There is no doubting Twitter has captured the imaginations of millions of people throughout the world. It has provided something people never knew they needed, yet made a part of their life. In a way it is much like text messaging, but the result is altogether more public. The great noise of thousands upon thousands of people trying to be noticed means that Twitter is possibly the closest reflection of human nature yet to manifest on the Internet.
I have been inspired by an article about social networking, written by a dear friend and available here because in a way we are all discovering Twitter more or less at the same time. Every Internet phenomenon has a spike of interest, and Twitter is arguably in the middle of its spike. We are all learning how to write as succinct as possible (a skill never over-rated), how to use hashtags, and how to use online applications designed to optimise the Twitter experience.
Unlike my friend, I do not feel that those who I have followed on Twitter and vice-versa are my friends. Often the dynamic is a silent one, that of two interested parties following each other's tweets. It is quite nice when a lot of conversing occurs with someone I have never met though, and better still to find others who have the same outlook of the world.
Twitter seems to be having a growing influence on my Internet activity at precisely the time my interest in Facebook is waning. If you turn back the clock two years, Facebook was making all the headlines. Rightly so; I will never underestimate Facebook - it did more to bring long lost friends and family back to me than any family or school reunion could ever have done. I am literally back in touch with people I have not spoken to in almost 15 years. That is powerful stuff.
The problem with Internet phenomenons is they seem to have a life cycle. When I first joined Facebook, its design was strictly targeted at university students, to socialise outside of lectures online and arrange events. Once it burst through those borders there was no stopping it. Anyone and everyone with an Internet connection signed up, resulting in mass reunions, new friendships, love, new modes of communication, photo sharing, game playing, stalking, abuse and in some cases psychotic behaviour. Oh dear, that last sentence did not quite go to plan.
Facebook's success, you see, is also its problem. It is a fairly open directory, but one which explains in itself why people used to take themselves out of telephone directories back in the days when we used the telephone. There have been some less pleasant episodes. I personally have witnessed good friends of mine, er, shall I say... 'exhibit' themselves too much (and lose their account in the process due to Facebook's rather strict tits, arse and knob policy). Others have used it to call out their enemies - in capital letters usually, and in a manner which would shame a teenager. Other people, who I thought were decent, gave away a few of their rather less palatable political views on there leaving me having to play the diplomat.
Then I know one or two people who simply could not hack the brutal nature of Facebook. I know Facebook is supposed to be 'not real' (tell that to those who have been reunited with old pals) but I still wonder how some people can be so unemotional about pruning their friends lists, sending a few 'transitional' friends to the cyber scrapyard, once they decide they went a bit too far during their (early) 'adding phase'. If I have ever removed anyone, it was only because they were intolerable. It would not be possible for me to unemotionally remove someone, for behind the PC that is a real person. Being on the receiving end of it is hard, but I am big enough to handle that, as well as the multitude of other spirit-crushing issues the website can create. Many cannot, and after a hissy fit take themselves off forever.
Whatever the case, for me Facebook has become a bit of a haven for exhibitionists and photographs of them gurning at parties. For every friend I seem to lose on Facebook via the graveyard procedure summarised above, I gain one on Twitter. My Twitter activity increases by the day; my Facebook activity declines. The only reason I persevere with Facebook is because that it where my closest friends reside - Twitter remains too wordy for some. Ultimately though, Facebook has peaked for me. Any old friends interested in signing up have already done so.
Yet I can already see the first signs of a similar downturn in Twitter. The problem is when something becomes popular the bulk of the public get on board, but also so do the bulk of the idiots. By idiots, I mean the sort of people who managed to get a topic about beating up women 'trending' a few weeks ago. (Trending is a reference to a topic which is being 'tweeted' a lot - Twitter has created a new vocabulary.) Also, I have identified some other potential problems.
