London rioters are not 'protesters', admits BBC

[Turborama]

Source: The Guardian

Corporation receives more than 60 complaints over its choice of language when describing rioters and looters

Josh Halliday

The BBC's head of newsgathering has admitted that the corporation should not have described the London rioters as "protesters" after Saturday night, when a peaceful demonstration provided the initial spark for three days of escalating disturbances across the capital.

The BBC was criticised on Tuesday for continually referring to the looters and rioters as "protesters" – three days after the peaceful protest over the death of Mark Duggan in Tottenham.

Speaking to BBC Radio 4's The Media Show, Fran Unsworth conceded that its presenters should have dropped the term earlier.

"I think it was probably OK (to use the term "protesters") on Saturday when the whole incident started off in a peaceful protest in Tottenham," Unsworth said. "But since then I don't think we should have been using 'protesters', clearly they are looters and rioters and that's how we should have been describing them."

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/aug/10/london-rioters-not-protesters-bbc

[Bonobo]

1. Well, I guess that settles it then.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stella_Artois]

4. Its the truth

There is no political point being made when people loot charity shops. They are destroying their own communities in mindless violence. I know this truth unsettles you in your ivory tower across the ocean, but i'm here and that's how it is.

[SkyDaddy7]

6. Thanks for the info...

I was thinking along the same lines when I saw the reports of people's homes being looted & the fact the police were not being aggressive so there was no reason to be so violent IMHO. Now, here in the US if more than 50 people gather somewhere you are almost guaranteed to see rubber bullets & bean bags flying day one! LOL!

If I am wrong please correct me.

[No Elephants]

21. It may well be your subjective assessment, but your subjective assessment is not

"the" truth.

Whether an act is a protest or not does not depend up whether a charity is involved or upon whether you or I condlude a political point has been made. It depends upon the intent of the actor and the dictionary definition of the term "protest" and other, longer learned writings describing what constitutes "protest." But the dictionary definition will suffice for openers..


Please see Replies 8 and 18.

[Stella_Artois]

89. An act of protest then.

Odd that they targeted retail outlets, and not banks and local government. Protesting against Sony ? And Nike ? Footlocker was a favourite target. Protesting against sportswear in general perhaps ?

[BooScout]

123. Oh puleeeze....

When will people start listening to people actually living in the UK and who may actually be more clued into the situation?

[Nihil]

124. IMO ...

... fucking never ... they are *SO* convinced by their shit media that
*their view* is somehow the correct one that they haven't a frackin' clue
about the real world ... mere eye witnesses "must be wrong" ...
:argh:

[oldbanjo]

68. that's what they did in LA.

[alynaB]

3. Riots

Whether they were protesters of not, a riot was made that injured a lot of people. If they weren't protesters, then why are they on that place at that time?

[Nihil]

30. In answer to your question ...

Q: If they weren't protesters, then why are they on that place at that time?

A: Because they were looking for easy pickings - something for nothing.

"Protesters" my arse (but welcome to DU anyway)

[go west young man]

70. It's called opportunity.

Bad guys saw an opportunity to take advantage of. Nothing more.

[dipsydoodle]

5. K & R

As Stella Artois said : Protestors don't loot charity shops. Oxfam in Ealing was one example of that.

For comparison THIS was a protest :

Police in Lewisham, also in southeast London, escorted a group of about 50 black youths who said they were on a "peaceful protest against the English Defence League".

There was no violence among that group, which was outnumbered by police.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/violence-quelled-cops-warn-off-vigilantes-041451363.html

[No Elephants]

10. Where is it written that protestors don't loot charity shops? That is a subjective judgment,

Where is it written that a protest is only non-violent?

The term "protest" does have a meaning that is more objective. It is the meaning found in the dictionary, as well as in more expanded writings. I know of none that say a protest must be non-violent. To the contrary, historically, many protests have been quite violent.

[dipsydoodle]

12. Maybe I paraphrased it wrongly

see reply #4 above.

Since when did "protesting" involve looting which if organised by social media is classed as aggravated burglary carrying a 10 year max sentence - that's other than for wrap ups which have longer sentencing periods ?

If you personally approve of protestors looting charity shops then so be it. I Don't.

[No Elephants]

17. No, phrasing is not the issue. It's the subjectivity. Please see Reply 8, below.

(I will make the same requrest of the poster of Reply #4, which is confuses a subjective conclusion of the poster with "the" truth.

In case it is unclear, I am not using "subjective" pejorativvely, only as the opposite of objective. While a dictionary definition is not technically entirely objective, it is, as my previous reply to you stated, "more objective."

[LanternWaste]

37. The crowd also appears to fit well within the dictionary definitions of both "looters" and "rioters"

The crowd also appears to fit well within the dictionary definitions of both "looters" and "rioters". So I imagine it becomes just as valid and just as objective to label them as such.

[LeftishBrit]

15. No, protesters can be violent; but I think the point is that many of these people were not

protesting against any particular action or policy, but exploding general frustration and alienation and in some cases just taking advantage of the situation to steal or vandalize.

It did start out with a real protest against the police killing of Mark Duggan, but I would not describe all the people involved as protesters by any means (just as I wouldn't follow the Right in calling them all just a bunch of spoilt brats who need more discipline and 'it just proves that the welfare state spoils people!'). The danger of calling them protesters is that it then makes it easier to equate real protesters - e.g. those who demonstrate against the cuts or against union-bashing or closure of a workplace or a hospital, or for that matter those who protested against the police shooting at the beginning - with unorganized vandals.

Mind you, this government and much of the media will do ANYTHING to get at the 'left-wing' BBC; so I'm taking some of it with a grain of salt.

[No Elephants]

19. II am not making any value judgement about the events in London. However,

what I am saying is that the intent of the actor and the dictionary defnition of "protest" are what govern here, not some general feeling that this or that action can't be a protest.

"Real" protestors is an example the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy. Someone is either protesting or not.

Respectfully, I do not think that any of us can say what every person breaking the law in London intends. And a protest can be a protest against general conditions. That is what happened with the MLK assassination. We had people who were generally frustrated and aleiented. The assassination sparked the protests, but was not the only reason for them. And, yes, those protests got violent quickly.

Edited to say I apologize for my lousy typing and lack of spell check.. I meant to type "alienated.
"

[LanternWaste]

52. self delete- incorrect spot

self delete- incorrect spot

[Cool Logic]

45. Have they abolished Parliament and re-established the Monarchy?

No...?

Well then, if we judge them based on *objectively* valid legal principles, it is clear that they are morally bound to make their frustrations heard at the ballot box. Not through the sounds of broken glass and other destruction.

Laws that prohibit the theft and destruction of property are objectively valid; thus, these people are nothing more than common criminals.

[No Elephants]

69. No. If you judge them on objective legal principles,

moral judgments, which are indeed subjective, do not enter into it.

(I omitted the word "valid," because you cannot determine objectively what a "valid" legal principle is, as opposed to a legal principle that is invalid. That also requires subjective evaluations.)


So, if you judge them by the laws of England, they have a right to vote. As to any crimes they may commit, British laws govern as to arrest, trial and punishment.

Breaking laws means you are a criminal. It does not mean you are nothing more than a criminal.

Martin Luther King, Jr. broke some laws and went to jail for committing them. He was more than a criminal.

