|
The world was stunned when young people in London rioted (August 2011). Unlike other instances of such violence, thec London rioters were not minorities rioting against oppresive conditions and poverty. They were young people brought up by a welfare state in which the basic necesitiues were guaranted by the state. The basic complaint of the rioters seems to have been that the government was not giving them enough and therefore they had the right to take what they wanted from 'the rich people'which basically meant hard working shop owners--in many cases small shop keepers with immigrant backgrounds. If this was not bad enough, Britions were outraged when the acts of two young men posing as 'good sanaritans' duriung the unrest. They were caught on an amateur video attacking an injured Malaysian student--Mohammed Asyraf Haziq Rossli (21 years old). Rossli was injured and dazed as a result of an attack by Beau Isagba (17 years old) who attacked Rossli, hiting him in the face and breaking his jaw. He then stole his bicycle. It is then that the samaritans enter the picture. John Kafunda (22 years old) pretending to assist the injured and stunned Rossli to a safer spot in the midst of the rioting. While he did so, his accomplice, Reece Donovan (24 years old), rifled through Rossli's backpack and stole a portable Playstation and 10 games. An outraged Prime Minister David Cameron described the incident as an indication of social malaise. Now in the scheme of things, a broken jaw and the theft of a Playstation and games isa rather minor incident, but it speaks volumes about the welfare states established in Western Europe since World War II. Welfare states that are now destintegrarting as the countries are going bankrupt trying to support them.
The world was stunned when young people in London rioted (August 2011). Large numbers of young people broke into shops and stole items they coveted like smart phone, big screen televisuions, video players and games, etc.
The rioting was sparked by a police operation against an alleged leader of a criminal gang in London. The individual was followed and then the police made an arrest. The police were armed and the individual was shot. He died from these injuries. Days later a protest march turned into a riot. The rioting quickly spread throughout the country.
A British reader tells us, "The whole thing was engineered by criminal youth gangs who wanted a battle with the police. The leaders used sophisticated multipurpose devices to call out the rioters and direct operations. At no time did the authorities have the sense to close the mobile phone systems down. The police's where abouts were quickly texted through to the rioters and they would go into areas where the police were not deoloyed.
Some began buring the shops after ransaking the stores. The police unprepared and overwealmed by the level rioting stepped back and largely allowed them to proceed reluctant to use firce. Unlike other instances of such urban violence, thec London rioters were not minorities rioting against oppresive conditions and poverty or the objects of police brutality. They were young people brought up by a welfare state in which the basic necesities were guaranted by the state. What became apparent within days of the rioting and following the arrests and court appearances was that the rioters many of the rioters were people in work including well paid jobs.
It took the police several days to put a stop to the rioting. Siumilar unrest took place in other large British cities, althouigh on a smaller scale.
The basic complaint of the rioters seems to have been that the government was not giving them enough and therefore they had the right to take what they wanted from 'the rich people'. We know this is what many of the young people were thinking because journlists began interviewing the rioters and this is what they toild them on camera, not the least embarassed. Most did not even bother covering their faces. Of course theuir idea of stealing from the richj people meant breaking into the shops of hard working merchants--in many cases small shop keepers with immigrant backgrounds. The rioters were not young people who had been subjected to police brutality or denied adequate food, housing, and medical care. The Government guarantees all that. What they wantedcwere the baubles of asuccessful life which people earn through hard work, nice cars, aydiuo-visual equioment, smart phomes, trendy clothes, ect. Apparently large numbers of young Britons believe that the state should also begin handing out all these goodie which are flashed before them in television advertising. Totaly absent from their thinking, in part as a result of a Socialist oriented education system, is that some one has to work and pay for everything that the government hands out. The more the Government habnds out, the more it has to take from people who work.
If the rioting itself was not bad enough, an amateur video of one small incident during the rioting was posted on You-tube. Britions were thus further outraged when they saw two young men posing as 'good sanaritans' duriung the unrest. They were caught on an amateur video attacking an injured Malaysian student--Mohammed Asyraf Haziq Rossli (21 years old). Te slightly built Rossli was injured and dazed as a result of an attack by Beau Isagba (17 years old) who attacked Rossli, hiting him in the face and breaking his jaw. He then stole his bicycle. It is then that the samaritans enter the picture. John Kafunda (22 years old) pretending to assist the injured and stunned Rossli to a safer spot in the midst of the rioting. While he did so, his accomplice, Reece Donovan (24 years old), rifled through Rossli's backpack and stole a portable Playstation and 10 games among othger items. A British reader writes, "The terrible case of the injuried youth who was robbed of his possessions was a particulary cruel thing to do. At the same time there were other people who gave help and came together to direct the rioters away from their neighhoods and in the subsequent clean up was well documented."
