General discussion for (Tottenham) riots

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's awesome.

Gove managed to get Harriet to reverse everything she said at the beginning, and she didn't even realise it!

?

Actually she reminded me of you

thorsoak

Why do the lyrics of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall" keep coming to mind?

I think that all this hearks back to the sociology pumped up and out in the 70s/80s - but I really cannot make any sensible suggestions as to what the answers are.

fc123

michaels wrote: »

Do you think so? - I always think of London always being a melting pot, different areas are up and coming, a few even make it. Cheap areas attract immigrants as well as the low waged/unemployed of whom some are creative and some make it and move on. I can't see it going the way of Detroit because there are the jobs there for those who want to work and the population continues to grow, with out the edginess there wouldn't be the creativity.

I don't think so and the London suburbs won't become like Detroit at all....which is why I didn't quote the article as it was too sensationalist and the parallels were incorrect....but the bones of the article were about how those who can afford to go, do.

Years back, if you made good money in this area you moved to the 'nicer' bit or, better still, got to move to Blackheath (the very nice bit) but now the thing we have noticed (amongst people we know) is that as soon as someone can afford to, they leave the area for good.
Many go when their kids reach secondary school age and DD had a few mates whose parents deserted the area due to the schooling issue.

vivatifosi wrote: »

'48,404 businesses were affected nationally'. Crikey fc that's a scary number. Much higher than I expected. Presumably some of the affected businesses will have closed early and experienced reduced takings rather than having been directly attacked. I'd like to see the breakdown on that if they follow up on it.

There's an interesting article in today's Guardian re Gangster Chic:

"It has been a wake-up call for many brands which have spent millions developing 'gangster chic' and 'dangerwear' images." A rioter dressed head-to-toe in Adidas was pictured on the front pages of most of the country's national newspapers on Tuesday. One of the youngest offenders appeared at court this week in a full Adidas tracksuit. The brand, which is one of the major sponsors of the 2012 Olympics, took the step of condemning its customers for taking part in the riots. "Adidas condemns any antisocial or illegal activity," the company said. "Our brand has a proud sporting heritage and such behaviour goes against everything we stand for."Borkowski said brands have been aligning themselves with gang and criminal culture for decades but ramped up their association with less clean-cut figures in recent years....


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/12/uk-riots-gangster-chic-brands

Love it......:rotfl::rotfl:like the Burberry check/chav thing a few years back.

The biggest £ to chase in clothing is the 'no need but has status' £ that appeal to a type that feels he/she has little 'status' other than in what they wear.
Their associations made their clothing very wanted and made stacks of cash for them but could have bitten them on the a$ $ now.

Sadly, I know of a very strong niche brand that didn't target any particular customer when they started out, they just did what they did and their product became very wanted by higher earners. However, their price points also made it accesssible to more people and it is now seen as a bit 'chav'.
It's sad as it's not chav IMO but you can't choose the 'right type of customer' when you put your product out there.......you just have to accept the paying customer, whoever they may be, as they are keeping you in business.

I can't comment too much on the gangsta rap associations and ads as it's not in my sector but these big companies have to be careful how far they go to be seen as 'cool'.

What was that brand that the footy hoolies wore in the 80's? Serge Tachini I think....was it a golf brand?

undetterred

fc123 wrote: »

I don't think so and the London suburbs won't become like Detroit at all....which is why I didn't quote the article as it was too sensationalist and the parallels were incorrect....but the bones of the article were about how those who can afford to go, do.

Years back, if you made good money in this area you moved to the 'nicer' bit or, better still, got to move to Blackheath (the very nice bit) but now the thing we have noticed (amongst people we know) is that as soon as someone can afford to, they leave the area for good.
Many go when their kids reach secondary school age and DD had a few mates whose parents deserted the area due to the schooling issue.





Love it......:rotfl::rotfl:like the Burberry check/chav thing a few years back.

The biggest £ to chase in clothing is the 'no need but has status' £ that appeal to a type that feels he/she has little 'status' other than in what they wear.
Their associations made their clothing very wanted and made stacks of cash for them but could have bitten them on the a$ $ now.

Sadly, I know of a very strong niche brand that didn't target any particular customer when they started out, they just did what they did and their product became very wanted by higher earners. However, their price points also made it accesssible to more people and it is now seen as a bit 'chav'.
It's sad as it's not chav IMO but you can't choose the 'right type of customer' when you put your product out there.......you just have to accept the paying customer, whoever they may be, as they are keeping you in business.

I can't comment too much on the gangsta rap associations and ads as it's not in my sector but these big companies have to be careful how far they go to be seen as 'cool'.

What was that brand that the footy hoolies wore in the 80's? Serge Tachini I think....was it a golf brand?

Sergio Tacchini is making a comeback,i'm in my 40's and it was the in brand when in my youth.

Graham_Devon

Seems 3 quarters of those charged for the riots already had criminal records, putting the myth to bed that these were just young people out to have fun and we were ruining their lives by arresting them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14797602

Writing in the Guardian, Mr Clarke said the "hardcore" of those involved were known criminals whose behaviour had not been changed by previous punishments.

He said that this made his efforts to reform the penal system and cut reoffending even more important.

The present system's record in preventing reoffending was "straightforwardly dreadful," he added.

pqrdef

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Seems 3 quarters of those charged for the riots already had criminal records, putting the myth to bed that these were just young people out to have fun and we were ruining their lives by arresting them.

How predictable. Those charged are only a small fraction of all the people involved, but of course people who've already got form are the easiest to identify. Most of the rest won't be identified.

Speaking of myths though, Boris Johnson is saying that only 20% of those arrested are connected with gangs.

adouglasmhor

Criminal record, could be a possession or a breach of the peace aged 16.

I have a police record myself, it's "walking on the moon".

pqrdef

Tim Godwin confirms that the gang members were the first people rounded up, simply because they were known. Claude Rains couldn't have done better.

Can't see what Ken Clarke is after though. It's likely that most of those with previous convictions had only ever been given non-custodial sentences, so the obvious response is "they should have been sent to prison", followed by "if they hadn't been let out they wouldn't have been rioting".

atush

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Seems 3 quarters of those charged for the riots already had criminal records, putting the myth to bed that these were just young people out to have fun and we were ruining their lives by arresting them.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14797602

I beleive this was qualified as 3/4 of ADULTs charged, not juveniles.

atush

Abercrombie brand has offered to pay the yobbish types on Jersey shore to NOT WEAR their clothing as they feel it damages the brand to bee seen on them. They feel it is daminging their 'aspirational' branding.

Haven't heard if any of the participants have taken them up on the offer yet ;-)