I am not comparing these protestors with King's non-violent protests, merely point out that you did not make your case.

[Cool Logic]

92. They are only subjective to those who have an undefined hierarchy of values.

Morality is a code of values that guide a person's choices and actions. Those who lack, or have undefined moral values, have no way to distinguish between right and wrong, or good and evil.

Are you suggesting that people do not need moral values at all?

Breaking laws means you are a criminal. It does not mean you are nothing more than a criminal.

When someone breaks their neighbors window and steals his property, what is the principle that augments their nothingness?

[readmoreoften]

7. BBC "Admits"? What? They've been closeted about the "fact"?

The word "admits" makes this a political statement in itself, not a neutral headline. It says "we think the rioters are not protestors and now BBC agrees with us."

[Judi Lynn]

43. Completely dishonest word choice, "admits." Sneaky, underhanded, and deceitful. n/t

[No Elephants]

8. What an arse. Where did Fran Unsworth get her sociology or linguistics degree anyway?

This is BBC succumbing to public pressure to change its wording, not anything authoritative, or even anything intelligent.

I have heard other TV folk call the London events protests, going on about economic and racial conditions, a sense of disenfranchisement, etc. That is not authoritative, either.

What "protest" does or does not mean is determined by the dictionary definition of the term "protest," not by some TV spokesperson or on camera personality being sympathetic or unsympathetic to events..

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/protest

Nowhere in the definition of "protest" is a requirement that a protest be lawful or that it not involve rioting, looting or violence. If it were a correct notion, terms like "peaceful protest" or "nonviolent protest" or "orderly protest" would be redundant. However, we use them to distinguish peaceful protest from those that are not peaceful, i.e, from protests that are violent, disorderly, etc.

Being unlawful does not change the nature of act as a protest, if the act is intended as a protest by the person taking the action

Civil disobedience is one form of protest. It is, by definition, an unlawful protest. Often (though I doubt in this case) a major goal of a protest is to be arrested for violating the law. If only legal acts were involved, an event would be more akin to a parade than a protest.

One person stops paying taxes to protest war spending. That is a protest, albeit an illegal one.

Another person stops paying taxes simply because they've run out of mooney or are generally lawbreakers. Same act, not a protest. What is the difference? The intent of the lawbreaker.

Is he or she intending the act as an objection of some kind to some perceived wrong? If so, it is a protest, albeit an illegal form of protest. If not, it is simply an illegal action.

Are looting and violence unlawful? Of course. Duh. However, looting and rioting can be intended as protests (objections), especially when economic conditions are part of the reasons for the protests and also especially when some unfairness, such as racism, is perceived by the rioters. (Since the existence of a protest is tied to the intent of the person acting, it is irrelevant whether the perception is correct or not.) We experienced that in the U.S. in the aftermath of the Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination and the Rodney King beating.


The beginnings of the American Revolution and the French Revolution were also unlawful and often violent protests. The Boston Tea Party involved stealing tea, aka looting, and throwing it into Boston Harbor. If the looters had kept the tea instead of dumping it into the harbor, would that have changed the character of the act from a protest to simple theft? Not in that case. Why? Because the colonial looters intended a protest, not to acquire tea at no cost.

The Boston Massacre, as best as that story has come down to us, started with some colonials attacking their fellow British citizen, a law abiding soldier who was there only to guard the Custom House; i.e., to perform a police-like function. Allegations of non-payment of a bill were made by the colonials. The mob allegtedly attacked the soldier first, with such weapons as they could muster, namely rocks. There was gunfire in retaliation. We call the retaliation against a violent mob a massacre and we consider the acts if the violent mob part of a protest against oppression by the Crown.

Some of the Egyptian protests involved unlawful acts. We did not stop calling them protests because of that. Even if the Egyptians had assassinated Mubarak, that very likely would have been part of a protest. Yes, a very illegal and very violent form of protest, but a protest nonetheless, if intended as such.

Whether things happen on the streets of Cairo or on the streets of London also does not determine whether or not that activity is a protest.

WIn sum, whether something is unlawful or immoral or violent is a separate issue from whether something is a protest. The latter is determined by dictionary definition of the term "protest" and whether the intent of the actor is to register objection or disapproval, etc.

Some folks, however, want tto ignore the way the word has been used since at least Thoreau and have their emotions decide instead. And Unsworth bowed to thos folk.

[Ex Lurker]

9. what were the yobs who beat and robbed the Malaysian student protesting?

How was he oppressing them and what did he do to deserve what happened? What about the 11 year old who was carrying TWO cell phones as he left the court, and tried to break away from his mother so he could go join the "protestors" again? How was he being disenfranchised? I wonder what color the sky is in some DU'ers worlds.

[No Elephants]

13. First, did you even bother to read all of my post before you responded?

I doubt it. If you did, you should read it again because you seem to have missed a lot.

Second, you pretty much proved my point about people wanting their emotions to govern.

More specificially:



I never said every robbery was a protest. To the contrary, my reply distinguished between a robbery that is not a protest (where you simply want to get tea without paying for it) and a robbery that is a protest, like colonists stealing tea and either keeping it or dumping it into Boston harbor.

I alo never said nor that all protests are protests against oppression or disenfranchisement.

I also never said all protests were about color.

I also never said the London protests were about color.

In fact, in the post to which you are supposedly replying, I never said the events in London were protests, or that every event in London lately is a protest.

That covers everything in your "reply" and then some, except for your snark..


Now, did you have ANY kind of point to make about ANYthing at all my post ACTUALLY said? Any point at all?

[marions ghost]

48. you make sense, in that

it's unrealistic not to expect the word 'protest' to be associated with the rioting. You gave good reasons why this is true.

But if it makes the legitimate protestors over in Britain feel better, then in a volatile situation I would say it's also likely that journalists might make the decision to discontinue it--not to further enflame. It's only a word. Everybody really does know what is happening.

Illustrates how tense and sensitive the situation is over there...

[No Elephants]

62. Very wise, and I agree. I am taking issue only with the reasons given in the OP,

which several DUers have been stating over the last several days, some on this thread, i.e,, using the word "protest" is incorrect because violence and looting are involved.

I wouild have less than zero problem if the BBC had said something along the lines of "the word seems to be adding to the distress caused by mob violence and looting. That is the last thing the BBC wants and therefore we will not be using the word "protests" in connection with these illegal actions."

On the flip side, insisting something cannnot possibly be a protest incorrect and objectionable to me on that reason alone. Say, "Whether it is a protest or not, these actions are illegal and immoral. No economic or social grievance justifies them." I would have to know a lot more to see if I would agree, but at least that would be an honest statement.

Thing is, I see a lot of hurt on both sides. And there seems to me to be a desire on the part of some to take away from those participating beyond even saying their actions are awful and unjustifiable. In some ways, saying "this cannot possibly be a protest" by twisting definitions takes away even more (IMO) from those in these events than jailing them would. In any event, it's untrue.

[marions ghost]

75. I understand what you are saying...

twisting definitions like this does work to further marginalize a group. But I guess it may help some people there right now to emphasize the distinctions between lawful and unlawful protest. Sometimes the less said the better, I would argue to those making a fuss about it. But if the media source takes an editorial position and announces the word change, then it needs to adequately explain why.

