They're all in Afghanistan/Iraq/Libya/wherever else Cameron feels like bombing today, aren't they? Or down the dole office after they got laid off?

I agree that parenting is a key issue too, yes.

Not having a job or opportunity in life doesn't make someone a hooligan or a rioter. Being totally disconnected from society and aspiration (for e.g. a NEET) combined with falling into the wrong peer group can and often does turn someone into an anti-social idiot (in my view). Here's another statistic: knife crime in London has risen sharply in 2011. Don't believe me? See the following: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/ju...youth-services. Why is this? An explanagtion is provided.

Let's put aside the issue of policing etc. I'm sick of hearing how we didn't plan for this well enough; that there weren't enough police on the streets; that Boris should've come back sooner etc etc. I went out on to the street for Taste of the Danforth this weekend where 1.5m people enjoyed the street festival with little or no trouble and the numbers of police were vastly outnumbered by revellers. This is a society/economic problem. Yes, it's hard to say that Britain's been 'broken' by a minority of people, but these 'minorities' are grouping together in batches of 200 strong up and down the country and people are scared/intimidated.

I genuinely believe that while there are just mindless idiots contributing to this and that people aren't really aware of any ideology too, the reason why there is so much anger / frustration is because this government is simply not there for young people, especially in urban communities. In fact, they are steadily taking things away from them piece by piece. In short, there are just so many more young people on the street in 2011 with **** all to do rather than earn an honest crust (jobs? what jobs) or get an education (where did that education maintenance grant go eh? Oh, to the rich that's where) than in 2010.

But it is really.

A greedy fat bastard will be drawn to fast food just because it's there and they're a fat greedy bastard.

An arsehole in the context of looters and rioters will always jump in just because it's there and they're an arsehole

Yes the government today are a bit shit and their decisions questionable BUT the only people to blame for the carnage in London right now are those taking part in it. I would guess there are more NEET's not taking part than those who are.

I personally would blame the Baby Boomers, possibly Gen X'ers, and MTV if we're playing your game

Actually, Britain has been broken by a minority of people who've supported policies which have created a huge feral underclass. Now we're seeing what those feral kids can do when they get together in gangs; the police have grown used to sitting at the side of the road giving out speeding tickets and are not going to have an easy time dealing with kids who've spent much of their lives breaking the law and getting away with it.

Hopefully they'll get the riots under control, but this problem has taken decades to create and it won't be solved overnight. Offering the rioters jobs tomorrow will not make a difference, because in most cases their parents and grandparents have spent all their lives on the dole and they expect to do the same. Why would they want to go out to work at a boring unskilled job when they can sit around at home all day and nick things and burn buildings down at night?

Who is to blame then: the anti-social idiots whom, it would appear, you believe are responsible for the position they find themselves in; the Government that aren't providing jobs (how do they do that, surely the civil service is big enough); the rich people that, one assumes, own the businesses that provide the jobs?

What would you do to ensure that there were sufficient jobs for everyone? Would you stop your neighbours from purchasing cheap consumer items? Would you ensure that all workers have to be retained, even if they are not prepared to work in accordance with how their employer expects them to? Have you ever started a business, run it successfully and actually employed arms length workers?

Why aren't you the Prime Minister, after all, you make it sound so easy?

There's probably lots of parents of looting rooters sitting watching their new big screen TV/listening to new music system and iPods and using new iPhones this morning after saying to Jermaine/Ahmed/Jimmy "you really shouldn't have done that kid, but doesn't it look good in the corner there."

The government shouldn't be providing jobs, but it sets the legal framework in which jobs are created. I think it's done a shit job myself.

http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/...-job-creators/

I'd vote for Mike.

Here is a blog by Mr Anonymous.

No one should be shocked or surprised at what's been happening in London and elsewhere over the last few days. It's an extension, significantly more violent, of the earlier 'student' riots - and it's a manifestation of a serious meltdown in society. Not that middle England, cosily ensconced behind its lacy curtains in leafy suburbs, will readily acknowledge this. But what we are seeing is a growing feral, almost subhuman, underclass increasingly taking over the run of our streets. Social discipline is in decline, the values of 'family' and 'community' are in retreat, corruption and self serving attitudes are in the ascendancy and materialism is becoming ever more grasping. The 'me' philosophy has embraced the depths of nihilistic anarchy. For this you can thank decades of left wing meddling with the educational system, years of muddled political correction, and an increasing absence of moral and political leadership and spine. The yobs are winning and the good guys are pretending that, as long as it's not in their back yard, there's actually nothing seriously wrong! What a pity The Daily Mail can't be blamed and mocked this time.

I thought this article in yesterday's Telegraph was well considered.

On a plus point, Blackberry Messaging is now very popular in London. And the kids are getting lots much needed exercise.

What is wrong with the legal framework?


So why can't the disaffected work for themselves? Take for example, a carpenter. The tools he requires for his vocation belong to him. If he doesn't like the terms upon which his employer wishes to employ him, what is preventing him from competing with his employer?

I find these arguments the same that are used by, for example, women that have hit the "glass ceiling" and, but for their sex, would be the most powerful directors and business managers about. Assuming this is correct, why don't they run their own businesses and impose such ceilings upon others?

For starters, it allows companies to export poor working conditions and pollution. Ok, legal was probably the wrong word, legislative would have been better.

In the general sense you are right. Why can't they compete? The main reason is that nobody can compete with virtual slaves - which is essentially why all the low skilled manufacturing jobs have gone.

League cup and England game cancelled. Life as we know it is on hold it seems in London.

As we read and type now! More riots on West Brom so the cricket maybe postponed as well now.

FLASH....Mark Dugan did not fire at the police. Imo this is now an unrelated incident.

And although having a bit of a ramble, she has some good points

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ka...uses-for-them/

So are you advocating for import tariffs, etc.? Again, you need to look to your neighbours, if they didn't buy the cheapest products ...


But doesn't that require the slaves to be complicit? Who would perform the work if they didn't?