I have already witnessed people trying to gain attention by being controversial. Others flood the timeline with tweet after tweet of nonsense. There is also the feeling at times of being ignored, especially when someone with not a great deal of followers ignores a direct message. Then there are the numerous spammers, who follow you because you mentioned something in a tweet vaguely related to something they happen to sell. Then there are those unscrupulous sorts who follow to get a follow, then withdraw their follow once they have got their follow. In short, Twitter is in danger of going bad as well.
As things stand I am still loving the Twitter experience. However, as with Facebook, those running Twitter will do well to keep in mind Myspace, Napster and other examples which are still around but are also thought of in terms of Internet history. I still remember the time my Internet searches were carried out using Alta Vista, on my Netscape Navigator browser. How times change.
Tuesday 30 August 2011
Monday 29 August 2011
Where has all the money gone? (Part Two)
Almost a month has passed since I pondered the causes of all the seemingly missing money in the world. Apart from the reminding ourselves countries have run out of cash, that banks are not flush with cash and the general public certainly have little in their pockets, nothing is clearer. As a self-certified non-economist, the best I can do is produce crude theories. Here is one such theory.
I see the world as a massive game of poker. And it follows logically that there are only so many chips on the table. We all know that governments try to avoid printing money because it makes bad things happen, such as hyperinflation. So there is always a limited number of chips.
Eventually one person ends up with all the chips in the game of poker. As far as I can make out, something remarkably similar has happened to the world financial fluidity. Of course this game of global poker is so large no individual ends up with all the chips as they would in poker, but some definitely end up with greater piles than others. Worse than that, just as with poker, when someone has a big pile of chips, it becomes easier for them to take a great deal more chips from others.
It is enough to convince me that the theory of economic success is in fact a fallacy. A successful company is based on a flawed notion that those industries and companies (who, in poker analogy, have most of the chips) must keep increasing their income year-on-year. For example, company X may make a £275m profit on the year, but this is considered failure because the previous year they made £300m. What happens when all this money is lying around static in corporations? What happens when someone retires as a Chief Executive with more money than he or she will ever be able to spend?
The answer is we end up with money that is fenced out of the system and leads to a constraining of future economic success, as well as the limitation of the economic capability of those who have to share the rest of the shrinking pot between ourselves.
What does everyone else think? Have I got it completely wide of the mark - as Tories with economic qualifications will take great delight in saying I have? I may not be an economist but I do not think so. More to follow on this no doubt....
I see the world as a massive game of poker. And it follows logically that there are only so many chips on the table. We all know that governments try to avoid printing money because it makes bad things happen, such as hyperinflation. So there is always a limited number of chips.
Eventually one person ends up with all the chips in the game of poker. As far as I can make out, something remarkably similar has happened to the world financial fluidity. Of course this game of global poker is so large no individual ends up with all the chips as they would in poker, but some definitely end up with greater piles than others. Worse than that, just as with poker, when someone has a big pile of chips, it becomes easier for them to take a great deal more chips from others.
It is enough to convince me that the theory of economic success is in fact a fallacy. A successful company is based on a flawed notion that those industries and companies (who, in poker analogy, have most of the chips) must keep increasing their income year-on-year. For example, company X may make a £275m profit on the year, but this is considered failure because the previous year they made £300m. What happens when all this money is lying around static in corporations? What happens when someone retires as a Chief Executive with more money than he or she will ever be able to spend?
The answer is we end up with money that is fenced out of the system and leads to a constraining of future economic success, as well as the limitation of the economic capability of those who have to share the rest of the shrinking pot between ourselves.
What does everyone else think? Have I got it completely wide of the mark - as Tories with economic qualifications will take great delight in saying I have? I may not be an economist but I do not think so. More to follow on this no doubt....
Monday 22 August 2011
Analysis: How the England Riots split the left
This week the unthinkable happened - I was accused of being a Tory. I was not alone. In his excellent Friday night Talksport broadcast, leftist broadcaster George Galloway had the same absurd allegation levelled against him during an otherwise cordial exchange with a dissenting phone caller. Has left suddenly become the new right? And where are these cruel accusations coming from all of a sudden.