[Sherman A1]

11. One suspects that in fact there are some protesters

some looters, some just in the wrong place at the wrong time, some who came to see and perhaps joined in and probably as many answers as there are people involved.

[No Elephants]

14. Ah, someone who gets it.

[Sherman A1]

18. No matter "The Question"

there is rarely one answer. Sometimes Yes, but very rarely.

[No Elephants]

20. Thanks. Pithy. I like it.

[Flatulo]

16. Huh, a millionaire's daughter was among the protesters. She was

protesting her lack of thousands of euros worth of neat stuff.

Solidarity!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2024396/London-riots-2011-looters-court-Primary-school-worker-postman-dad-boy-11.html

[No Elephants]

22. Not every theft is a protest. However, protests can involve stealing.

[LeftishBrit]

23. While I do think that some people on the boards are being naive from 3000 miles away and equating

this with Egypt or Syria, which it isn't -

nevertheless the Daily Mail is not a trustworthy source on this or any other matter. It is a sensationalist right-wing tabloid - a sort of cross between the National Enquirer and Rush Limbaugh's talk-show. Their writers' commentaries today range from Melanie Phillips' 'How Britain's liberal intelligentsia has smashed virtually every social value' to Max Hastings' Years of liberal dogma have spawned a generation of amoral, uneducated, welfare dependent, brutalised youngsters'. Need I say more?

[No Elephants]

25. I did not intend to equate Egypt or Syria with what is happening in London;

I am not saying they are different, either.

I am simply saying that saying activity is not a protest because violence and looting is involved ignores the very definition of a "protest."

I also add, though, that I think that, for example, the violence and looting that occurred in some neighborhoods following Martin Luther King's assassination by people with no prior record of that kind of activity was very different from a garden variety assault and robbery where some, for example, drug addict, simply beats someone to steal their money. .

Exactly what the precise difference is I will have to leave to those more learned in sociology. I will say only that I think most of us recognize some difference.
These are not isolated acts of battery and robbery and vandalism that all just happent to be occurring in a place at the same time for no common reason (although, no doubt some of the events are merely robbers taking advantage of the chaos).

[LeftishBrit]

32. I wasn't referring to you - there were people who did suggest it at an earlier stage

I agree that these are not 'isolated acts occurring at one place'. However, I don't think that most of it is a protest against something in particular. To me, protests are not distinguished from riots by (necessarily) their non-violence, but by their having a clear cause, and generally demands for something in particular to change/ be done/ not done. This seems to be more a general explosion of frustration. And yes, some of it is robbers taking advantage of the chaos.

[No Elephants]

47. No problem I did mention Egypt in one of my posts on this thread, but not with the intent of

saying the two situations were equal or even substantially equal. I see this more like the aftermath of the Rodney King beating, though the aftermath of the MLK assassination involved a lot more damage.

"To me, protests are not distinguished from riots by (necessarily) their non-violence, but by their having a clear cause, and generally demands for something in particular to change/ be done/ not done."

I am not sure I agree on the clear cause and'or a demand for something specific. It is not part of the dictionary definition of the word "protest." In my experience, people tend to protest to express dissatisfaction with the status quo--a protest "against," not a protest "for."

And not all protesters are able to boil their dissatisfaction, or especially their rage, down into specifics.

I am not even sure I agree that these riots are not about something specific. I believe that, if Al Sharpton or Cornell West or Tavis Smiley were there and had spoken to a sample of the rioters, he might be abot to articulate both the clear cause and the desired specific remedy or remedies.

I named them not because they are of African descent, but because they are both experienced with protests and also with issues around poverty, perceived lack of opportunity, etc., as well as being masters of speaking about those issues in a way that London's youth may not be. However, I have read in more than one article and also heard on tv that race does play a role in what is going on, though not for each person involved and not an exclusive role.

But, I think you and I would both only be speculating as to motives, either way. The only people who know the motives are each individual who is participating--and even he or she may have too much rage to sort out the specifics right now.

[T_i_B]

26. On the subject of other media sources.....

...have any other media other then the BBC who did this admitted that they were wrong to refer to the looters as "protestors"? One big problem with the UK media is that it seems like only the BBC ever admits it when they get something wrong.

The rest of them tend to bully the BBC as a result of this (BBC bashing is a common habit in the RW press) and as we have seen with the News Of The Screws scandals they never admit any error until they are forced to do so.

[mwooldri]

59. Though I never heard the BBC refer to the protesters as rioters...

... I asked this very same question earlier on. Sky News did use the term protesters but they changed to rioters later on too.

There is an awful lot of BBC bashing going on - period. There always has, and there always will be. Politically, Labour thinks the BBC is too far to the right, and the Conservatives think the BBC is too left wing. As far as I know, politics is supposed to be left at the front door when BBC employees, journalists etc come in to work.

Maybe I am an ardent BBC supporter and fan but as a public broadcaster (force) funded by the people, but the BBC does runs programming that airs viewers compliments and complaints about their programming - "Over to You" on the BBC World Service radio, and on domestic TV "Points of View". I don't believe the commercial stations have any similar programming.

As such, the BBC is held up to very high standards, for *most* of the time they do get. Yes, they get things wrong. Yes, they admit to it when it is clear they are wrong. and yes, the Director General gets fired when it gets political (see Greg Dyke on wiki).

[T_i_B]

85. A huge amount of the BBC bashing....

....comes from right wingers who dislike the BBC on principle regardless of what it says or does and who quite frankly would much rather we had a UK version of Faux news in it's place.

So you'll pardon me if I tend to be suspicious of the likes of Melanie Phillips when she moans about the BBC. Not that Melanie Phillips isn't a massive idiot in the first place mind.

[LeftishBrit]

119. Yes, it's always been the case, but there has been more virulent BBC-bashing recently than I've ever

known; and almost all of it has come from the Right.

Partly the Tories wanting an excuse to cut it; partly, I'm sure, Murdoch seeing it as a rival; and partly the British teabagger-equivalents in the RW tabloids finding them a convenient scapegoat for everything they hate about the modern world. Melanie Phillips produced a Daily Mail article a few weeks ago, with the title - I am not kidding you- : 'If Miliband is such a hero, why won't he tackle the REAL threat to our way of life - the BBC?' This includes such gems as:


'.. Murdoch’s real crime in the eyes of the Left-wing intelligentsia is simply that he has stood in the way of their total capture of the culture.

The dominance of Left-wing ideas has been such that even among so-called conservatives, many of them have become accepted as mainstream. And one of the most powerful architects of that shift has been the BBC....

With some honourable exceptions, whether in its drama, comedy, news reporting or current affairs, the BBC’s output rests upon certain articles of faith.

For example, traditional Christians are all fundamentalist bigots; the science of man-made global warming is settled; opponents of mass immigration are racist; Eurosceptics are swivel-eyed fanatics; and all who oppose these opinions and more are Right-wing extremists.

...And which is why they are all slavering at the prospect of bringing down a media organisation which provided an element of competition to the true monopoly of the BBC and the Left-wing intelligentsia....

The great irony, of course, is that for all those years while this scandal was taking place, the Labour Party fawned over Murdoch and his lieutenants. While he was riding high, none of them saw fit to challenge the power they now purport to find so unacceptable.

