Wednesday, 10 August 2011

Riot winners and losers

After a calm, quiet night with hardly any traffic to speak of on the street, and the feral scum at home wondering when the police knock on the door will come, the acres of print of excuse and opinion are rolling off the presses. But already the winners and losers are identifiable;

The Police - losers. Despite the undoubted bravery and commitment of most individual officers who were on the streets, a failure of command and of intelligence, of preparation and tactics is apparent. The behaviour of trigger-happy gun cops is again under question (I've always said that no officer who volunteers to carry a firearm should be permitted to do so). And Londoners may be forgiven for asking when we have 32,000 officers on the payroll why only 6,000 could be mustered for duty.  

The government - losers. Clegg was booed off and forced to escape in his armoured limo to jeers from the crowds; Cameron's minders didn't let him near the public for fear of similar scenes. Theresa May is an anodyne noise, utterly ineffective. Cameron has displayed his 'hysteria' again by recalling Parliament. No one has much confidence that the government is any use at all.

The law-abiding poor - losers. It's their neighbourhoods that have been trashed, their convenience stores that have been burned out. In the current economic climate, they'll stay burned out, shuttered and empty. These areas will be shunned by the few business investors still investing. They'll have to go further and pay more for their basic food and clothing. Shuttered and closed parades of shops will blight their areas as even the bookies, the fried chicken shop and the offie shut-up and leave.

Internet retailers - winners. Compared to a vulnerable, high-risk High Street shop, already with high levels of theft, 'steaming' and potential claims from traumatised staff, and therefore high-cost, the attraction of running an internet retail operation with a warehouse in rural Scotland will grow. The net-savvy population will reap the rewards; the webless will pay high prices for a limited range of goods from local shops. 

Council tax payers - losers. Under the 1886 Riot Damages Act it's local police forces - and local council tax payers - who pick up the tab for riot damage. (NB 'riot' and 'civil disorder' are not the same. If your store is torched by ten youths acting together, it's a civil disturbance. If there are thirteen of them, it's a riot). 

The Corporations - winners. Crapita, G4, Serco and the rest will do well out of the riots. Police bosses will retreat into 'managerial' responses, riot kit will be bought, prison and custody downsizing halted, new intelligence and command systems introduced. All ultimately futile - see next.

Local democracy - ????? As Simon Jenkins points out in the Guardian this morning, the long term answer is real power at local levels, but the temptation is for our wartime Whitehall to retrench with Statist solutions. Hard to predict which way this will go - the groudswell of local reaction, of the decent majority wanting to take control, wanting to have authority over their own policing may prove stronger than one may initially think. 


meltemian said...

Glad you are OK.
Wonder what the government are going to come up with - they will feel they have to come up with new, and probably futile, ideas.

Paul said...

Gavin from Autoglass - Winner

Edward Spalton said...

It has been obvious for years that events like this were on the way, if government persisted in allowing large scale immigration. An insider from the last Labour government revealed that the increase in immigration was deliberate policy which was designed to cause a permanent demographic shift in the population. Labour, of course, would expect electoral benefits from such a pattern.

It is also obvious that the perfectly normal preference of most people for their own kind had to be criminalised or at least made socially unacceptable.
Hence the manufacture of the crime of "racism" in ever greater detail. This was a deliberate attempted (and quite successful) moral disarmament of human nature in the majority population in the face of demographic invasion and colonisation, underpinned by the attractions of the welfare state, made available by the government to incomers.

So the short term economic winners, I expect, will be the executives and operatives of the race relations industry, as the authorities attempt to shore up the untenable concept of multiculturalism.

Like the European Central Bank they may continue to keep going for a long time by political will after the logical supports of their system have collapsed.

Greg Tingey said...

I'm going to repeat my earlier comment:
The "contract" between us and the guvmint, and their agents, the Police, is that they look after us, and we should not need to arm ourselves.
Well, now ....
There is also, again from the Daily Telegraph, THIS SCARY PIECE
Note the quote: "The attack was witnessed by a lone police officer who could do nothing but wait for his colleagues to arrive." well, rubbish!
The word is not could" but WOULD.

With that evidence, I would say that the contract referred to, above, is void.

But Edward Spalton is wrong, and dangerously so.
Humanity is an African species, after all. And, as I said elsewhere, the victims are also all shades and colours, and by no means all of the criminal looters are brown.
I suggest Spalton get into his time-machine and pisses off to Jo'Burg in 1955 ......

Not so sure about internet retailers winning.
Not if you are Sony, and had a big warehouse in Enfield ...

