Product/Creator of Deprived area participates in Riot

[RedHerring2]

Forgive me, I don't normally participate in debates at this time, especially as we're an hour in front, but I'm feeling a little incensed at the mo'.
I'm fed up up of politicians managing to get the cause and effect mixed up. Ffs, where are these people educated?

I may have mentioned it before about my questioning of "HR" organisations mixing up the cause and effect, e.g. of married males and their reliability in the work place.

The recent riots and the data resulting from convictions seems to me to be a similar situation of politicians getting it wrong.
Deprived areas do not create criminals: criminals or potential criminals create deprived areas.

If I'm a career person, or someone who works hard, or I have a brilliant idea, or even if I win some money, I may try to live and move in the neauveau rich circles. I'm not a product of that background, I've migrated to it.

The same must apply to the workshy/benefit fiddlers. they are not a product of the deprived areas, they migrate there. Their offspring are a product of their parents, not the area!

 

[cantaloup63]

That's an interesting way at looking at it. So the real question is how can one "persuade" those within deprived areas to aspire to moving away from them, or indeed not go there in the first place?

 

[RedHerring2]

Sorry, canta....r, ooh arr. Not intending to get into an indepth discussion here. It is already well past midnight.

As I said in my last sentence, these criminals or whatever they are called by various politicans, media, are the product of their parents, their peers, and (I don't want to open another can of worms 'cos I do appreciate some of the difficulties) the institutions within their society, eg. schools.

Again, I recollect my discussions with staff at inner-city institutions. I was informed that "we are working in an inner-city environment and we must work to their rules" .

I rejected that idea and put forward the concept that we are, and represent the "environment" and we must set the standards.

 

[cantaloup63]

I rejected that idea and put forward the concept that we are, and represent the "environment" and we must set the standards.

I'm sure that sociologists call this sort of behaviour "consensual communities", or something like that anyway. But as you say - it's late and bed beckons

 

[RedHerring2]

Bon nuit

 

[wotan]

That's an interesting way at looking at it. So the real question is how can one "persuade" those within deprived areas to aspire to moving away from them, or indeed not go there in the first place?

The poverty trap, or possibly birds of a feather flock together?

 

[wreckedit]

Well, RedH2 when you become incensed what fragrance do you prefer, my misses likes lavender but that gives me a sneezing fit. I prefer the old ones best like Castrol R. What's your favourite?

 

[RedHerring2]

Well, RedH2 when you become incensed what fragrance do you prefer, my misses likes lavender but that gives me a sneezing fit. I prefer the old ones best like Castrol R. What's your favourite?

So when your missus is incensed, she's on fire, or just really hot?

I suppose "incensed" was too strong a word for my feelings last night, in retrospect. But you know what it's like when you feel like shouting at the TV 'cos some dumb politician (Lord Falconer on this occasion) was blaming the deprived areas for causing criminals to go on the rampage.

And I'm thinking deprivation does not cause criminality, probably the reverse, as Wotan suggested, birds of a feather flock together.

I agree that might be a little simplistic in considering regions where employment is low.

 

[wreckedit]

The police became incensed after apprehending rioters who had broken into the make up department of a chemists.

 

[RedHerring2]

I'm sure that sociologists call this sort of behaviour "consensual communities", or something like that anyway. But as you say - it's late and bed beckons

It's a long, long time since my sociological studies, but AFAICT "consensual communities" refers to communities agreeing to live together in harmony, sometimes with a common goal, but more often than not, living in harmony is the only stated objective.

 

[RedHerring2]

The police became incensed after apprehending rioters who had broken into the make up department of a chemists.

Are you sure that you haven't got the wrong interpretation of incensed? It's from the Latin verb "incensare" meaning 'to set on fire'.
I just looked it up.

 

[Space cat]

I'm fed up up of politicians managing to get the cause and effect mixed up. Ffs, where are these people educated?

Never take anything a politician says at face value. They'll say whatever they think will get them a few extra votes.

Deprived areas do not create criminals: criminals or potential criminals create deprived areas.

That would appear to be self-evident, though there might be just a little bit of "They're all getting away with it. Why not me as well?".

The same must apply to the workshy/benefit fiddlers. they are not a product of the deprived areas, they migrate there.

I don't think they migrate there. Their concentration increases as those who can afford it migrate out. It's a sort of reverse osmosis. That's bad news for the perfectly good people - which will be most of them - who also can't afford to move out.

Their offspring are a product of their parents --

No argument there. If the parents are scum, the children are very likely to turn out the same but, as always with the social sciences, you have to be careful about what conclusions you draw from this. Thirty years ago, the proliferation of teenage scum was blamed on the 'hippy generation' of the sixties who didn't bother to discipline their offspring properly. Nice try but it won't wash because today's young scum are the offspring of Thatcherism. Were their parents too busy money-grubbing to even notice that they had any children?

They say you can prove anything with statistics so here's an interesting theory. I've heard it said many times that the thirties were a period of relatively low crime. So what did we have back then? Answer: massive unemployment and, thanks to WW1, a huge number of one-parent families. Maybe we need more of them.

 

[Alarm]

I loved the interview today outside a court, where if found guilty the offender and his family were to be evicted. (Go Wandsworth Council)!
His friends argument was, and directly at the reporter ( If you did something like this would you like your parents home taken away?). Now he has a slight point, however in a council property you do sign a contract. Which does state non-molestation of others or their property somewhere in the text.
So they broke a contract, end off.
A bit more difficult with home owners. How about far higher fines, if at Uni, you have to pay in advance. With no refunds if you flunk? Anyway generally a criminal record will not be "spent" even after they leave Uni. So another dogma to carry about.

A little digression there I know

 

[thatbloke]

Why not just stop the benefits system altogether?
Simples.
No council housing , no dole cheques and anybody who cant pay their way , tough titty.

I bet there would be riots far worse than those we witnessed a few weeks ago, but they would pass.