The explanation is as follows; the recent riots that occurred throughout England have created a point of intellectual separation between the liberal left and the more authoritarian left. By authoritarian, I do not mean the hardline position inspired by Stalin that the liberal left seem to be unaware of - remember, according to these types, the call for sanctions against those causing disorder is supposedly the preserve of Tories. Instead, I mean those who actually want to see the law applied substantively to the kinds of people who burn homes and businesses, attack and violate passers-by and, in some cases, commit murder.
The problem is there are some who believe that because the riots largely occurred in deprived areas, home to the impoverished, that in some way the perpetrators should be sympathised with. This position however represents an incorrect diagnosis of the cause of the riots as well as a misunderstanding of the character of leftist protesting and campaigning, both of which will be summarised in turn.
First, the diagnosis: This was not a confrontation against elites or capitalism. If it was, those rioters would not have been burning the cars and homes of their neighbours. Neither would they have been vandalising and looting corner shops, run by people working as many hours as possible to make ends meet. This was a confrontation against their fellow citizens.
Second, the position of the good leftist: It is virtuous for an active citizen to stand up for those who work hard for a living, as well as those who want to contribute to society but find themselves in a position of inequality, in turn lacking both financial and social capital. This is how workers' movements came about. It means supporting those who rightly condemned the riots, those who were killed and those who had their rather small enterprises torched.
To condemn the rioters as 'reliant on benefits' and without direction is not to metamorphisise into a Tory, nor is it to condemn those who face genuine need for welfare. Furthermore, this position of disapproval does not preclude the overlooking of the real social causes of the recent troubles, which should result in a review of youth unemployment and access to education.
It is dispiriting though that some people handle deprivation inappropriately, criminally and irresponsibly by becoming a predatory force upon those around them. Solidarity during these tough times is not defined by violating your own equals.
It is a shame those who are extreme liberal, or will stop at nothing to find an excuse for a scrap, cannot identify with this. Instead they choose to erroneously defend the actions of these rioters through the prism of left politics, blaming an admittedly incompetent government when these problems have been decades in the making. It is true however that Thatcherite politics resulted in the closure of many of the workshops of this once-great island. The jobs they created could help a few of the vast numbers of 18 to 24 year-olds currently out of work.
In the meantime, we have to deal with the predators and the rioters, safe in the knowledge that those in government setting the judicial discourse will have no objections to any accusations of them being Tories!
The explanation is as follows; the recent riots that occurred throughout England have created a point of intellectual separation between the liberal left and the more authoritarian left. By authoritarian, I do not mean the hardline position inspired by Stalin that the liberal left seem to be unaware of - remember, according to these types, the call for sanctions against those causing disorder is supposedly the preserve of Tories. Instead, I mean those who actually want to see the law applied substantively to the kinds of people who burn homes and businesses, attack and violate passers-by and, in some cases, commit murder.
The problem is there are some who believe that because the riots largely occurred in deprived areas, home to the impoverished, that in some way the perpetrators should be sympathised with. This position however represents an incorrect diagnosis of the cause of the riots as well as a misunderstanding of the character of leftist protesting and campaigning, both of which will be summarised in turn.
First, the diagnosis: This was not a confrontation against elites or capitalism. If it was, those rioters would not have been burning the cars and homes of their neighbours. Neither would they have been vandalising and looting corner shops, run by people working as many hours as possible to make ends meet. This was a confrontation against their fellow citizens.
Second, the position of the good leftist: It is virtuous for an active citizen to stand up for those who work hard for a living, as well as those who want to contribute to society but find themselves in a position of inequality, in turn lacking both financial and social capital. This is how workers' movements came about. It means supporting those who rightly condemned the riots, those who were killed and those who had their rather small enterprises torched.
To condemn the rioters as 'reliant on benefits' and without direction is not to metamorphisise into a Tory, nor is it to condemn those who face genuine need for welfare. Furthermore, this position of disapproval does not preclude the overlooking of the real social causes of the recent troubles, which should result in a review of youth unemployment and access to education.
