Spyman, I do not say that you endorse anything like white collar crime (n.b. the post you complain of was not addressed directly to you or anyone else). But I do make three points, I am hoping that you will agree with all of them:

1) The hypocracy of the establishment on this issue is breath-taking.

2) Both the looters and cheating MPs were absolutely wrong. Indeed, I believe that absolute right and wrong and the associated concept of free-will exist (I have said this before).

3) Not withstanding point 2) part of the blame for the riots lies with the appaling example set by the likes of Kaufman et al.

You are right spyman in that all the people who broke windows and stole stuff are criminals, that is the way the law is set up. I should have specified that there will always be a group of people who will join in the riots purely to steal and cause mayhem, not to show their anger at the way they have been treated (basically what you said, which is kinda what I meant).

As for the hypothetical, if you had been laid off, if your neighbourhood had suffered from budget cuts and lack of development for decades, if you or people you knew underwent daily abuse from the police, if you knew people who had died in police custody, if just had your life savings stripped away through a depression not of your causing, if the tax you have paid had been given to banks who promptly treated themselves to large bonuses and then you went and stole a TV (large numbers of rioters stole necessities, not everyone went after the TVs), then I would wholeheartedly support you.

Re Kaufman, a woman who stole a TV worth a similar amount was sentenced to 6 months.

Sorry, I was wrong. The woman jailed stole a TV worth only (compared to Kaufman) 750 pounds.

Thanks for the clarification fullhamish. Sorry I took you the wrong way.

Largeham, there are occasions where people do go temporarily insane or do thing s they wouldn't normally do due to stress.

I guess I fear for the future of the UK. If there are systemic problems then I hope these get fixed. I was appalled by what I have seen on TV just as I was appalled by the Cronulla riots a few years back (those idiots also claimed they had been pushed to the limits of tolerance).

The economic situation may well get worse before it gets better - so we don't see more of the same.

Typo... So I *hope we don't see more of the same

"Libertarians, religious fundamentalists, anti-abortionists and environmentalists haven't been as marginalised and abused as most of the rioters. How many libertarians or religious fundamentalists have died in custody?"

How many of them fucking ATTACKED INNOCENT PEOPLE AND TOOK SHIT THAT DIDN'T BELONG TO THEM?

Jesus fucking Christ. That you can seriously equate "being libertarian" and "causing bodily harm to innocent people (who pay the taxes that keep these people alive on those so-called "meager unemployment benefits"), seizing property to which they have no right, and destroying property which they have no right to destroy" is striking. In the "I question the existence of your moral compass" way.

Yes, we need to understand why the rioters are rioting so we can actually fix the problem. No one here denies this. If that is the thrust of your argument, congratulations, we agree with you.

That does NOT mean we must equate self-described largely apolitical raids done for the hell of it with any sort of legitimate moral cause.

It's also laughable that you would only claim that "a small element" of people committing vandalism -- a CRIME -- are "criminal." I suspect that was only an unfortunate choice of words, but it doesn't help your case.

Apologies -- I see you just addressed the criminal aspect. I retract that segment.

While we're doing the three points thing, I thought I might return to this debate and add some of my own.

1) The difference between the crimes of looters and the crimes of the currupt MPs was huge. There were no children hiding in terror in their bedrooms because some currupt MPs where handing in inappropriate receipts. There were no people too afraid to return to their own homes because a politician was claiming his mother's house was really his. Both sets of crimes were wrong, but I would hope the difference between them is obvious.

2) Since the whole expenses scandal there have been elections. If any of the MPs who were seen to be currupt (and I don't just mean those who were arrested, which was frankly too small a number for my liking) still remain in power, than that is entirely the fault of the people. You don't have to like it, but in a democracy you have to accept it.

3) I firmly believe boredom was a major factor. The health and safety and political correctness lobby have managed to erode away almost every source of legal danger and excitement from the lives of the young (especially in the cities). Wealthy people who crave danger can do things such a hike in Svalbard, or go off piste skiing. People who live near the sea have the likes of tombstoning availiable to them. The cities have next to nothing except for illegal activities such as rioting, drugs and joy riding.

Actually, anti-abortionists have attacked innocent people.