Now in the scheme of things, a broken jaw and the theft of a Playstation and games was a rather minor incident, but it speaks volumes about the welfare states established in Western Europe since World War II. There is no doubt that the working class throughout Europe lived in poor conditions which were blamed on evils the susposed evils of capitalism. This led to the push by socialists politicans to create the welfare state. And it sounded wonderful to workers. No one seems to have noticed that the simple, undeniable fact that the most affluent workers at the time were in America (the most capitalist country) and the least affluent were in Russia (the least capitalist country). Voters throughout Western Europe began voting for Socialists and Cimmunists. And after World War II, voters in Western Europe installed Socialist governments which established top to bottom welfare states. People's lives were undeniably improved. And Socialist politicans won more elections by promising more free services from the Government. (HBC receives countless e-Mails from European readers describing their 'free' national health care.) The dirty little secret that Socialist politicans have been keeping is that in most countries (except a few in northern Europe), the social benefits provided have been maintained by borrowing money and in quite a number of countries--massive amounts of money. And this borrowing was needed despite the fact that capitalist America was underwriting both European defense and to a substantial extent, even the vaunted Europeaen health care system that Presudent Obama so admires.
An outraged Prime Minister David Cameron described the incident as an indication of social malaise. One of the issues that have been discussed for some time is the long term impact of the welfare state on society. There have undeniably been benefits. Europeans eat better, live in better homes, and have better health care. And most now attend secondary schools and many gonon to university. But what Europeans are just beginning to assess is how the welfare state is affecting European society. This discussion is still muted, because the Socialist dominated universitiesamd media do not want to consider this issue in any detail. The issue is, however, fairly simole. Any good parent can tell you that it is bet not to give a child everything he wants. Spoiling a child not only affects his self esteem, but leads to all kinds of problems when the child gets older and thge oparent can not always provide everything the child wants as he enters the larger world. The adult grows up thinking that not only does he nnot need to work or study hard, but that either his parenhts or the government owes him what he desires--creating the modern entitelment society. Here we are not just talking about working-class youth bon ewelfare. Rather we are referrinhg to a general social malaise including all classes that make the kids feel that life (meaning someone else) owes them a decent life and material possessions. Thus they see taking possessions from someone else is justifiable. That also feeds into participation into criminal gangs.
It is interesting to look at who the rioters were. I have not yet seen a definitive statement of who the rioters are. And while the relative social composition is still in question, it is very clear that the rioters were not all unenployed, working-class youth. A HBC reader writes,"The London riots were not solely fueled by unproductive workers on welfare. They came from all sections of society out to rob and steal. I believe the activities were masterminded by a street gangs who wanted to fight the police. Many rioters were in work [Brit speak to had jobs] and had or still have good jobs. Some were starting promising careers in the arts. One was from the aristocracy and was the driver for a gang that drove around during the riots fencing stolen goods." Another reader writes, "Here is a clip about one of the rioters.
Further evidence that the activities over the period of the riots was criminal intent by all social classes involved in the riots. rather than social issues. A millionaire's daughter has been told to prepare for prison after being convicted of driving looters on a late-night crime spree at the height of last summer's riots. University educated Laura Johnson, age 20, chauffeured the group through London on August 8 last year in her black Smart car. As they cruised around the capital, her passengers leapt from the car clad in hooded tops, bandanas and balaclavas to loot. The University of Exeter undergraduate, from Orpington, south east London, was convicted of one count of burglary and one of handling stolen goods. She was cleared of two other burglary charges and a charge of handling stolen goods by the Inner London Crown Court jury."
Another British reader ptovided this subsequnt newspaper report, "Millionaire's daughter Laura Johnson has been jailed for two years for driving looters on a late-night crime spree during last summer's riots.
University educated Johnson, 20, chauffeured the group through London on August 8 in her black Smart car.
Johnson and accomplice Christopher Edwards, 17, were both convicted of burgling a Comet store at the Greenwich Retail Park and stealing electrical goods between August 7 and 10 as rioters brought chaos to the capital.
They were also convicted of handling stolen goods following a trial in April.
Following a hearing at Inner London Crown Court , the University of Exeter undergraduate, from Orpington, Kent, was jailed for two years for one count of burglary and two years for one of handling stolen goods, to run concurrently.
