I've lived in London for most of my life and still have a flat there, slap-bang in the middle of the riot areas. I suppose it gives me a special interest in what has happened there, but my tenant assures me that the flat is intact although a few local shops have been burnt as well as cars in the street.

In the convoluted search for answers, I've read myself dry, but today I found an article that seems to contain more sense than anything from the boys from Eton and the others.

I get the feeling that this is a forum which leans slightly to the right, I probably do myself, but I feel brave enough to post the link to the article, written by a comedian, a wise one, who also lived in those troubled parts of our capital, although he now lives in Hollywood.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/au...s-davidcameron

And the author also supports West Ham United, perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned that.

Actually, this is what Gordon Brown tried to remedy with his tax credits policy ie if you took on a low paid job, you could then get extra help with tax credits to pay the bills.

The problem is the system was that complicated, even the Inland Revenue didn't always understand it, and people were being hit with overpayment bills of 2k or 3k. No wonder many people preferred not to apply for it. It's still in operation by the way. It would be better to change the system so that someone on a low wage rate doesn't pay tax at all, and so wouldn't need to apply for the tax credit. Yet we're waiting for a chancellor of the exchequer brave enough to do this.

One last point, before I hit the sack tonight. We've been talking about people without work and disadvantaged people taking part in the looting. Yet a lot of people arrested had either jobs or prospects. I think a lot of people (and they were generally youngsters between 15 and 30) just got caught up in what they saw as excitement. Maybe we just need a summer camp system in somewhere like Scotland, so for 4 or 5 weeks each summer these youngsters are sent away from the city? Not practical for over 20s I know, but we could do it for 16 and 17 year olds?

Now that's good writing. Russel Brand is one of those people who I'm never sure is crap or brilliant -nothing inbetween, but when he comes out with stuff like this, it's sheer beauty. Well written, no wasted flourishes but just solid gold.

"Amidst the bleakness of this social landscape, squinting all the while in the glare of a culture that radiates ultraviolet consumerism and infrared celebrity. That daily, hourly, incessantly enforces the egregious, deceitful message that you are what you wear, what you drive, what you watch and what you watch it on, in livid, neon pixels. The only light in their lives comes from these luminous corporate messages. "

As I keep saying, in a world where moral examples are disgraced, - it just needs enough black paint to stain it beyond repair, Crown, Church, Police, MPs et all, then all that is left is the god of consumerism, and the fun of the fair, sorry, riot.

Well, thanks Bil, the writing is truly off the wall, but the underlying meaning is accurate.

Like Brand. who is a lot younger than me, I've walked those dark streets and understand some of it, a tiny percentage.

Lack of role models may be part of the answer, poverty has got little to do with it, our society provides the basic needs.

I don't know about the present campaign to lock them all up. I agree and disagree. They may deserve to be put away, but they'll come back to haunt us. Six months for nicking a bottle of water?

And we need some perspective. One of the first ones in court, the trainee social worker who was remanded on bail. Sky News pursued her down the street.

She tried to cover her face up, but what a bum. No wonder they gave her bail.

People think this is good writing? I despair.

Considering the , to put it politely, stupid "pranks" that this guy has done and the small fortune paid to him for some of the inane jobs that have made him a so called celebrity I would be more inclined to think of him as part of the problem.

Graham

So would I (part of the problem)

Graham that is one of this weeks better posts.

Brave enough to put Civil Servants out of work. Then who would rule the country?

Whether or not he actually wrote the article or just signed at the bottom as is normally the case with so-called celebs I really don't know, and little doubt it was written to fit in quite nicely with the Guardians normal agenda.

In any event there are admissions of his previous indiscretions and stupidity from which he claims to have learnt his lesson.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008...d-andrew-sachs

However judging by his more recent actions he not only appears to be more stupid than ever, but also flies in the face of everything he hypocritically claims he now believes in.

Six million quid contracts for scumbags like that ?
I think not.

Exactly.

Poverty is relative, I think. If all you have is material goods, and your worth is measured in them then you can have a lot, and yet be convinced you have nothing.

Locking them up? Yeah, I'm with you on that. If we send them to jail, I doubt many will come out as better people. Plus, I thought the jails were bursting at the seams already?

We have come so far down the road with baby steps, that it is inconceivable to me that we can retrace our steps, and we are now in a parlous position.

If we can't retrace our steps, and I don't see how, then we will have to deal with riots and looting more and more severely, until would be rioters are afraid to go rioting.

What else is there?

Its not is fault,being handed a 6 million pound contract,its the person handing out the contract,here lies the problem with society in the UK today.

OK, let's just pause here shall we? It's traditional to slag the guardian off as biased, but my experiences of reading it showed it as surprisingly balanced, especially when compared to the real rags like the sun, the Mail and the Mirror.

I would just point out how quickly the Guardian was slammed on here for DARING to suggest that the second bullet was police issue. Dick, they were right.

Again.

So can we have a little less on the Guardian's so called 'agenda'? There was a large investigation carried out (not by the Guardian) on all the newspapers, regarding their coverage of the election when Labour won that massive landslide. They compared how balanced the papers were, by counting up how many lines were written about each party (Labour and Tory) by the paper, and whether the articles were negative, or positive.

The Mail was very unbalanced with a lot of pro T anti L and the mirror just the same (Anti T pro L) with each paper singing the joys of the party they supported and slagging off the opposition.

The guardian was almost perfectly balanced, they had written the same amount about T&L, and almost all the articles were positive, a small amount of negative, and both parties got the same amount of negative, and the same amount of positive.

Now let's talk about 6 million pound contracts, because it's yet another slanderous, lying attack on someone.

Johnathon Ross did not get paid 6 million pounds. He won a contract worth 6 million pounds to produce a series for TV.

Only stupid, nasty minded little people are then gullible enough to believe that 6 million pounds went into JR's pocket. However, there are sufficient nasty minded little people who would rather believe that than look at the facts.

It costs a LOT to make a series, and JR has to be paid, the camera men and their gear have to be paid for, the sound studio, and all the horrendous expenses that adhere to such an undertaking too.

I'm hoping that the people who read this are bright enough to realise that what I have written is a valid comment, and no matter whether they like JR or not, the man deserves honest reporting and not dishonest smears.

Agreed Dick?