The Murdoch empire may need to be brought sternly to book over the hacking scandal. But the media monopoly that really has undermined and demoralised British society and deserves to be broken up is the BBC.

And that is one monopoly over British public life which Ed Miliband unsurprisingly finds to be no abuse of power at all.'

[defendandprotect]

126. Certainly the BBC has been damaged over the decades and moved to the right ... !!!

Much as our own public networks have been -- PBS stations and public radio!!

And obviously further dismantling is on the table!



The only way the rightwing can rise is by political violence --assassinations --

and we here have had more than 50 years of that -- quite out in the open.

In fact, they have long been assassinating liberal/progressive leadership even

before it has a chance to rise!

And if you look around the world at the absolute lack of any prevailing liberal/progressive

leadership, you might question whether that has only been happening in America!


The greatest barrier to the rightwing is a free press which is why it doesn't

exist any longer here in America. We have a corporate-press, however, spewing

out rw propaganda in the main -- a Goebbels' style press!

[Turborama]

24. Maybe this'll help the confused understand, it's obvious why they were reluctant to say "riot"...

...when you find out that the Riot Damages Act says that the police are obliged to pay compensation out of the 'police fund': http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/49-50/38/section/2

[No Elephants]

28. No, that only conflates still more issues.

The issue presented in the OP article is not whether the people are "rioting" or not, as UK law defines "rioting."

Not having seen it, it sure seems from what I have read that they are definitely rioting.

Moreover, a desire to avoid the word "riot" does not mean either that you must therefore use the word "protest" or that you must therefore avoid the word "protest." BBC could have chosen to characterize events in a way that involved neither the word "riot" nor the word "protest."

Without going into the legal definition, rioting is a violent public disturbance by a group of people.

Per the OP, BBC changed its wording because of some people who claimed that the word "protest" is inappropriate because violence and looting is going on. IOW, the premise is that a protest does not involve violence or looting. I disagee with that premise.

I also disagree that the explanation of a BBC spokesperson has anything authoritative to say about what the word "protest" means.

See Reply 8.

[Turborama]

33. It conflates it for you, not me.

And I've read enough of what you have to say about this, thanks for the suggestion anyway.

[No Elephants]

39. No worries. People who conflate issues are seldomt aware they'veconflated, or they would not

have conflated in the first instance.

[Turborama]

42. I was trying to simplify it for the confused.The BBC have to be more careful than other media bodies

...as there is a very strict watchdog overseeing them. At the beginning their legal advisors probably told them to avoid the word for the reason I have already given (not to make the police pay and let the insurance companies pick up the bill instead).

It's only today that the riot damages act has even been mentioned, by Cameron just now in Parliament (which I'm watching live on TV).

[No Elephants]

51. I can only refer you back to Reply 28. It addressed everything in your Reply 42.

[No Elephants]

34. As with Reply 8, a dictionary can be useful, at least for starters. The definition of "riot" says:

"ri·ot
    Show IPA
noun
1.
a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protestingagainst another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets.
2.
Law . a disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons acting together in a disrupting and tumultuous manner in carrying out their private purposes.
3.
violent or wild disorder or confusion.
4.
a brilliant display: a riot of color.
5.
something or someone hilariously funny: You were a riot at the party.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/riot

(Didn't want to edit, so handled this as an additional reply.)

[Turborama]

40. The reluctance was due in part to legal obligation of the recompense. Anyway, here are definitions..

...from England's three most widely used dictionaries (hint, there's no mention of 'protest').


Riot

Pronunciation:/ˈrʌɪət/

noun

1 a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd:

riots broke out in the capital

:

he was convicted on charges of riot and assault

:

riot police

an uproar:

the film's sex scenes caused a riot in Cannes
an outburst of uncontrolled feelings:

a riot of emotions raged through Fabia

archaic uncontrolled revelry; rowdy behaviour.

2 an impressively large or varied display of something:
the garden was a riot of colour

3 informal a highly amusing or entertaining person or thing:
everyone thought she was a riot
verb

take part in a violent public disturbance:
students rioted in Paris
(as noun rioting)
another night of rioting
behave in an unrestrained way:
another set of emotions rioted through him
archaic act in a dissipated way:
an unrepentant prodigal son, rioting off to far countries

Phrases

run riot

behave in a violent and unrestrained way.

(of a mental faculty or emotion) function or be expressed without restraint:

her imagination ran riot

proliferate or spread uncontrollably:

traditional prejudices were allowed to run riot

Derivatives
rioter
noun

Origin:
Middle English (originally in the sense ‘dissolute living’): from Old French riote 'debate', from rioter 'to quarrel', of unknown ultimate origin

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/riot

riot

noun /ˈraɪ.ət/
Definition

• (C) a noisy, violent, and uncontrolled public meeting
Inner-city riots erupted when a local man was shot by police.

• (S) old-fashioned informal a very funny or entertaining occasion or person
"How was the party?" "It was great - we had a riot."

I met Mike's brother for the first time - he's a riot.
(Definition of riot noun from the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary)

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/riot_1?q=riot

riot noun 1 a loosely a noisy public disturbance or disorder, usually by a large group of people; b law, technical such a disturbance by three or more people; c as adj suitable for use in a riot • riot shields. 2 uncontrolled or wild revelry and feasting. 3 archaic unrestrained squandering or indulgence. 4 said especially of colour: a striking display. 5 colloq someone or something that is very amusing or entertaining, especially in a wild or boisterous way. 6 a very, usually boisterously, successful show or performance. verb (rioted, rioting) intrans 1 to take part in a riot. 2 to take part in boisterous revelry. rioter noun. rioting noun. run riot 1 to act, speak, etc in a wild or unrestrained way • The children ran riot. 2 said of plants, vegetation, etc: to grow profusely or in an uncontrolled way • The weeds were running riot.

ETYMOLOGY: 13c: from French riote a debate or quarrel.

http://www.chambersharrap.co.uk/chambers/features/chref/chref.py/main?query=riot&title=21st

(edit to tidy up the formatting a bit)

[No Elephants]

57. You missed the point. I was not attempting a comprehensive definition of "riot."

I understood your legal point the first time you mentioned it. However, your OP is about the meaning of the word "protest."

The BBC spokesperson concluded that "protest" was an inappropriate term to use for actions that include violence and looting.

I copied and pasted a dictionary definition of "riot" for the language I bolded, which shows that a "riot" and a "protest" are not mutually exclusive terms. That concept stands on its own, having nothing to do with whether suggests. The issues can and should be separated and conflating them with each other does not help analysis and therefore does not clear up any confusion, assuming anyone was confused to begin with.

Whether or not the BBCavoided the word "riot" for legal reasons, as you are assuming, really has nothing to do with what the BBC spokesperson said about the word "protests." And the latter is the subject of your OP.

Moreover, not one thing I have said would back the BBC into using the word "riot." It can correctly stick with "protest." Or use "events." Or say "violence and looting." Or go with scores of other terms the English language has to offer.

Again, I can only refer you back to my prior posts, where I have already responded to everything you are raising. I don't know how to be any clearer than I already have been, so you are on your own as to points I have already addressed.