It is dispiriting though that some people handle deprivation inappropriately, criminally and irresponsibly by becoming a predatory force upon those around them. Solidarity during these tough times is not defined by violating your own equals.
It is a shame those who are extreme liberal, or will stop at nothing to find an excuse for a scrap, cannot identify with this. Instead they choose to erroneously defend the actions of these rioters through the prism of left politics, blaming an admittedly incompetent government when these problems have been decades in the making. It is true however that Thatcherite politics resulted in the closure of many of the workshops of this once-great island. The jobs they created could help a few of the vast numbers of 18 to 24 year-olds currently out of work.
In the meantime, we have to deal with the predators and the rioters, safe in the knowledge that those in government setting the judicial discourse will have no objections to any accusations of them being Tories!
Monday 15 August 2011
Red letter day: singer Adele is looking for love
My rather dull life has been lifted by the news that the lovely singer Adele is looking for someone to love, or as The Sun describes it "someone to sleep with". Well, they have to sell the article to their audience I suppose.
If the article is anything to go by, the main qualification for any potential lover is their ability to make her laugh. This is worrying, because I thought the only thing I needed to do was keep myself looking youthful and fresh. It turns out I need a personality transplant as well - and I do not know anyone who provides such a service. Life is unfair!
Thankfully I have been working on this skill myself - trying to be funny - and quite often succeeding at it unintentionally as well. I have no idea if that is a good thing. I had to work at my humour though because nearly every female I asked about desirable traits replied "sense of humour" first and foremost. With that in mind, The Sun has done well to create a story from some rather unsurprising news that a popular singer also likes someone with a sense of humour.
In any case I will make my pitch and hope I get a response. A lot of people criticise how Adele looks because she is not a stick-thin "beauty" but I have always thought the size of lady is the difference between her looking like a girl or a hot young woman, and the former does little for me. I like the way Adele looks and sounds. She appeals to me.
She sounds great in interviews as well, bubbly and full of personality. She has a grounded nature which belies the massive success she has achieved already in her life. I would adore her and ask nothing of her. In the unlikely event we were ever married, far from her asking me to sign a pre-nuptial agreement, I would insist on signing one myself.
Back to reality, the humour is still a work in progress. Anyone know any good jokes?
If the article is anything to go by, the main qualification for any potential lover is their ability to make her laugh. This is worrying, because I thought the only thing I needed to do was keep myself looking youthful and fresh. It turns out I need a personality transplant as well - and I do not know anyone who provides such a service. Life is unfair!
Thankfully I have been working on this skill myself - trying to be funny - and quite often succeeding at it unintentionally as well. I have no idea if that is a good thing. I had to work at my humour though because nearly every female I asked about desirable traits replied "sense of humour" first and foremost. With that in mind, The Sun has done well to create a story from some rather unsurprising news that a popular singer also likes someone with a sense of humour.
In any case I will make my pitch and hope I get a response. A lot of people criticise how Adele looks because she is not a stick-thin "beauty" but I have always thought the size of lady is the difference between her looking like a girl or a hot young woman, and the former does little for me. I like the way Adele looks and sounds. She appeals to me.
She sounds great in interviews as well, bubbly and full of personality. She has a grounded nature which belies the massive success she has achieved already in her life. I would adore her and ask nothing of her. In the unlikely event we were ever married, far from her asking me to sign a pre-nuptial agreement, I would insist on signing one myself.
Back to reality, the humour is still a work in progress. Anyone know any good jokes?
Thoughts about social backdrop of England riots
The English youth of today had many labels applied to them over the past week, including fickle, feckless, lazy, angry and violent. It has even been suggested, hopefully in jest, they lack the determination to sustain a riot for more than a couple of days. Whatever the labels, following last week's riots, the public have now taken a social role of judgement over the events.
