The moral decay of our society is as bad at the top as the bottom

I don't even think it's 'nothing to lose'. I think it's more like 'I'll never get caught'... Heard one Manchester rioter last week and his rationale was that there were hundreds on the streets, he'd only heard of 10 arrests so he figured his behaviour presented very little risk of punishment. A budding statistician but, sadly, not factoring in that the police will be going through CCTV footage for quite some time.

Claig. Black youth murdering other young black people does not get same attention as it normally effects those in that community, whilst rioting/looting/murder has affected people all over the country. The police are far too PC and have not stopped and searched enough kids on the streets to stop knife or gun crime. These ineptitude by the plods has resulted in a frightened society, many of the law abiding families have fled London and other major cities, as they fear their children will end up with a knife in the guts for looking at someone in a 'wrong' way. Until Cameron becomes really tough and talks the talk, society will continue to live in fear, and those who stand up against thugs may end up dead on the pavements of this country.

The black guy you spoke of is Shaun Bailey, who always speaks sense, he should be consulted by Cameron, he knows what goes on in the streets.

Cameron made me laugh when he said that these gangs were 'sick' in gang culture this term means great or good. But then what does David know about street gangs? Let's hope he can sort out this 'sick' society.

Sorry, post was aimed at Sprogger.

Agree Cogito that those at the bottom don't work on the same logic at those at the top. More perhaps that they don't feel that they have anything to lose?

The looters have nothing on the thieving MP's, at best they are all as bad as each other. Some of the police are corrupt. Makes me realise I've been a total mug.

I pay income tax on every penny I earn, am poor and work full time. We as a family (DD, who is wanting to study) have been hit very hard by the cuts and can understand how frustrated people feel. Also law abiding. I get fed up with people spouting off about single mothers, benefit cheats etc when they are salt of the earth natives, builders and the like scamming the system as well.

Lets face it most rich people have got where they are by knowing all the bloody scams.

Actually, I did wonder if I was being a bit optimistic there and your explanation was a better one.

But how to explain the fact that in plenty of parts of the UK if you drop your wallet it will come back to you with not a penny missing?

Exactly, so the Oborne piece pointing out that some people at the top of society is fine making that point... but extrapolating it to conclude that it's no surprise when others follow their example is poor logic. Takver's comment that some of those at the top think they that the law doesn't apply to them I suspect is precisely the case. They feel protected by their status. But those at the bottom thinking the same thing are doing so for very different reasons... not identifying with the upper echelons.

"Most of us have less opportunity than those at the top"

I'm not sure that that is the case - I think its more the fact that most 'ordinary' people do genuinely empathise with others and think about the effects that their actions will have on them.

Whereas sadly I think the very rich tend to view the rest of us as beneath them, and some sections of the very poor don't see themselves as part of the wider society.

So what stops you looting a shop Sprogger?....

@ttosca... you know very well that the two cases you mention have to be judged individually, in context and with all the information available. The price of the good stolen does not determine the severity of the offence

The 'mugs in the middle' have the moral high ground and if that means we can look at the dodgy people above and below us in society with equal contempt, I don't see that as a problem. There is certainly a nasty element of schadenfreude when the upper layers are shown to be behaving badly... how we like to fold our arms and tut when a Lord or an MP is sent to prison. "No better than they ought to be" we cluck.

Oborne was claiming a link ... is it any wonder they behave like this when they see the rot at the top of society?.... and I think, whilst some people will use any old thing as an excuse, there are a vast majority that don't ape the worst examples but have enough backbone to live decently.

I thought it was saying - only too truthfully, IMO - that it was considered equally acceptable to steal by the very rich and the very poor.

In fact, it's considered more acceptable for the rich to steal than the poor: Labour MP who was convicted of stealing £6000 in taxpayer's money from illegal expenses got 4 months in jail, where a recent juvenile rioter with no previous convictions, who stole a £3.50 bottle of water, got 6 months in jail.

Now I didn't read the article as saying that the actions of the rioters were caused by bent politicians.

I thought it was saying - only too truthfully, IMO - that it was considered equally acceptable to steal by the very rich and the very poor.

Frankly, it seems sometimes as if its only the mugs like us in the middle that feel an obligation to behave honestly and decently towards the rest of society.

Do you set your moral compass by the actions of bent politicians ttosca? Or is it just everyone else?

Certainly not. That's why I choose to vote Tory.

Bwhahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Frankly we are lucky to have a choice. Some countries don't have that luxury.

'Do you set your moral compass by what bent politicans do?'

Certainly not. That's why I choose to vote Tory.

I'm not disputing that there are wrongdoers throughout society or that bad behaviour should be condemned wherever it occurs. I am disputing the way the article seems to be attempting to make a straight-line cause and effect connection between the actions of politicians or bankers and the actions of looters last week. It completely disregards any notions of personal integrity and implies that we are mostly mindless, amoral sheep, incapable of making decisions for ourselves. It's just too pat for me... and highly inaccurate.

Do you set your moral compass by what bent politicans do? Honestly? Or do you have the strength of character to maintain a higher standard of integrity?

Very good article, thanks for posting the link.

The 'feral rich' fuck up the lives of others just as much as the feral rioters who burn down houses, they just do it more discreetly.

Cogito, for me its nothing to do with 'two wrongs make a right', and everything to do with 'stop the wrongs at the top as well as the bottom' if we want a decent society.

The public doesn't have much influence, that's a charade. 2 million of the public marched against the Iraq war and hundreds of thousands against cuts, but nothing changed.

Who found out about the Millie Dowler phone tapping? Do you think it was MP Tom Watson? Who released that info and at what time? Only when Murdoch was about to win control of BSkyB.

The public doesn't prevent the police doing anything. The papers, media and politicians inform the public and stir the public. Without them the public would be none the wiser. The public want more tougher policing, they always have. Most want tougher sentencing and many even want the return of hanging, but they can whistle in the wind. The public were in the streets berating Boris and Nick Clegg saying where were the police.

I don't know about morality or immorality, but it did attract sympathy from the 'ruling elite', hence the Trident operation. There was sympathy from the public but the shootings and stabbings are so far outside of most people's experience and gangland London seems so remote from their everyday lives that it's like hearing about a crisis in a another country.

More force from the police, as recommended by Paddick, would have been frowned upon by those same people - unhappy with the Menezez debacle, the Tomlinson death, the botched Forest Gate raid and other incidents of rough treatment. The police have been the subject of huge suspicion and do not have carte blanche from the public to exert more force.

And you're wrong about the hacking scandal. There were one or two MPs pursuing the case when others wanted to let it go but the 'extra pressure' in the end did come from the public, whipped up into a frenzy about Millie Dowler. That gave the MPs the confidence to go on the offensive.