[Turborama]

74. The OP is about the BBC choosing to use the word riot to describe what happened instead of 'protest'

As for the rest of what you wrote, you managed to put a lot of words together without really anything of any consequence. Yawn.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

38. Funny. I saw the OP artricle more as a mistake re: the long accepted meaning of the word "protest."

However, use of the derogatory term "yob" by some does remind me of an "us versus them" element, in the way that soldiers use derogatory terms to dehumanize the enemy (whoever that may be at the time-Jap, gook, Charlie, wop, towel head). I hope not, but it seems that way.

And my jaw did drop yesterday as I watched one poster start four or five threads on the subject within five minutes, then return later to start several more. That suggested something to me, though I was not sure exactly what.

[Nihil]

55. Day 5: Ignorant DUers still going strong.

"Hate campaign"?
:rofl:

[Mosaic]

29. I thought it was a revolution

I've long known not to trust the bbc. End the monarchy!

[defendandprotect]

127. Will be interesting to see if this will bring more citizens to thoughts of "End the monarchy"????

[LeftishBrit]

136. No. I am not a monarchist; but this had nothing to do with the monarchy

[GliderGuider]

31. I have two things to say about the rioting.

1. It was inevitable.
2. It is the power elite's wakeup call.

As someone who is in favour of accepting reality as it is and not trying to wish it away, I accept these events as the honest voice of the youth. It is a "cri de coeur" - however discordant others may find it.

[go west young man]

83. Cry of the youth my arse.

What about all the good kids who chose to do something with themselves? They have self respect and aren't "crying".
Why aren't immigrants in general protesting? Because this always was just a bunch of yobo's inciting violence.
The man who was shot by the police in the first place was a known gangster with a modified handgun on him.
Link here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/08/mark-duggan-handgun-lethal-weapon

This whole debacle has been about a bunch of gangs terrorizing London and nothing more. That's the reality.

[Blue_Tires]

35. I saw the one clip where they attacked the BBC cameraman (Manchester?)

[Javaman]

36. Has anyone actually talked to the people involved in the riot/protesting?

I didn't think so.

That would require, oh what's it called again? oh yeah, JOURNALISM.

[Turborama]

113. Interview with some of the looters >>>

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4958167

[Capitalocracy]

41. Well, thanks to the 60 people who hit these guys in the head with a clue-by-four

I'm surprised that number is so low.

Take them out back and hit them with a stick a couple times, they will do.

[No Elephants]

63. The small number is not surprising. Maybe the people who did not call in opened a dictionary first

and realized the BBC was right in the first place.

[Violet_Crumble]

44. It wasn't just the BBC calling those opportunists protesters...

I was watching the news last night and there was footage of a bunch of looters ransacking a store and the voiceover called them protesters...

[No Elephants]

64. And? Nowhere in any authoritative source is it written that protests never involve looting or

violence or rioting.

To the contrary, the dictionary cites, as an example of a rioting, a protest in the streets by a mob. See Reply 34. See also, Reply 8.

True, peaceful and orderly protests do not involve such things, but the BBC did not claim these were lawful, peaceful or orderly protests.

If you want to say that you are quite sure that the specific lot you obsrved was not protesting anything, fair enough. But saying or implying that protests never involve looting is simply incorrect.

[Cool Logic]

46. Common Criminals...

Laws that prohibit the theft and destruction of property are objectively valid; thus, these people are nothing more than common criminals.

[GliderGuider]

49. They may very well be criminals. However, saying they are "nothing more" than that closes the door

I hope that at least some of the adults in charge have the wisdom to know that events never occur in a vacuum. Individual rioters may be "nothing more" than common criminals, but the rioting itself is evidence of deeper problems of which the criminal behaviour is just a symptom. The two issues (the criminal behaviour and the social cause of the crisis) should be addressed separately, but unless the origins of the trouble are addressed we are guaranteed a repeat engagement.

People who feel trapped and disempowered, who have no access to the levers of power and no hope for bettering their situation, often act out. This isn't rocket science.

To paraphrase Janis, "Looting's just another word for nothing left to lose."

[Cool Logic]

50. See # 45...there are other options...

Unless, of course, they are anarchists.

[GliderGuider]

54. There are two levels of problem in play here.

One is criminal behaviour, the other is the social conditions. they can (and should) deal with the first one under the law. My point is that unless they solve the second level of the problem - the social conditions under which the rioters were living - more riots are guaranteed. Taking a single-pronged law and order approach will be as effective as treating stomach cancer with morphine.

Brixton 1981 - Brixton 1985 - Brixton 2011. There's a message there for those who can read it.

[Imajika]

58. And they also riot when their favorite sports team wins (or loses)...

"People who feel trapped and disempowered, who have no access to the levers of power and no hope for bettering their situation, often act out. This isn't rocket science."

It doesn't have to have anything to do with being "trapped" or suffering from some lack of empowerment. People who smash up stores in their neighborhood, set fires to random buildings, loot, rob innocent bystanders, etc, are mostly just rotten opportunistic people. Oh sure, many are angry and trying to blame others for their problems - but generally speaking these kids have just made lousy choices in life.

Just look at the interviews of a lot of these rioting youths. Many of them dropped out of school voluntarily and rejected educational opportunities offered to them, many admit to not even looking for a real job, others complain they aren't getting enough stuff from the government while they sit at home and play video games.

What you have here is the bad element in several cities finding an excuse to steal things and break stuff. This is not a youth movement, the riots don't represent anything (other than maybe poor policing), and the only change it will lead to is to benefit right wing party's and movements that always see an increase in support when the public feels crime is out of control.

[GliderGuider]

60. Obviously I have a very different view.

Brixton 1981 - Brixton 1985 - Brixton 2011. There's a message there for those who can read it.

By all means crack down on the hooligans. But if a crackdown is all that happens, don't be surprised if "Brixton 2015" gets added to that list.

Soccer riots don't normally spread to 5 cities. This isn't a soccer riot.

[Turborama]

81. Witness accounts of Brixton 2011

Six fire engines tackled a blaze at a Foot Locker shoe shop in Brixton.<72><73> Riot police and youths clashed near a local Currys store that was broken into during disturbances in Brixton.<71> Speaking to The Daily Telegraph, a local resident described "hundreds" of men and women entering the electrical store and emerging with TVs and other electrical goods.<74> Upon police arriving, the looters attacked, throwing rocks and the contents of bins at officers.<74> A branch of Halfords was targeted and looted by youths.<74>

One Brixton resident said: “People were coming to Brixton from outside the area. I was getting out of Brixton Tube last night about 22:30 and going up the escalator when about 10 teenagers ran up the escalator and pushed me to one side.”<75> By 11:57, both Tesco and Foot Locker were targeted by looters. Lambeth Council’s leader, Councillor Steve Reed said of the mobs in Streatham, "They were looters not rioters"<76> Looting had spread to Brixton in the evening .<77>

Go here for links to the references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_London_riots#London_incidents

The 'message' I'm getting is to not open a shop in Brixton.

[dipsydoodle]

71. Such incidents

"when their favorite sports team wins (or loses)" are usually confined to the supporters themselves and have little or no bearing on the either the public or the communities where the match took place.

