘‘the beginning of a stirring of those people in our society who have been by passed by the progress of the past decade’’ (King, 20 August 1965). Struggles in the North, King believed, were really about ‘‘dignity and work,’’ rather than rights, which had been the main goal of black activism in the South (King, 20 August 1965). During his discussions with local people, King met black residents who argued for armed insurrection, and others who claimed that ‘‘the only way we can ever get anybody to listen to us is to start a riot’’ (King, 19 August 1965). These expressions concerned King, and before he left Los Angeles he spoke on the phone with President Lyndon B. Johnson about what could be done to ease the situation. King recommended that Johnson roll out a federal anti-poverty program in Los Angeles immediately. Johnson agreed with the suggestion, telling King: ‘‘You did a good job going out there’’ (Branch, 308).

The meaning seems quite clear. King coerced the Federal Government to make payoffs in order to avoid riots and insurrection. Johnson agreed to it.

Was King above such behavior? There are allegations of extensive plagiarism, which may well be suggestive of character issues.

Here's a link: Ralph (http://setanta.unl.edu/mlk/dn_column.html)

(See? I named the reference!)

GratefulCitizen

08-18-2011, 13:34

On slightly elevated note, are we all looking too much to government? Any trending towards liberalism only happens if we allow it. Is it really the Obama administration that's the problem or is it Us who allowed this administration to come into office to begin with. Maybe the Obama administration is a reflection of who we really are, and how we got to where we are is the real issue.

For better or worse, central governments are losing power.
Nature abhors a vacuum. Problems will have to be fixed at the local level.

Government can't legislate morality.
You can't polish a turd.

wet dog

08-18-2011, 13:40

BOfH

08-18-2011, 13:42

You can't polish a turd.

Mythbusters episode 113 :D

GratefulCitizen

08-18-2011, 13:48

Mythbusters episode 113 :D

I stand corrected.
Then again...the president actually appeared competent to many in 2008 (that might also qualify).

BOfH

08-18-2011, 14:04

Then again...the president actually appeared competent to many in 2008 (that might also qualify).

They needed a lot of extra polish to make that "ball" shine, and there's definitely a need for more, he is losing his luster. :D :munchin

GratefulCitizen

08-18-2011, 14:16

To add to Richard's post from Friedman...it may be worthwhile to also consider the trend of global food and fuel prices. Not only are a lot of people being squeezed on the income side, they also face problems on the cost side.

I can agree with some of your doomerism here when it comes to food.
(Not from a technical standpoint, but from a political one)

In the US, Canada, Australia, and a few others, there doesn't appear to be a pressing problem.
Agricultural technology is ahead of the "power curve".

In many other nations, resources are probably being misallocated in order to protect those in power.
Sufficient excess capacity probably exists in net food exporters to feed the world, but this presents a political problem.

Will these food-dependent nations willingly trade away their wealth to feed their people?
Will they take to raiding their weaker neighbors in order to access arable land, water supplies, and fertilizer components?

China is on borrowed time.
Mercantilism will eventually crash their economy, and they have been overpumping their aquifers.

The combination of soil deterioration and reversion towards totalitarianism will probably reduce Russia's ability to produce food.
Hunger in large nations + powerful militaries is a bad combination.

The big players worry me more than the small ones.

nmap

08-18-2011, 15:35

For better or worse, central governments are losing power.
Nature abhors a vacuum. Problems will have to be fixed at the local level.

And, perhaps, at the individual or family level. Not only are they losing power, but they will simply not have the resources (cash, if you preer) to support programs we take for granted.

I can agree with some of your doomerism here when it comes to food. (Not from a technical standpoint, but from a political one)

:lifter

Welcome to the house of Doom! In all seriousness, my doomerism (long form) suggests that politics will make the technical problems far, far worse. So, in that area at least, we aren't so far apart.

Sufficient excess capacity probably exists in net food exporters to feed the world, but this presents a political problem.

Will these food-dependent nations willingly trade away their wealth to feed their people?

Also - will the exporters send grain, thus depriving their own people of meat? Cattle tend to be rather inefficient (but tasty) converters of grain to protein. And while grass-fed beef makes use of plant matter that cannot be used for food, the grain-fed variety is another matter. The formerly middle class may find hamburger out of their reach, thus breeding political resentment.

Will they take to raiding their weaker neighbors in order to access arable land, water supplies, and fertilizer components?

If you have the chance, take a glance at: When the Rivers Run Dry: Water--The Defining Crisis of the Twenty-first Century by Fred Pearce. It suggests that current flashpoints such as Kashmir (India/Pakistan) and the Golan Heights (Israel/Syria) are due to water issues. So, technically speaking, we're either there or close.

China is on borrowed time. Mercantilism will eventually crash their economy, and they have been overpumping their aquifers.

The combination of soil deterioration and reversion towards totalitarianism will probably reduce Russia's ability to produce food. Hunger in large nations + powerful militaries is a bad combination.

The big players worry me more than the small ones.