Edwards, who can be named after a ban prohibiting the publication of his name was lifted, was told he would serve 12 months at a young offenders institution.
Johnson - who is reading English and Italian at university - is a former grammar school pupil who reportedly achieved four A*s and nine As at GCSE.
She is the daughter of Robert and Lindsay Johnson who own direct marketing business Avongate Ltd." The reportalso said that she would stop the car and the males passengers would jump out and rob stores and also other rioters at knife point. Stealing from them the things they had stolen. The reader tells us, "The Girl said she had gne to take a mobile phone charger to her friend who was a drug addict. Then male persons who where friends of her friend got in the passenger seats. It seems to be a chance get invilved in the mob and loose all reason for the moment as a collective dinamics took over. The judge said iT was a chance event in which she took part believing she would not get caught. Her choice of friends is questionable!" Well yes, but I would question her core values. I suspect that the Socialist bilge she and her friends get at school lead them to believe that those with money (store owners and companies ) were greedy exploiters rather than hard working job creators.
Now fair minded people can debate the issues of social malaise and the entitlement society, what can not be questioned is that today as a result of the welfare state, Europe is going bankrupt. And once a country goes babkrupt, the welfare system in created destintegrartes. This has happened in Greece and beginning to occur in other couties as well. Riots are occurring in countries like Italy, Portugal, and Spain reacting to cuts in social spending. This was probably a factor in the British rioribng as well. The first country was Greece, butt Ireland and Portugal are not far behind. What many European countries have not yet come to turn with is that the poroblms are not confined to the periferal countries. Major European countries face the sanme basic problems that drove Greece bnkrupt. There are two trends at play in the European babkruptsies. The first is havy borrowing to support the welfare state. Socialist politicans in elections by promoising free stuff. This of course sounds great to the voters. But once elected, the socialist officials have to provide the services offered. And when the country can not afford them, they simply borrow the money, This works fine--for a while. Greece by lieing about the size of the yawning defecits and using credit made available by joining the Euro Zone borrowed huge sums. Now that no one will loan to Greece, the Greek people are enduring a terrible depression. But debt vis not the only system. Many European workers no longer want to work for reasonanle salaries. And they don't have to as trhe generous welfare system provides for their basic needs. As aesult, the economy in Europe (with a few exceptions like Germany) is no longer competitive, The economy is not groiwing and in some cases actually declining. Companies are relictant to expand and hire workers because of inflexible labor rules. And with decling economies and aging populartion, Europe faxces the prospect of rising budget defecits in addition to the massive debt burden created by the welfare system.
HBC's British readers have expressed a range of opinions about the riots. As we like to present a range of thought, here are some of the comments. Some of the ideas here we agree with and some we take issue with, but on complicated issue like this it is important to consider many points of view. And of course out British readers know more about the riots than we do. After the ctualk riots, there was little coverage in the America main-stream media, in part because the events did not sit well with most journalists who believe that the advanced European-style welfare system woukd solve many of America's problems.
The riot was also political fodder for the police authorities because the Police budget had been cut to an extent that law enforcement had been left without the means to police. Thus the rioting was a god send to the police who also exploited the impact of these events. I am not entirely convinced that the economic ills are social the cause of social policies by European governments. The money paid oout in benefits goes back into the coffers of the government one way or another. Also world Wars have been financed by borrowing which has saddled the future generations with war dept that has taken several generations to pay back. WW1 war dept was finally paid back about 3 years ago.
Interesting, the basis of your comment: this was nothing to do with need, more to do with greed. These people were looting, not taking essentials in order to live. There is also a culture which sees the welfare state as a
way of life, rather than a safety net, and any attempt to rationalise it touches sensitive skin for those taking advantage and their bleeding-heart liberal advocates. Can it be right for someone to claim housing benefit in excess of the average wage? He must be living in the wrong place; if I tried it, I would be told just that and advised to move into an area and a type of accommodation more in line with my means. More recently we have heard of left-wing, yes left-wing local authorities trying to move out tenants � so as to let their accommodation at premium rates over the period of the Olympic games.
Navigate the Childrenn in History Website:
[Return to the Main 21st century children in history page]
[About Us]
[Introduction]
[Biographies]
[Chronology]
[Clothing]
[Disease and Health]
[Economics]
[Environmental issues]
[Feminism]
[Geography]
[History]
[Human Nature]
[Law]
[Nationalism]
[Presidents]
[Religion]
[Royalty]
[Science]
[Social Class]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glossaries]
[Images]
[Index]
[Links]
[Registration]
[Search]
[Tools]
[Children in History Home]