Must confess they can get a bit violent at times : West Ham ICF Hooligans Firm Top Boys http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT3UqO7Y6oo that must be really old footage - the ICF / Inter City Firm have been defunct for years. For some odd reason a lot of our supporters always seem to have dressed the pretty much the same over the years : http://jacksmusic.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/millwall-fans-protect-eltham-high-street-this-is-the-spirit-these-people-are-stopping-the-looters/

[defendandprotect]

128. Post-Thatcher obviously there is a lot wrong ... just as in US, post-Reagan --- !!!

[defendandprotect]

129. What is the message of sports other than violence and greed?

What have these escalating sports themes been teaching for decades now except

that very fact?

The civil rights revolution of the 1960's, culminating in the Youth Revolution of the

1960's/early 1970's -- coupled with the anti-war movement here was a challenge to all

patriarchal authority across the board -- to patriarchy and its underpinnings, organized

patriarchal religion and capitalism.

It was a challenge to the fakery of our lives built on corporate profits rather than

reality -- everything judged by the yardstick of a dollar bill!


There is a continuing rightwing backlash to those movements -- for more recreation time,

longer vacations, family leave, shorter work days, universal health care -- and an end to wars.

A huge threat to those who control the wealth and natural resources of the nation --

and our MIC and its dream of perpetual war!


What has been taught to youth since then -- especially to males? Violence in every

conceivable package. And what has been taught to females -- as they actually whittled

down yet another picture of celebrity ... Kate MIddleton's WAIST in her wedding pic!!

[mariema]

94. It is socio-economic frustration and rage

as in “my dad’s got no job, my mum’s been made redundant, I got no chance of getting any job. It is a long hot summer, I am bored and have no prospects of a better life. I don’t have any of the things I need to make me feel secure and prosperous and hopeful so I may as well get out there on the streets along with everyone else and get me something, anything, even if it is only a new pair of trainers.”

[Cool Logic]

96. So, your notion of a solution calls for breaking your neighbors window and stealing his property...?

I hope that you reside in the UK and not in the US.

[mariema]

120. My "notion"

of a solution is not even stated in my post.

I wrote about an imaginary rioter's state of mind and motivation.

[Terry in Austin]

90. As individuals, yes, they've committed crimes

That's as obvious as it is diversionary.

Also "objectively valid" is the phenomenon of civil unrest.

One can divert attention from it by focusing on the bad actions of individuals, but that wouldn't be an honest engagement with the causes and circumstances of civil unrest when it occurs.

[Cool Logic]

97. "the causes and circumstances of civil unrest..." as it relates to this matter can be found

in these criminal's lack of ability to distinguish between right and wrong, or good and evil.

[Terry in Austin]

101. Whoa! Your certainty is impressive

So you reject the whole idea, then.

How about another instance -- say, Paris in the summer of 1789. You would still see no cause for the civil unrest other than the sheer, unaccountable criminal cussedness of the individuals involved?

You wouldn't happen to have a drop or two of blue blood in those veins, would you?

:evilgrin:

[Cool Logic]

103. Although they are sympathetic to the French Revolution in general,

most historians agree that the excesses of violence and mass executions represented an abandonment of reason. However, the French did not direct their violence towards their neighbors, they directed it at their government.

I urge you to contrast the aftermath of the French Revolution with that of the American Revolution.

However, neither equate with what is taking place in London.

[Terry in Austin]

121. Opinion duly noted

But it's only in hindsight that civil uprisings get effectively classified as "revolution" or "criminal mob behavior."

It's early in the game to fix either label to the current European turmoil, and a lot of it depends on which side you're on when the other side succeeds or fails.

Speaking of labels, there is indeed a contrast between the French Revolution and American "Revolution." Propaganda aside, it's a tough case to make that the colonial war for independence was an actual revolution in the same sense that the French one was.

The outcome of one resulted in a new regime in Paris, whereas the outcome of the other did not result in a new regime in London.



(edited for snark)

[defendandprotect]

130. "Poverty breeds crime" -- we've always known that --

[Pharaoh]

53. plants

agent provocateurs............

[Nihil]

56. Yep, plants.

More like cabbages or Japanese Knotweed than anything else though ...

[ZombieHorde]

61. I think assuming there is was only one motivation for all who took part in the riots is silly.

They're not the Borg.

[GliderGuider]

65. It sure does make it easier to "think" about though...

They may not be the Borg, but I have some serious questions about the Power Elite.

[No Elephants]

67. The worse economic conditions get, the more you get a repeat of the

phenomenon in Gone With the Wind, specifically, the part where an African American woman refers to a poorer white woman as "white trash."

However, it was the kind, genteel and "geneaologically correct" woman who had been married to the African American woman's "owner" and had wrongly benefited from her labors.

And, all of them, being women, had yet another huge issue at the time.

That kind of thing works very well for the modern counterparts of slave owners.

Meanwhile, the former slave owner himself had gone insane, but, apparently mostly because his investments had become worthless and, without slaves, building another fortune seemed impossible. Remorse did not seem to have contributed to his sorry mental state.

[No Elephants]

66. +1. Also as to Reply 18, which made that point, and a broader one, beautifully.

Kudos to you and to Sherman A1.

[SOS]

72. The 200,000 brave people of St. Petersburg in 1905 were protesters.

They peacefully marched on the Winter Palace.
Their non-violent petition for reform was met by Tsarist gunfire.
Their bravery, composure and dignity set the stage to end 300 years of Romanov oppression.

The young people involved in London seem to be about as political as Beavis and Butthead.

The background is, however, purely political.
This is what neoliberal capitalism produces.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dipsydoodle]

77. In the absense of a link

are we to assume that's you personally ?

[legin]

79. Yup n/t

.

[dipsydoodle]

80. In which case

Yes - that's sad.

:hi:

[Jefferson23]

76. Cameron has stated the cause lies more with bad parenting and such, lol:

snip* Cameron spoke of the need to have stronger penalties, better parenting and the importance of having better discipline in schools.

"There are pockets of our society that are not just broken but, frankly, sick... when we see children as young as 12 and 13 looting and laughing, when we see the disgusting sight of an injured young man with people pretending to help him while they are robbing him, it is clear there are things that are badly wrong in our society," he added.


http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/08/20118117556144922.html

[legin]

78. Cameron the Arnold Rimmer of politics n/t

.

[Beacool]

82. What's there to admit?

The average age of the rioters is late teens to early 20s. They are a bunch of hoodlums who have no regard for human life. They set residential buildings on fire and people had to jump out of windows to avoid being burned alive. A car purposely ran over 3 young muslim men, killing them. The father of one of them ran to assist them without at first realizing that one of the victims was his own son. He attempted CPR on him, but he died nonetheless. He was only 21 years old.

There's no excuse for burning down stores, cars and homes. There's no excuse for looting and beating up unlucky bystanders.

I hope that they are caught and prosecuted to the full extent of the law, particularly those who callously killed the 3 muslim men.

x(

[go west young man]

86. There are loads of idealistic DU'ers who naively from 3000 miles

away think this is some revolution that can be equated to the uprisings in the Middle East. They don't
know what London yobs are really like. It's sad that they are commenting on a progressive board and
actually siding with violent hoodlums. DU used to have higher standards. Here's some links to what Yobo's
are really like for those that want to truly know UK punks.



http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=111_1278267055
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/may/10/ukcrime.sarahhall?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359934/Pensioner-dies-heart-attack-hours-confronting-yobs-tormented-years.html
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=368_1217369433

Someone earlier stated that the movie "Harry Brown" in which Michael Caine confronts yobs is fiction. Take a lot at the links I posted and judge for yourself
what is truth and what is fiction. Harry Brown is light in comparison.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

99. I have rarely travelled to London without having an altercation with chav shits

Perhaps instead of telling them to fuck off I should have engaged them in a discussion about social justice?