I wouldn't argue it. Rhetorical question: will hungry nations with nuclear weapons blackmail the world? Like, say, North Korea does?

Paslode

08-18-2011, 19:31

Entire Post

I know what I was taught in school, but how do WE know what Dr. King was or was not or was not concerned with? When I was in school it was taught that Dr. King was a leader in the Civil Rights Movement and that the Civil Rights Movement was about equality for ALL of us and Dr. King wanted us all to live in harmony...like having equal opportunity for education (not special test scoring and grants based on color) equal opportunity for jobs based on skill not color, etc..etc.

At one time Andrew Jackson was considered a Hero, and the American Indians were savages, now the roles have been reversed. Thomas Jefferson was once heralded as a founding father and the principal author of the Declaration of Independence.....now he is merely a Slave Owner.

But that has now been revised in that Dr. King was a Leader in the African American Civil Rights Movement which was specially aimed at outlawing racial discrimination against African Americans.

Which Civil Rights Movement was Dr. King part of? Was he looking out for the good of a nation or only the Black segment? Who knows? Who decides?

Who decides what something actually says, means, meant, was or wasn't intended, is or is not controversial? Several people can read the same information and come up with different conclusions or opinions. Others can then use those conclusions and opinions (The Source or Sources) as a basis which in turn may or may not be tainted information.

Is the Stars and Bars controversial? I do not believe so, but you might. You might consider it a sign of oppression, whereas I find it of cultural and historic value. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who decides and on what basis?

And my point....You can quote all approved and accepted sources you want with opinions that seemingly validate your point of view, but it doesn't necessarily make it correct it just means it is accepted as the norm or fact for whatever reason, and/or until the winds blow in another direction or someone gets a Grant to sway opinion. And in the case of Dr. King there is a very real possibility that you would be labeled a racists (blackmail and the limitation of free speech) if you do not agree with or offer an opinion, sources, information that is not widely accepted.

And I believe a good example of this behavior is Global Warming trade, where 'Experts' and 'Academics' create theory, and conclusion on doctored data as a means to cash in....Do we have or do we not Global Warming? Is or isn't the Climate changing? Is Co2 a bad thing? Is Co2 more toxic than the Mercury in Light bulbs? It is difficult to find what and why based on the polluted and prejudiced information available....but both side can provide sources to back up their claims.

Sigaba

08-19-2011, 14:27

Entire post

BLUF. Some of the comments offered in this thread about contemporary American history bring to mind Thucydides's observation. So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of the truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to mind.*

Were one to make a serious and responsible investigation into King's role in the 1965 Watts riots (that is, using books instead of Google), one might realize any of the following.
In the conventional historical narrative of the modern civil rights movement, the riots represented a turning point in which the movement's national leadership was increasingly forced to struggle for relevance.
This struggle reflected a changing focus from issues of political and legal equality to social and economic opportunity and from a preferred approach of non violence to increasingly direct confrontation and to militancy.
Within this traditional framework, represented by Taylor Branch's study that the citation in post #26 cherry picks (badly), King's communications with President Johnson represent the efforts of an old guard seeking to defuse an increasingly volatile dynamic not through 'pay offs' or 'shakedowns' (as some would believe) but through a recalibration of public policy to allow for equal opportunities among all Americans.
A major reassessment of the history of the modern civil rights began in the mid-1980s.# In this reassessment, subject matter experts have pointed out the following.
LBJ's Great Society programs, notwithstanding the lofty rhetoric coming from the White House, did not address the root causes of widespread inequality in America.**
King's efforts to intercede in Watts were ineffective.**
The shift of focus from national to local issues saw radicals implementing carefully calibrated solutions. These solutions ameliorated--if only temporarily--many of the issues affecting local stakeholders in a manner that empowered local residents.***

In regards to King's plagiarism, each person can decide on their own if King's flouting of established academic ethics "makes it impossible to revere him." I would like to point out that there's a certain tension to this argument when it is compared to the comments offered here (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=280609) and there (http://professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showpost.php?p=375694&postcount=15).

__________________________________________________ ___
* Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, trans. Richard Crowley. ed., ISBN-0684828154, p. 15. It is likely that Thucydides had Herodotus in mind.
# Steven F. Lawson, "Freedom Then, Freedom Now: The Historiography of the Civil Rights Movement," American Historical Review, 96:2 (April 1991): 456-471.
** James T. Patterson, Grand Expectations: The United States, 1945-1974, vol 10 of The Oxford History of the United States, ed. C. Vann Woodward (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 587-588, 589-592.
*** Peniel E. Joseph, "The Black Power Movement: A State of the Field," Journal of American History 96:3 (December 2009): 751-776. FWIW, I strongly recommend this article to critics of and advocates for the Black Power movement.

nmap

08-19-2011, 15:50

This struggle reflected a changing focus from issues political and legal equality to social and economic opportunity and from a preferred approach of non violence to increasingly direct confrontation and to militancy.

That sounds coercive, doesn't it? Like a shakedown, or an effort to force a payoff.

