Figure 1.-- |
|
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.
There has long been a perception, particularly among the young and still
developing, that public property is fair game. I can remember having
similar views, as a boy, and it had to be pointed out to me that in terms of
theft or damage public property is no different from personal property.
When, as did many a schoolboy, I removed a sign saying ‘6 seats’ from a
railway carriage I was rewarded with four strokes of the cane on my own
seat; it was a valuable lesson and I was well served by the school where it
was done.
This attitude regarding public property tends to extend to large commercial
organisations and chain stores, with which in this case youngsters seemed
couple any tradesman. Without wishing to be a bore, such attitudes used to
be driven out of us by parental example and discipline (however exerted);
that was reinforced then by society, neighbours, schools and the formal
structure of the state. Believe me, if you have been punished for what
would now be regarded as trivial matters, you think twice and more before
indulging in looting, criminal damage and manslaughter.
The problem is that in the latter part of the 20th century over-protective
parents resented schools or the state exerting discipline and imposing
sanctions. Some wanted that control exerted over other people’s children
but not, of course, their own! Corporal punishment came to be more of a
threat than a regular occurrence but its ultimate possibility did still
concentrate the minds of even the most self-assured youth. Once it went,
there were no bounds at all. Ironically the parents of those decades found
their own authority weakened as a result, not strengthened, with their
methods (whether mild or downright violent) coming under the scrutiny of
social workers and the police. Alongside this, as consumer spending made
heavier demands on income in good times and austere, the latch-key child and
the parents generally preoccupied made easy options in domestic matters more
the rule. Children may say they want to be left to their own devices but
that is not necessarily in their best long-term interest.
In the old days, the austere part of the economic cycle meant people
tightening their belts. Now it means their demanding finance, investment,
public spending etc as if money grew on trees.
Nowadays people who believe they have a grievance regard looting as a
legitimate form of protest. They are easily led and have very little
self-restraint or indeed sense of self-preservation. When the full force
of the law is imposed upon them, there is an outcry.
We used to talk about a return to old-fashioned values but I fear that that
would only come with a totalitarian régime, hardly a choice I would like to
have to make. The countries of the far east have maintained standards and
traditional remedies, not only when dealing with the young. I suspect that
the more liberal amongst them are finding it increasingly difficult to hold
the line. Mass communication makes living in a cocoon all the more
difficult, so you probably have to blame television and the internet!
Where and when did the rot set in? I suspect we have to look to the
consequences of both expanding education and a reaction to the excesses of
the fortunate a century and more ago; and then, subsequently, the
disruptive effects of the two world wars upon society. Now which one of us
wants to withdraw education, so that the working people are little better
than the livestock they manage? Who will now defend the
upstairs/downstairs way of life?
So that is my take on it. Quite glad I don’t have to make the decisions!
Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Return to the Main Samaritan rioters page]
[Return to the Main 21st century children in history page]
[Introduction]
[Activities]
[Biographies]
[Chronology]
[Clothing styles]
[Countries]
[Topics]
[Bibliographies]
[Contributions]
[FAQs]
[Glossaries]
[Images]
[Links]
[Registration]
[Tools]
[Boys' Clothing Home]