[go west young man]

111. Thank you Sir Walter.

You were great in Raising Arizona too by the way.

[Initech]

84. So anyone pissed off at the rich criminals isn't a protestor anymore??

[MikeW]

95. REALLY!?

The guy who runs a local shop or store that workes his butt off to keep the doors open

is a rich criminal?

So according to you its ok to burn their stores down and steal their inventory becuase YOU think they are

rich criminals.

[Initech]

100. Whoa that's not what I said at all!

I meant by this guy's logic the people who are protesting against the rich criminals aren't protestors at all. :eyes:

[Turborama]

104. Who has been "protesting against the rich criminals" by using arson and looting? n/t

[Initech]

105. Greece? Egypt? Bahrain? Anyone else I'm leaving out?

[Turborama]

106. Arson and looting/theft of private property in Greece, Egypt and Bahrain? I don't think so.

But even if they were then "rioting" would be a much more apt description than "protesting".

[Initech]

107. I thought the protests in Greece and London were about the uber-rich.

I guess I need to read up more then.

[Turborama]

108. I think that might be a good idea. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

116. The 'protests' in London were not about the uber-rich

They started as a protest about a police shooting, not about the uber-rich; and then for the most part degenerated into looting.

Which is not to say that austerity policies favoured by the uber-rich didn't contribute to the problem; but it's not what the riots were mainly about.

[Initech]

118. Sounds a lot like what happened in the early 90's in LA.

[David__77]

87. People violating laws in other countries are "protesters," not in the UK.

It is quite interesting.

[Turborama]

88. No. Looters are called looters wherever they are. Protesters are called protesters in the UK

In some "other countries" protesting is illegal and you can get shot dead for doing it, unlike the UK.

[LeftishBrit]

137. Yes. There's a difference between this sort of disorganized looting, and real protests such as the

'March for the Alternative' which attracted tens of thousands last March, and many smaller-scale anti-cuts protests.

This did start out with real protests against the Duggan shooting, but was soon taken over by people taking advantage of the situation to loot.

[robcon]

91. People violating laws are called criminals in most countries.

n/t

[T_i_B]

93. +1

Riots were more pure greed then owt political.

[TNLib]

98. I wouldn't categorize them as protesters but this is "Civil Unrest"

which is worse for the british government IMHO.

[Terry in Austin]

102. +1

:thumbsup:

[defendandprotect]

109. Of course they are protesters --- that's why they are not to be heard -- !!

[go west young man]

112. Believe me you can hear em alright.

Every night from your bed in the East End. They are staggering down the street drunk or high screaming profanity, destroying shit,
and causing screams of pain from innocent people. Go live in East London and have a listen. It's year round and endless.

[defendandprotect]

114. And you're saying this is all happening ... why? Because the protesters are bored?

Or want to disrupt their lives?

What of the racial profiling by police -- not unlike what has happened

decades ago in America?

[go west young man]

115. Do me a favor...

Here's a link to the the Telegraph UK's pictures of the first looters processed by the police.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/uknews/8695472/London-and-England-riots-looting-suspects-and-rioters-appear-in-court.html

There's 50 pics. How many are of dark skin? The answer is very, very few. You see hooligans come in all shapes and colors.
This thing was never about race as some DU'ers want to believe.

And I wonder what you think of this link to the arrest of a 22 year old mother who the government had been housing. The taxpayers literally paid for her home
and she goes around robbing. Sounds like boredom and stupidity to me. She had everything given to her yet she still chose to thieve. Now her daughter
will go into a gov't care program while she sits in jail. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8695503/London-riots-Trainer-looter-identified-by-Telegraph-arrested.html

Many times at DU I agree with your posts D and P but this time you are off base. The London riots really aren't about social unrest. They are about bad people taking advantage of an easy score.
Racial profiling doesn't fit into it as many of those defending the high streets are immigrants themselves. The bad guys are just simply bad guys with no sense of morality.
DU'ers need to quit defending this BS and wise up.

[defendandprotect]

117. Well, then, please answer my question ... has there been no racial profiling ... no austerity?

Are these truly all "Welfare Queens" and whiners?

What is your personal opinion of what is happening in GB?

And, I presume you also follow American news?

How many times have you seen our protests turned into "lootings" by agent provocateurs?

And many months later -- after the police brutality has harmed citizens and after many

arrests --- the government has lost lawsuits and apologies have had to be made?



Are you saying your citizens of color are well off there -- no complaints about harassment

by police? Joblessness? Poverty?


And you want to point to "one mother - Welfare Goddess" as an example for everything that

is happening?


Many times at DU I agree with your posts D and P but this time you are off base. The London riots really aren't about social unrest. They are about bad people taking advantage of an easy score.
Racial profiling doesn't fit into it as many of those defending the high streets are immigrants themselves. The bad guys are just simply bad guys with no sense of morality.
DU'ers need to quit defending this BS and wise up.

These protests aren't about "social unrest" -- are you or are you not moving into an

austerity program which will create more poverty?

And I'd also suggest that you're going to have a bit more trouble convincing me that the

"BAD people" aren't corporations and elites and their greed and violence!

I'm glad you have agreed with my posts, but it's going to take much more than this post

to convince anyone of what you are saying!

[go west young man]

122. The pictures speak for themselves.

Yobs come in all colours in the UK. You are obviously in the US and like many posters at DU don't
have a clue about the UK.
My posts have been all over DU for the last 4 days in regards to the London riots so I think explaining
what I think to you in this one post is unnecessary.
I do follow American news (if one could call it that). It's infotainment. British news still has some credibility.
Many DU'ers post regularly here from the Guardian, the Independent, BBC, The Observer and The Telegraph.
All of which are quite respected still.
If your in reference to Ian Tomlison or the Menezes case in regards to police misconduct then you'll be aware
that twice the police killed innocent men and twice they were found in the wrong. Now let me ask you in a city of
8 million people is that a terrible track record? Now how many people have Yobs killed in the past 5 years?
The number is unknown but I'm sure it's extremely high. 5 for sure during these riots.

If citizens of colour are so bad off why are many of the shop keepers of ethnic backgrounds? Why aren't working class
colored immigrants demonstrating in mass numbers against the government? Oh I know because they are busy trying to
protect their shops and homes from these hoodlums.

As far as austerity programs and Camerons policies I disagree with plenty of them especially cutting police numbers.
The example I gave you is because many people are given everything and still commit crimes. You are worried about social unfairness I presume.
She was given a home and look what she did. You can't help people like that.
You need to look at my other posts in regards to yobs. British people know what a yob is. Most Americans don't have a clue.

[defendandprotect]

125. I don't see that you have picked up your debate at all ...

you are repeating the same theory -- "nothing is wrong here -- nothing at all!"

And your obsession with the behavior of one woman also causes more questions about

your judgment.

Americans do have a clue because we have had racial profiling here for decades --

and we have had police in near-Gestapo costumes for decades masquerading as "public

servants" while they act for those seeking to overturn Constitutional rights.