"Local Democracy"
Maybe, PROVIDED the local leaders are not religious bigots of one sort or another.
THAT would make things many times worse.

cuffleyburgers said...

Raedwald - I believe the point was made by Tim Worstall that the riot clause in the insurance only kicks in if the police actually charge somebody with the specific charge of riot, something which is apparently quite rare.

Your broader point though is dead right. The inevitable response from the plod will be more kit, more crackdowns etc. the correct response I believe was described by EU Referendum, and is to permit what would be effectively local militias or special constables, under the supervision of designated police officers, whose responsibility would be to defend local areas as happened spontaneously by the turks and kurds in one area.

The police need to be seen as a part of the community not as a paramilitary occupying force, unfortunately since the days of dixon of dock green and the sweeney they have been moving charly in the other direction.

Greg Tingey said...

Another quote from that dangerous left-wing paper, the DT.
From Andrew Gilligan (himself a mugging victim):
"Even on Monday, the victims of Tottenham, black and white, were already tired of outsiders blaming racism, police brutality, or cuts. (What were they rioting about in prosperous, suburban Enfield – rising season-ticket prices?) The real reason for the rioters’ behaviour is much simpler: because they can."

Please note that.

English Pensioner said...

And Londoners may be forgiven for asking when we have 32,000 officers on the payroll why only 6,000 could be mustered for duty.
I think that you are a little unfair here. As one who has worked shifts (as an engineer in the aviation industry), we needed five shifts of engineers and technicians to maintain 24/7 cover.
There are 168 hours a week, and most people these days expect to work a 35-40 hour week, and if you allow for 8 hour shifts plus half hour handover you don't have many man-hours left for contingencies with 5 shifts.
We always had the same moan from administrators "Why do you need five people to do one job" and my answer always was "because it's a mathematical fact of life".
Or do you expect longer hours from the police and for them to manage without any sleep - the very reason why the Specials, like my daughter, have had to be called in by the Met to allow the regular police to get some sleep and to provide some daytime cover as the "normal" crime continues as usual.

Edward Spalton said...


Equality before the law for individuals is and already was built into British law before anyone invented "race relations". Slaves were set free the instant they landed on English soil long before the slave trade was abolished in the empire. The idea of special "group rights" for different "communities" , intruding into law is manufacturing inequality to the detriment of the native British whose government has not stood up for them at all.

A few years ago, a charity was set up in Derby to provide an old people's home for people of Caribbean origin. It wasn't really a charity because it would all rely on various sorts of public funding but its aim was to provide care by staff who were also of Caribbean origin. Now I didn't see anything wrong with that but it was also applying for extra funding from the council - essentially " 'cos they was black."

Can you imagine the fuss and probable legal consequences if someone tried to set up a charity for an English or British old people's home, staffed only by native white British on the same basis? I doubt whether the organisers would be able either to gain charitable status or to stay out of the criminal courts, let alone get extra funding from the council to whom I have to pay my tax.

We native fellows are at a grave disadvantage under the present race laws. (Just like today's whites in South Africa actually (as you thought to mention it) - but we are still the majority!)
It's time for our own Aboriginal Liberation struggle, I think.

Greg Tingey said...

Sorry. I still call racist.
Especially when the semi-disabled granny in Hackney, who set about rioters with her walking-stick is considered.
As featured in that well-known marxist publication, the Daily Telegraph.

"Long before"
Erm. Slavery in England, abolished 1807 [NOTE]
Trading also abolished.
Salvery in Empire abolished 1832/3

NOTE: Yes I am aware of the Lord Chief Justice' ruling of 1701, but there were, nonetheless slaves/indentured "servants" until 1807 - admittedly in very small numbers.

Edward Spalton said...

Successive governments have quite deliberately decreed that we are the ones to be subjected to demographic invasion and colonisation. They have put in place laws to make us feel guilty about it - even as our taxes fund large numbers of incomers in idleness.

They have created special " racially aggravated" offences to make us unequal before the law. So, if I were to punch someone on the nose and say "Take that, you bounder!" I might go to jail for 2 years for assault. But if I said "Take that you black/Paki (or whatever) bounder", it would become " racially aggravated assault" and I might get five years. In practice this concept is not invoked when (say) African youths attack Asians. It is directed at us.

Of course, our rulers do not live in or near "vibrant multicultural" areas. They only meet the charming Nigerian doctor, Pakistani accountant and Indian architect - as well, of course, as the obliging (and cheap) domestic help from immigrant communities.

It is the native majority against whom things are rigged. Rather like the situation in 1955 South Africa which you brought up - "Naught for thy comfort", as one author then expressed it.