to think some people's attitudes are disgusting?

[TheRhubarb]

A thread about a thread and a sense of despair. There is a thread on mumsnet suggesting that babies be taken from parents at birth if the parents are, in her words "scum". Is this what we have become?

As much as I loathe and detest what the rioters have done let's take a step back here. There have been riots in Greece over cuts, protests in Ireland, Italy, France and Spain. All we've had so far are a few half-hearted protests whilst the government pisses off on yet another holiday and banks and energy companies publish record profits yet again. Were these riots not predicted at all?

You have generations of children born into families who have never worked and who live in a cycle of poverty. The charities and organisations that worked tirelessly to keep youths off the streets and give them hope have been disbanded due to cuts. So far 2,220 charities have been directly affected, the largest number in Birmingham and the second largest in London. Research also shows the the most deprived areas are those which are hardest hit.

When you live in a society that bombards you with images of footballers wives sunning themselves on holiday and you have a government that decided to all take their holidays at the same time whilst many families are forced to cancel their holidays then you can have some understanding of the hotbed of anger and resentment. Job losses are huge, benefits cut, the maintenance allowance to enable youths to go to college is scrapped, petrol prices are huge, energy prices up again and everyone is blaming each other.

I'm sorry but when a society breaks down you have to look deeper than just parental influence, you have to look at what help there is available. Because as a society we are all responsible for what happens. We all have a part to play and just pointing the finger of blame at so called 'scum' is offensive and narrow minded. If there are scum out there then we, as a society created them. This country is in danger of becoming as corrupt as Italy. The energy companies get away with murder, no-one now bats an eyelid at petrol price hikes, the banks are still making huge profits and the government are targeting the poorest to make them pay for the mistakes of the rich. Where there is corruption on this scale there will be riots.

There is no excuse for tearing apart people's businesses or burning down homes, but just pointing the finger of blame at each other will not help.

Rant over.

CinnabarRed, good for you (why does written text look so sarcastic, it's not supposed to be)

Coco, what about Mark Duggan, is his murderer an animal too.

totally, Moomins. By the way, these rioters at court only seem shy because they've been caught. on national media. And a surprising number seem pretty cocky all the same.

here are the views of a public sector worker on the riots - one who actually works with disadvantaged young people.

By the way, as a public sector worker on a very low salary, I have somehow managed to refrain from expressing my anger at the various injustices I face by smashing up shops and helping myself to various consumer goods.

Just for balance, let's have a non-lefty take on some of the context and background to the riots:

link

It's by no means obvious to me that looking at the wider context necessarily means we'll end up drawing lefty conclusions about how the system/poverty/whatever is solely to blame and calling for less judgement and more 'support' for urban lawless kids. like that's worked so far. Some aspects of unthinking liberalism have also contributed to this situation. It's not the only cause, but it plays a part.

"I find it quite grotesque you are so kind to looters and try and absolve them of any direct blame yet vile to anyone who dares have different opinion to you."

exactly cocoflower. I just cant understand why you're so obsessed rhubarb with people using words like scum, feral etc. you seem fixated on it. They're not the nicest descriptions in the world but at the end of the day people are just trying to express their anger and horror at what is happening.

All of that anger and bitterness that you so obviously feel should be directed a bit more at the violent behaviour of the rioters and looters.

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for,that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Lying I think you misread my post - my point was about such terms being applied to a whole group of people, not that it wasn't entirely understandable that they might be applied to the looters themselves (after all, it's not every disadvantaged person in hackney, tottenham or lewisham on the streets, is it?), even though the language does make me uncomfortable which I don't think is a cause for shame on my part. I'm not saying that you (and others) can't use it. Here is what I said:

'my concern is that terms like 'scum', 'feral rats', 'animals', 'mindless' are being applied more broadly to a whole class of people most of whom have not engaged in these behaviours'

ps the point about courage is well made

not sure that I would be too happy about quoting Adrian Rogers as an authority according to wikipedia entry here. Also he can't have said that in 1931 as he was only just born

excellent article, flippinada, thanks.

Lyingwitch - agreed.

Noddy. What can I say to you? You are talking about a separate thread. I apolgised on there and will do so again. I am sorry if I hurt and upset you on that thread, my comments were not meant to be directed towards you personally. I hope we can bury the hatchet but if not, then feel free to contact me. However that thread has absolutely no relation to this one.

I will not apologise for ignoring the small section of mumsnet who advocate taking babies from mothers and calling those parents and children scum. That they actually work with those people I find shocking and upsetting. Not everyone who comes from a deprived area grows up to be a criminal and some of the rioters weren't even from deprived areas, they were professional people.

It's not brave to come onto mumsnet and say something so outrageous as that. What is brave is someone like cinnabar who admits she has never been left wanting in her life and doesn't live in the city, but who wants to help and has started something very positive indeed. On that thread she's been accused of helping the rioters too and not once has she lost her temper.

Can I just point out for balance that I am one of those awful lefties , as is the person who wrote the article?

I just want to make the point that this is not automatically a left vs right thing.

There's also an interesting thread in the news section about this, asking about cause and effect; asking why this is happening in England and not Scotland and Wales, here

Some people are speculating the lovely weather might be a factor (albeit with tounge firmly in cheek).

I dont really agree

i dont beleive their riots were sourced by anger, I think they are bored, greedy and feral

I also think we have allowed a benefits system to develop whereby bad parents continue to bring more kids into ther world, kids that will have a shit life, this needs to be adressed

However, not all hoodies are bad, and not all people that live on council estates are bad, and I agree that there needs to be way more support for these children

but you sound more angry with the public anger than with the looters

rhetorician - exactly. Those terms are used to describe sections of society, certainly on this thread they were by certain posters.