As I said earlier, I completely condemn the random muggings and burnings of small businesses (like that Korean man who had his jaw broken, random pointless violence like that doesn't help anyone). I would like to think I have a moral compass, just that people>property. I don't think I equated being libertarian with any of the things you mentioned up there.
Most of the taxes these people are paying has gone to either funding the extravagant lifestyles of MPs or bailing out banks who promptly rewarded themselves for creating this mess. There are systemic problems in the UK and I too hope they get fixed, but that seems less likely each day. We do need to understand why they are rioting so we can fix the problem. Unfortunately, I think that is far as we agree (some people will say there is no problem).

Just because something was done apolitically does not mean they did not have a legitimate cause; I also disagree that many rioters were there for apolitical reasons (though I doubt we'll ever really know). Re 'criminals', it was just poor wording.

The Cronulla rioters were just disgusting racists egged on by the right-wing media. I don't think they had any legitimate concerns.

I must be off, and I would like to end on a happy/awesome note: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAg5KjnAhuU

''Both sets of crimes were wrong, but I would hope the difference between them is obvious.''

Some differences between them for you to consider:

1) The respective social position and wealth (and education?) of MPs and the rioters.

2) The ''pay it back and let no more be said'' largesse applied to Kaufman et al. when compared to the sentences currently being handed out.

3) The approach used against ''benefit scroungers'' by the government. I don't know if you are UK-based but the government has a campaign running on TV encouraging us to ''shop a scrounger'' and warning (threatening?) of likely custodial sentences.

4) White collar crime and tax avoidance cost the country billions. Billions that might be spent on things like education, health, policing etc. (As well as, of course, gunboat diplomacy in Libya etc.).

5) The responsability of those at the top to ''set an example''.

And most importantly of all 6) the damage done to our democracy by those pigs with their snouts in the trough.

@ fulha

1) I don't know what your point is here. An MP is in a position of power, and power attracts scum as well as it attracts good people who want to make a difference. I also don't see how the wealth of someone has any impact on their morality.

2) The crimes are VERY different.

3) I don't see anything wrong with that.

4) If you can find me anyone who goes out of their way to pay more tax than they have to, I will be amazed.

5) Seriously? You look to MPs to give you moral guidance? Everyone should try and live in the way they believe is right. People who use the actions of MPs, footballers, and minor celebrities as an excuse for their own failings are pathetic.

No matter how much the government fucks up, there is NO good reason to put a brick through a window and steal a TV. End of story. If you must become violent, direct your violence to the right place. Storming Parliament with pitchforks, torches, and legitimate grievances is more respectable than mugging and looting.

Good news people Boris is fighting back...here is what he had to say recently.

"Tackling serious youth crime and the tragic murders of young people in the capital has been my most immediate priority since becoming Mayor." When I say recently it was November 2008 when he lauched his plan. David Cameron had all the answer for youth crime in 2007 in a speech he made. Yet today he says it is now top of his agenda. If these guys have had the answers for years, why was there riots last week? The answrr is their policies either never get implimented or just don't work. I don't blame David or Boris for the problems with society, but they shouldn't pretend they have the answers either.

One of their solutions is to use the tax and benefit system to support couples rather than single parent families. I don't wholely agree that the absence of fathers cause youth crime, I think the factors that can cause people to separate (povety, poor housing, etc) can also lead to youth crime. However, lets pretend that we could solve some of the problems by getting fathers to stay with the family. How much would this cost? Would you or do you know anybody who would stay in a relationship that was breaking down for an extra £2.50 per week, or £25.00 per week or £250.00 per week? We couldn't of course only pay people who are likely to separate, we have to pay everybody who stays together, we would pay lots of people for doing wjhat they would do anyway - not a great use of resources. As we know resources are finite so those resources now can't be used to help the children whose dads arn't around - the very children who need help the most.

We should just accept that society has changed, single parent families exist and many of them make great parents, but if we feel that their children could be helped by providing some kind of male mentoring scheme then let's spend the money on that insted and stop this social engineering nonsense.

PS I am aware that I have stereotyped single parent families as being mother ld and I am aware that dad led single parent fanilies exist.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/aug/16/riots-poverty-map?CMP=twt_fd

Was poverty a factor in the #UKriots? Get the data: suspects & poverty mapped