Thursday, 11 August 2011

Petition reaches 91,000

The top-scoring petition on the government's e-Petition site calls for all welfare benefits for convicted rioters to be withdrawn; just 9,000 signatures away from the magic trigger point, it's raced past Paul Staines' hanging petition, which is languishing and static with just 20,000 signatures. 

On the face of it, it's pointless. Those convicted and sent to prison will lose benefits anyway, and those fined for minor offences either pay the fines out of benefit, or, erm, commit further offences to raise the money. But if it provokes a Parliamentary debate on special retributive measures against those who don't obey the law - or at least a particular law - it will be interesting. A Labour council has already threatened to evict any council house tenants convicted of riot offences, but presumably those convicted of white-collar fraud or sex offences are secure. And given that the 12 to 16 year-olds who were most apparent on the streets are neither benefit recipients nor tenants it seems that few will be touched by special retributive sanctions. 

It's clear there's no public mood to pour cash into the Afro-Carib estates this time. Harman may whine and pout, but Labour's asinine MultiKulti and moral relativism are recognised by much of the population as being directly responsible for the state we're in. If what emerges from the riots is not retribution against individuals but a new moral certainty, an admission that not all 'lifestyle choices' are either good or acceptable, a strengthening of support for the traditional family and a reaffirmation of the Anglo-Saxon work ethic, all the pain and loss may just have been worth it. 


Sean said...

Looks like the bankruptcy of the Liberal Left is another welcome development of the post crash age that is underway.

These are very interesting times are they not?

Weekend Yachtsman said...

This is getting rather too close to Acts of Attainder.

We don't need special retributive measures, we need the law - as it applied at the time of the offence - to be enforced rigorously.

Anything else undermines what little is left of our respect for the Rule of Law.

Mob rule is not good, whoever's mob is doing the ruling.

Blue Eyes said...

Totally agree with WY. The main legal barrier to evicting anti-social tenants for any misdemeanour is that it isn't possible. The courts will not evict anyone from social housing if they claim that by doing so they will be made homeless.

This means that councils cannot easily get people out for non-payment of rent. Getting them out because their kids have broken into shops will be even more difficult.

No, the proper solution is for the courts to hand out actual punishments to convicted criminals.

If I have judged the mood correctly only the Left is making excuses. The vast majority of people are horrified and want the courts to stand up and be counted.

Greg Tingey said...

Why is "Liberal Left" a term of abuse?

Or are some people here chanelling the vile Pat Buchanan and Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann?

It is also possible to be liberal, without being "left" as far too many people don't realise.
There is also the Authoritarian/Libertarian divide - which is at right-angles to the left/right one. Perhaps people should BLODDY WELL THINK about that, too!

Wildgoose said...

"Liberal Left" shouldn't be a term of abuse but I suppose is just a sign of the creeping Americanisation of our political terminology.

I consider myself "Libertarian Left" in that I believe in communities (plural) but distrust the State.

However I don't see how you can lump for example Pat Buchanan and Michelle Bachmann together - that just looks like an attempt to smear people by implying they are no different to the likes of Pat Buchanan.

That's just as egregious as dismissing people as "Liberal Left" without distinction.

Matt said...

"Liberal" left is a term Guardian types have long used to describe themselves. It is intended as a swipe at the rest of us and tries to imply they are the only "progressive" thinkers, the only ones open to new ideas. Ironic really as they are clearly the ones trying the same old crap over and over whilst expecting different results.

My view is that we should have stopped using the terms "left" and "right" decades ago as they are woefully inadequate for describing the complexities of modern politics. Hitler is largely referred to as right wing yet he was the head of the National Socialist Party which obviously had very Socialist policies. Likewise the BNP are obviously a Socialist party in terms of policies but are also referred to as being right wing due to the fact they are racists.

My view is that this is another example of us allowing the champagne socialists to frame the terms of the debate and force us to talk on their terms, using their language. You see the same thing in arguments about things like the smoking ban or pricing on alcohol. We allow them to bog us down arguing over statistics and other factual data on issues which should clearly be argued in terms of morality.

If we are ever to win then we need to wake up to this and hold ourselves to a higher standard. Don't let them drag us down their level!

Woodsy42 said...

"Those convicted and sent to prison will lose benefits anyway, "

They should send them to old people's homes and make them pay the bills - let the old folks have a free holiday in nice comfy open prisons.

Sean said...

OK then, Cultural Marxism, Militant Feminism, Frankfurt school, and their bastard child, post modernism.

Of course classical liberals are well entitled to regard themselves as on the Left, but this is 2011 and not only the world moves on but language does too.

Barnacle Bill said...

Left, right, liberal or neo-conservative; I don't think any of these street criminals were interested in this debate.
However, I think the rest of us can agree that NuLabor will find it hard to explain this one away.

James Higham said...

How's deportation rating?

john miller said...

If you take away their shelter and take away their money you have declared war and have to fight.

Does anyone really think the middle classes want this?

The State has disarmed all but the bad guys and any civilised person under 25 thinks that the State permits you to do things rather than vice versa.

Big boys like you may think you can form a local militia, but I don't see it turning out very well at all.

Cromwell said...

John miller, you have made three faulty assumptions. I will point out one, local militias have been formed and have proven extraordinarily effective, and have educated people.

I predict a major change in tolerance of aberrant behaviour in certain neighbourhoods.

Anonymous said...

I predict more of the government same - on the grounds that there wasn't enough social workers , welfare etc etc. Bound to happen.

opinion prole said...

It might not be practical to boot them out into the street but somehow we have to stop something-for-nothing welfare payments. Those who receive unemployment benefits must be made to do something useful in exchange. Why should taxpayers work to support idleness?

Anonymous said...

Our streets need cleaning, grafitti needs cleaning off, even if it forces some people to get out of bed before noon, community service should be a condition of receiving benefits not a punishment for breaking the law.

We might even bring back the useless Child Support Agency the overpaid Lin Homer screwed up. Why are we paying for the multiple offspring of Afro-Carribean sperm donors. DNA-test all benefit claimants, claw back the social costs they have created.

Then please shut the open back door of Commonwealth entry to the UK, and the bogus students who forget to go home. We have all the Africans we need thank you.