Causes and Effects of the London/England Riots

[aelf]

So the last 30 years of social programs were poorly implemented in those areas? Those policies were implemented by the same people and political outlook [broadly] as those who today advocate a continuation and increase of social welfare to "assist" the areas hit by rioting.

I don't know how well implemented they were, but if there is a large group of disaffected people living in a cycle of poverty and crime who are, because of this, suffering simultaenously from maltreatment by law enforcement, then there's definitely room for improvement. I don't know the details, though.

Can you please elaborate on how further welfare can be justified and what will be different "next time around"?

I don't profess to know what the solutions are. Never did. I'm simply pointing out there there is no reason to believe that the riots are caused by social programmes. They might have indirectly been caused by social programmes that are not good enough, but in that case cutting spending isn't going to help.

The justification for welfare spending doesn't really have much to do with this thread.

 

[Takhisis]

Wow.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/22/riots-metropolitan-police-suspects-custody
(&#8230The document, seen by the Guardian, was circulated to all investigating officers at the height of the violence two weeks ago by Operation Withern, the codename for Scotland Yard's emergency response to the outbreak of violence in the capital. It suggested that no one arrested in or after the riots should be let off with a caution – regardless of the offence – and that everyone arrested should be held in custody, with a recommendation that bail should also be denied when the case first goes to court.
(&#8230
The document sheds significant light on the Met's processes and could explain why people accused of apparently minor offences such as theft of small items or receipt of stolen goods were not cautioned. They included a 23-year old student with no previous convictions who was refused bail and then sentenced to six months in prison for stealing a £3.50 bottle of water. The debate about sentencing of people accused of taking part in the riots has so far focused on the courts' right to use "exemplary" sentencing – harsher sentences to deter people from rioting. But the document suggests that in deciding whether or not to grant bail the courts would have also been considering recommendations from the police to detain people in the vast majority of cases.​

 

[Yeekim]

I don't profess to know what the solutions are.

- Hello, Mr Stoltenberg?
- Yes?
- Hi, this is David Cameron speaking. There is this guy we´d really like to borrow...

 

[aelf]

And who might that be, Yeekim?

 

[Winston Hughes]

You're essentially arguing that Britain's welfare policies are a "safety net" and nothing else.

So then what about social services, universal education, non-essential NHS intervention, council housing [which you don't need to be homeless to get], subsidised [until recently] higher education, government training initiatives, free legal aid, government playgrounds, leisure centres and so on? [not to mention legal interventions such as the minimum wage, maternity leave etc].

There are many things that the government does which do not in any way fall into the category of "social safety net". They are quite clearly attempts at engineering an egalitarian society or of improving the outcomes of people from disadvantaged backgrounds. To argue that all this is just a "safety net" seems somewhat ill-founded.

Therefore, it's quite reasonable to question the failure of this welfare system - you can't really dismiss the criticism by saying "it's only a safety net" as that really doesn't describe the reality of the expenditures we've been making as a country on social welfare. We have spent an absolute fortune, and it hasn't worked - quite possibly because welfare itself is a flawed way of tackling these problems/people.

Ah, I think I see what you're saying now. What you call 'welfare' is anything that the government does other than protecting property rights and maintaining order by force (or the threat of it). And you're arguing that if the government ceases all such 'welfare' activity, then every social problem will magically heal itself and Britain will never experience another riot. Or am I still misunderstanding you here?