There have always been gangs. There has always been poverty. There has always been children running around without parents knowing where they are. There has always been criminality. That there should be a huge increase now is worrying. There will always be parents who fail their children, from rich or poor backgrounds, but there are not always riots. Blaming parents is not good enough, there is a deeper problem in my opinion.

Are you saying his quote is inaccurate in its content rhetorician? Or are you just going to pick for the sake of picking without actually thinking?

porc, yes the benefits system needed shaking up. However the argument was that people are better off on benefits than they are working so therefore benefits were too high. Those who argued that wages were not fair were ignored.

The government has cut benefits without putting in place a support system. So a family living off benefits has seen a decrease in their payments but no real help to come off those benefits and with job losses increasing there are no jobs for them to go to. They have no qualifications and no experience. Funds to get those people back into education have also been cut.

I have said that I sympathise with those whose lives have been torn apart by the looters and that the criminals should be punished. I am only angry at the people who condemn whole sections of society and want to turn this country into some kind of Nazi state where the government says who is fit to be a parent and who is not.

I did actually, rhetorician, sorry. I immediately flew to the viewpoint that not everybody who is impoverished and/or disadvantaged would loot/riot under any circumstances. Being in poverty, out of work, anything like that does not make anybody 'scum'. It's more to do with the actions, I think, not the person.

I absolutely agree that those terms should not be bandied across whole segments of the population, it's unfair. It also diminishes the terms because when I think of the person who knocked over those three men last night and drove away, leaving them for dead, I really do think of that person as 'scum'. I can't help it. To me, there's no redemption for somebody who would make a mistake like that and not face up to it.

I wouldn't use that term broadly although I have been using it in terms of the looters and rioters, I don't know what else to think of them. Using the term is a bit of a 'release', perhaps.

I'm watching itv 1, one of the people involved in the riot says he did it because he has problems with the police, he has had run ins with them before and doesnt like them ,also he believes the shops can afford for people to loot them

Maiavan well it's an argument, not a statement of fact; an argument that might usefully be framed by Rogers' strong conservatism on all sorts of issues (including abortion, amongst others). But you clearly believe that his analysis is accurate - I'd like to know the context in which the remarks were made. That's all. And I'd never heard of him, so was curious to know who the authority was.

I certainly don't disagree that not working and receiving handouts breeds a lack of self-respect, an inability to accept the views of others, to understand that giving something provides a deeper pleasure than receiving it, or that setbacks and difficulties are all central to the process of achieving something.

But I think I disagree that it is 'wealth' that is the problem - it's a more deep-seated poverty than the lack of material things (which if we are to believe everything we read, many of the looters do not lack for) - the problem is the definition of an individual's value by the stuff they have - which certainly seems to be the case for most of these individuals.

The people at the heart of these riots are not part of normal society. They have either chosen or been propelled into a different but parallel society.
One where the value system is different -being violent and creating fear are the norm .Being considered "The Topdog" is the ultimate reward . "Respect " simply because you are male (and violent to those who dont get it).
It is a value system where those who dont "respect " you are eliminated - hence 14 and 15 year olds are being stabbed.
It is completely incomprehensible to those outside it.
Drugs lie at the heart of it - get the young ,aimless ,poorly parented addicted and you have your willing ,pliant runners hooked .
For the first time in their lives they are part of a "family"
Add in the greedy,those who are simply up for a fight and there you have it

lying - yes, I suspect we don't disagree about that much actually, but I do tend to write convoluted sentences...and I can certainly see that the language is cathartic.

Absolutely agree OP, brilliant post. I'm very disturbed at how quickly everyone goes far-right at the first sign of trouble.

Lyingwitch - did I disagree with you before? Because now I find I am agreeing with everything you say! I can understand why you'd find that a release and I don't blame you. The thing that got me so angry today was the thread that advocated taking babies from "scum parents" at birth. It was upsetting and when I read some of the responses agreeing and actually going much further than the OP I felt I had to speak out, but not on a thread like that.

So this, for me, has also been a bit of a release.

Moomins, a lot of rioters are anti-police, that's nothing new I guess.
rhetorician, interesting points there, I will have to read the link but you may have hit the nail on the head, for me at least.

The government have tried to get people back to work when they bought in compulsory interviews at the job centre everyone, even single parents with young children had to go, they were to help people find work or get college places if that's what they wanted. If you got a job your childcare deposit was paid and you get help with fees, your housing benifit was aldo paid for a period of time to make the transition back to work easier, if you decided on college you got a free nursery place , some people just don't want to work or improve their education

The thing is, it seems that there is actually much common ground between the debaters on this thread but once again it's become polarised. It seems that everyone (or at least the sizeable majority) agree:

1. Violence is never the answer and the rioters should be punished for their actions.

1. Life's bloody hard if you happen to have been born into one of the sink estates of poverty (but most people in that situation don't resort to violence or crime).

1. The economic crisis is exaserpating matters, because it's made the situation worse for many, many people, but throwing more money at the problem hasn't worked in the past.

1. Anyone who's suffered as a result of the riots is deserving of everyone's sympathy. (Someone posted elsewhere that Red Cross is making donations of clothes and possessions, so seem a good charity for support.)

1. If money isn't the answer, then we as a society need to think radically about what we can do to affect change.

If we can agree on those broad principles then perhaps we can move the debate forward?