Council evictions begin

pqrdef

tr3mor wrote: »

It's much better to be tough now on a few individuals than be lenient and encourage much more of the same in the future. Too much leniency led to the current shambles in the first place.

And isn't it a pity they didn't apply zero-tolerance at Eton over the cannabis episode. Cameron could have been shopped to the police, hauled up before the beak and sent off to a young offenders institution. No wonder he believes in second chances.

Graham_Devon

pqrdef wrote: »

There are two ways of keeping order. You can keep people happy or you can run a police state. Our ruling elite has reached the fork in the road and has chosen the path that leads to the police state. People are to be kept in order by force, threats and fear.

The elite practice divide-and-rule. People tolerate the abuse of power so long as it's used against the people they don't like. But one day it may be their turn to be on the receiving end.

This isn't afghanistan.

One of the reasons for rioting was that the rioters knew full well they could get away with it.

So why on earth would you turn round and say these people are being kept in order by fear and force? They were not scared, they were mocking them and chanting "come on then".

You appear to have a completely bizzare (to me) outlook on things, and seem appear to watch video's of rioters in such a different outlook, that it makes me wonder if were actually watching the same things.

tr3mor

pqrdef wrote: »

And isn't it a pity they didn't apply zero-tolerance at Eton over the cannabis episode. Cameron could have been shopped to the police, hauled up before the beak and sent off to a young offenders institution. No wonder he believes in second chances.

It's a pity that they don't apply zero tolerance to a lot of things, but not personal drug use. Drugs, especially cannabis, should be legal anyway.

There was a programme on BBC4 about the origins of council estates. It basically explained how originally the state intended them for, to paraphrase, the deserving poor. If we are to provide subsidised housing, then it should go to those who contribute to society.

From Bastiat, The Law (http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html)...

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.


But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.


Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain — and since labor is pain in itself — it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.


When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

pqrdef

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So why on earth would you turn round and say these people are being kept in order by fear and force?

I was talking about sentencing policy and robust policing. "These people" are supposed to get the message that they must not do it again for fear of the consequences.

But there's very little evidence that deterrence works. People are forever complaining that sentences are too light to deter. But they themselves don't rush out and commit crimes on the grounds that the sentence won't bother them. Presumably they have some other reason not to commit crimes. So where are all the people who don't have any moral compunction about committing crimes, but will be deterred by the threat of a heavy sentence?

Graham_Devon

pqrdef wrote: »

But there's very little evidence that deterrence works.

I urge you to visit some of the places surrounding Dubai.

And then think again whether deterrants work.

As for UK evidence. Really simple example. Stick a police car on the motorway. Watch as people slow down, creep past, only to speed up when the police car is no longer visible.

Then try telling me deterrants don't work.

dtsazza

pqrdef wrote: »

There are two ways of keeping order. You can keep people happy or you can run a police state. Our ruling elite has reached the fork in the road and has chosen the path that leads to the police state. People are to be kept in order by force, threats and fear.

What's wrong with the moderate option, of having a system of laws and enforcing them?

Does it count as a police state to do that? And if a law is (constitutionally) unenforced, does it even exist at all?

Regardless of whether people are happy, I want there to be an independent force that will prevent/punish people who breach the boundaries of what is considered decent. Even in happy rainbow land you'd still have that force, you'd just need to call on them less often.

dtsazza

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As for UK evidence. Really simple example. Stick a police car on the motorway. Watch as people slow down, creep past, only to speed up when the police car is no longer visible.

Even more obvious - compare the speeds of people in those 50mph "average speed check" zones they have around roadworks, then compare the speeds of people on otherwise very similar stretches of motorway with
(permanent or temporary) 50mph limits, but only spot speed cameras.

pqrdef

dtsazza wrote: »

What's wrong with the moderate option, of having a system of laws and enforcing them?

It works so long as people are generally content with their society and their government and their police. In a disaffected society, the enforcement will have to be vicious.

pqrdef

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As for UK evidence. Really simple example. Stick a police car on the motorway. Watch as people slow down, creep past, only to speed up when the police car is no longer visible.

Idiot. I'm asking whether people keep their speed down because they worry about the sentence, even when there are no police in sight. Evidently not. Not even knowing that the car behind them at any time might be an unmarked police car.

Obviously people will slow down to pass a police car, even if the sentence is trivial. But that's an entirely different question.

Having a lot of police on the streets will prevent a riot even if the sentences handed down by the courts are just a slap on the wrist. How does that become a justification for heavy sentencing?

vivatifosi

pqrdef wrote: »

Idiot. I'm asking whether people keep their speed down because they worry about the sentence, even when there are no police in sight. Evidently not. Not even knowing that the car behind them at any time might be an unmarked police car.

I was talking to someone who lived in Toxteth during the earlier riots there. He felt that a big deterrent this time round will be CCTV. He thought that back then, even though lots of people knew who was responsible, it was too great a risk to phone the police and say who they were because they would be called to court and it would be their word against the criminals. If the criminal "got away with it" then they would be very fearful for their future and would have to continue living in the area. Now the process is one step removed. They can call the police, name names, the police do the matching to the CCTV and they don't need to go to court.