Within this traditional framework, represented by Taylor Branch's study that the citation in post #26 cherry picks (badly), King's communications with President Johnson represent the efforts of an old guard seeking to defuse an increasingly volatile dynamic not through 'pay offs' or 'shakedowns' (as some would believe) but through a recalibration of public policy to allow for equal opportunities among all Americans.

A forced recalibration of public policy? So, might we describe the payment of protection money as the recalibration of corporate spending priorities?

A major reassessment of the history of the modern civil rights began in the 1990s. In this reassessment, subject matter experts have pointed out the following.

LBJ's Great Society programs, notwithstanding the lofty rhetoric coming from the White House, did not address the root causes of widespread inequality in America.

And yet - Watts did not erupt again. So even if we accept the above, we might wonder what the real issue was. Perhaps bread and circuses sufficed, today as in the past.

King's efforts to intercede in Watts were ineffective.

There does seem to be a connection between his actions some sort of change within the environment such that the riots did not recur. However, I will defer to your conclusion that his efforts were ineffective.

The shift of focus from national to local issues saw radicals implementing carefully calibrated solutions. These solutions ameliorated--if only temporarily--many of the issues affecting local stakeholders in a manner that empowered local residents.

That's a delightful choice of words. And yet, when we consider what "radicals implementing carefully calibrated solutions" might mean, and how local residents and stakeholders were advantaged, we might be excused for wondering just how much coercion was involved.

And if coercion was involved, if it produced payments and other benefits, both monetary and otherwise, then the sources offered do not appear to refute the original selection.

However - instead of quibbling over King's effectiveness or the speculations about root causes, let us shift our focus for a moment. We know that governments, more particularly our own government, face budgetary constraints. In the case of the U.S., spending cuts are likely to be substantial, and arguably exceed 40% if a balanced budget is to be accomplished. So - when budget cuts collide with the previous "recalibration of public policy", one cannot help wondering what the outcome will be.

The events in the UK seem suggestive.

Hand

08-20-2011, 05:15

Sigaba and nmap- your posts are so well written, and full of so much carefully worded and intellectually deep information that I really have to read them slowly and carefully, then spend a couple of hours trying to figure out what you said. You are each very careful to include your sources, and to responsibly apply their logic. Your debates are a model for how one should have a debate on the internet. I appreciate the time you both have taken to absorb the massive amounts of material that you use to base your points and assertions on. I would love to throw into this discussion with you but it would sound like a rock trying to communicate its hate for sitting in the hit sun to a passing bird. Please pardon the thread jack.

nmap

08-20-2011, 06:10

I would love to throw into this discussion with you but it would sound like a rock trying to communicate its hate for sitting in the hit sun to a passing bird. Please pardon the thread jack.

Thank you for the lavish praise! But Hand - this is a learned skill. And since the world is using more e-mail and other internet communications channels, it might serve you well in other areas of your life. So please, add your thoughts.

PRB

08-20-2011, 10:32

ETHIOPIA. The African Union today adopted a unilateral resolution to deploy army troops and care packages to England as looting and violence spread from London to other major cities. Spokesperson Charity Khumalo said "We can no longer stand by while these savages tear themselves apart."

The AU, meeting today in an emergency session to discuss the ongoing rioting in the UK, has declared that they will do "everything in their power to help bring civilisation to England".

"It's just so sad, you know?" said Khumalo, speaking from the organisation's HQ in Addis Ababa. "Sitting here and watching them on TV while their society implodes. We cannot in good conscience remain idle and let it happen."

The AU has announced a range of initiatives that Africans can get involved with to help alleviate the misery of the English.

"For instance, we have launched an 'Adopt an English child' programme," Khumalo explained, showing journalists brochures featuring the faces of English kids. "If you donate a mere R50 a month, you can see to it that sweet little Johnny from Peckham receives a basic education, a pack of condoms and a pair of pimpin' Nikes."

Khumalo also said that the AU would be parachuting in dentists along with army troops as part of a 'Feel better about yourselves, Brits!' initiative.

"You can understand why they're turning on each other," the spokesperson told journalists. "You look in the mirror and you see teeth untouched by modern dentistry. It's heartbreaking enough to make anyone put a brick through a Starbucks."

The organisation also plans to air-drop care packages on major UK cities.

"Vegetables, mainly," Khumalo confirmed. "We're sending them vegetables and toothpaste."

The AU's flagship event, however, will be a star-studded rock concert to be held in Johannesburg, with all proceeds going towards the establishment of mobile libraries around the UK. Artists ranging from Mafikizolo to Steve Hofmeyr have pledged to perform at the show.

"As a humanitarian, it's the least I can do," Hofmeyr said yesterday. "I look at those photos of the adorable little beasts knifing each other in fights over looted X-Boxes and I want to hug them and give them a nice hot cup of Milo."

Meanwhile, the week's events has seen terrified South Africans in London and Manchester packing their bags for home.

"This country is going to the dogs, dude," said Werner du Preez, a gap-year student from Johannesburg. "I've been offered a nice little two-bed place in Hillbrow where I can feel safe again