We've had police brutality as a common occurence in many of our states -- with many

of them falling under full time Federal government supervision because of it.

We have decades of homelessness and increasing poverty and corporate crimes stealing

from the public.

Also keep this in mind --


We are all in the same boat. And there is no way half the boat is going to sink" --


Raul Estrada Oyuela,

Argentine Climate Negotiator, Kyoto. Japan

December 1997


i.e. -- you might reflect back on our "Katrina" and the control over the abuse of citizens

there -- of every color. "Katrina" was an urgent message re Global Warming -- but it also

gave us another frightening look at government under the control of the right wing which is

rising everywhere. Not only did we have the rightwing circulating propaganda about looting

and rapes -- even murder -- by citizens -- but we had police actually shooting people of

color trying to be rescued.

Remember that the rumors were lies -- but that in fact the "looters" turned out to be the

police officers.

We need to hear from your protesters as to what they think they are doing -- and we need

them to speak for themselves.

[go west young man]

131. A few points here:

1. I never said nothing is wrong here. On the contrary something is very wrong. Especially when DU'ers such as yourself see these looters as justified in some way.

2. Equating the social unrest/violence/looting in the UK with racial profiling in the states is way off. England is much smaller and more multi ethnic than the states.
Many police themselves are now immigrant descendent's in the UK. Have you never been through Heathrow or Gatwick?

3. If you think my posting a link to the story of 1 looter is obsessing then you have issues beyond my comprehension. To imply that it raises questions in regards to my judgment is ridiculous.
It's a link. To make a point. It happens on DU quite often. You should try it. It adds credibility to one's views and allows others to make more valid judgments in regards to issues.

4. The world may seem a small place thanks to technology and all issues are somewhat related but they are also different based upon the terrain one finds oneself in, the form of government
one deals with daily and the stimuli one is effected by. In essence you are what you consume mentally. To know the UK you must live there. You are commenting from across the ocean about
that which you presume (like many other DU'ers have during these riots) It's not Katrina. It's not climate change. It's violent youth in the UK taking advantage of an opportunity to steal and
destroy things. People have lost their lives while people like you try to rationalize the actions of the yobs who are nothing but criminals. I think your hoping for a worldwide revolution and
you see this as part of that. The student protests last year were legitimate protest. This is not. This is just yobs taking advantage. Nothing more.

5. The boat (planet earth) may tip over but it always manages to right itself. I don't see us all drowning. I see systems constantly evolving over time.

[defendandprotect]

133. Shrugging these people all off as simply "rioters" and "bad people" ...

isn't going to work --

And I've asked you repeatedly what you think the underlying reasons are with no

response from you except that they are "bad" people!

2. Equating the social unrest/violence/looting in the UK with racial profiling in the states is way off. England is much smaller and more multi ethnic than the states.
Many police themselves are now immigrant descendent's in the UK. Have you never been through Heathrow or Gatwick?

Evidently you didn't see the video interview with the older man of color citing WIDESPREAD

RACIAL PROFILING? And it would be very naive if you don't think that our own police officers

of color aren't also engaging in brutality against citizens of color -- and of those engaged

in political protests!


3 -- you've mentioned that woman at least three times with heavy emphasis on her.

4 -- Just "violent youth in the UK taking advantage of an opportunity to steal and destroy things"!

And just for no reasons whatsoever, eh?

Your additional comments only serve to further undermine your opinion.

AND ... You don't think you are under threat of chaotic weather from Global Warming??!!!


5. The boat (planet earth) may tip over but it always manages to right itself. I don't see us all drowning. I see systems constantly evolving over time.

Then you understand very little about Global Warming --

There was a 50 year gap in our feeling the effects of Global Warming -- we are only now

about to begin to feel the effects of human activity from 1960 onward!

Though the glaciers were already melting in the 1940's --

Certainly scientists saw the Industrial Revolution's impact on nature way back in the late 1880's.

And, the further industrialization for the war building up and wars themselves.


Keep in mind that as the glaciers melt they will bring increasing numbers of earthquakes

-- and the severity of the earthquakes will increase.

This is also true of the many other chaotic weather conditions which Global Warming has been

bringing us and will continue to bring -- from increasing El Nino's and La Nina's to

cyclones, tornados, hurricanes, storms, damaging winds.

Global warming is capable of changing our weather systems -- wind patterns, oceans --

This is capitalism's "Crime against Humanity" --


Here's a Repuglican -- Paul O'Neill who was Treasury Secretary for W Bush -- and his comments

in opposition to Cheney's Energy plan -- i.e., expanded role for nuclear power, opening up

the Arctic for oil exploration -- opening of thousands of new power plants powered by COAL

and NUCLEAR energy over the next decades.

Paul O'Neill had lobbied for increased taxes on gasoline and oil industry -- and at one point

had likened the coming impacts of Global Warming to a "nuclear holocaust."


Let me also leave you with this thought re your post-Thatcher decades --

"Behind every great wealth is great crime" --

[go west young man]

134. Dude you seem to just extrapolate what you want to hear.

Global warming isn't the subject and never was. My boat reference was to political systems.
You just tied all that shit together for yourself. You seem to do that.

You haven't lived in East London and you obviously don't know what a yob is.

A simple question for you. "Why aren't working class immigrants, shop owners, people of Middle eastern descent,
Asians, and other ethnic groups participating in your faux revolution? Oh wait is it because they are good people
who get up everyday and work hard to make a living rather than steal from others. You aren't English and you don't
know what's up. It is simply a bunch of violent yobs and lazy thugs taking advantage. The system isn't falling apart
as you may long for it to do. Tell me how many dark skinned people are in the link I posted of the people charged
so far"? Hardly any of 50. The majority were white. Yobs are usually white. Get that. White People. Say after me. Slowly.
Wwwhhhiiiittteeeee ppppeeeoooopppplllllleeeee. There that wasn't so bad was it?

And because you extrapolated incorrectly let me point something out for you. I believe global warming is man made.
I read Al Gore back in 1996 and think he's great. I'm also aware he crafted the legislation for the internet and helped
it morph from Mosaic to what it is today. I'm aware it was Dick Armey that attributed the "Invented The Internet"
misquote to Al Gore. I love most things Al Gore. You jump to many conclusions that are over reactionary me thinks.

[defendandprotect]

135. The "boat" is the whole picture -- not part of it --

Global Warming is the greatest threat to us all -- as the Pentagon made clear in

their memo to W Bush in 2002 --

Your debate rests on demonizing the poor --

Try responding to some actual information on what is going on in Britain ...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1729954

[go west young man]

138. This particular "boat" was titled "London rioter are not protesters"

maybe you forgot that. Granted we are all in the world together and connections can be found in everything.
But addressing an individual subject helps us define that area. Now I'm in the area of the riots of London at the
moment. You are in another area completely and I mean that metaphorically and in reality. It's a double entendre'.

[BNJMN]

110. Clearly, they are all one thing or another thing.

Thank you for reminding me what to think BBC.

[musicblind]

132. Of all the countries I've been to England is by far my favorite.

The people were always polite, the countryside always beautiful, the buildings rich with history, and the weather temperate.

This is tragic. This is not a protest; this is a tragedy.

I dated a boy from England; I haven't spoken to him in a while, but I can only imagine that he would be shaking his head at this sort of behavior.