As people try to make sense of what they witnessed, whether live or on the television, many questions are now being contemplated. Was there a cause behind the riots? Were the riots indicative of societal breakdown. Are particular age groups and races more implicated than others by what occurred? Many words have already been spilled, at times recklessly, trying to ascertain the answers.
The term 'riots' is being used as a blanket term, which covers a number of activities of variable severity. The riots followed a peaceful protest over a fatal police shooting. They included battles with riot police, the burning of cars, the burning of homes, the burning of small businesses, smashing shop windows, looting and murder. No doubt there were ringleaders, participants and those there to make up the numbers. It is not easy to sort the alienated in society from the scum.
Those who are definitely scum include thugs who murdered those protecting their property, who burned down retail outlets and smashed up homes. No amount of accusations that describing people as 'scum' dehumanises them will shift me from that position. These people are criminals, and their punishments must reflect their deeds.
The problem is what to do with those who committed lesser crimes of varying severity. One person has already been jailed for stealing bottled water, its seriousness being contextualised by the rioting that facilitated the theft. Then, the future needs to be dealt with and how to prevent more rioting.
Disorder has rarely had legitimacy in Britain as a means of bringing about change, even when the cause seems apparently clear, for example the vandalism that occurred on the same day as peaceful anti-cuts protests in London. When there is no definable cause, the chance of significant public sympathy may as well be zero.
Excuses for the disorder ranged from stealing from the rich, getting goods from wealthy people that can be sold on, loose definitions of 'respect' and 'having a laugh'. Without a unified cause, it is difficult to see how their actions can be looked upon with anything other than contempt.
In the absence of an overall cause, the only consistent theme is the acquisition of assets. Whether it is youths hoping to sell on their gains or people rioting through general anger regarding the rich/poor divide, the concept of what someone does not have is the one which recurs the most.
This is a capitalist society built on desired goods, ownership and possessions. Owning particular goods are viewed as a benchmark of success, which makes those in possession more attractive to potential peers and partners. The youngest in society, trying to write their futures, are inevitably going to be the most ambitious in pursuing material goods to achieve their ends. It should be no surprise that when there are no jobs for them and no scope to further their education they begin to live their lives outside of the law.
The tough standards which this society is constrained by create much unhappiness. One columnist described the riots as being an England he "didn't recognise." Sadly, I recognised it very well. I recognise it from the jobs I have had in a public facing role. I recognise it from the unpleasantness I have to witness as a user of public transport at various times of the day. England has more of its fair share of nice people, but we have to accept we have some very nasty citizens in our midst as well who will stop at nothing to enrich their own lives and make the lives of others a misery.
Other observers are trying to frame last week's trouble in terms of colour in a cheap attempt to package the riots as a black problem. This is nonsense. An attempt to arouse the public into a race conflict is both dangerous and unnecessary. Nobody needs to be told that a significant proportion of the rioters were black. Instead, people need to be told the reasons a significant proportion of the rioters were black.
There are two immediate theories that spring to mind. Firstly, the ever-difficult relationship between young black people and the police. Secondly, and even more illuminating, is that the location of the riots were in the most deprived areas of the country - and these areas of deprivation have a high percentage of black people living there. These hard facts will not prevent knuckledraggers from continuing to force-feed idiots a fallacy that criminality is determined by skin colour.
The government response can hardly be said to be any more intelligent either. David Cameron is typically talking tough and has brought in respected American 'super cop' William Bratton to advise on dealing with the rioting. This move has been widely criticised as being disrespectful to British police forces. To that, criticism can be added that the riots have happened, were brought under control, and at the very least equal attention must now be given to social solutions.
Is there a strategy for making young people more active in society? Will there be a reversal of closures to youth centres and the scrapping of Educational Maintenance Allowance? What can be done to create more employment for our excluded youth? The answer is there will probably be no such strategy when it is easier to strut around and give indirect satisfaction to the prejudiced and the racist with promises of tough sanctions.
As people try to make sense of what they witnessed, whether live or on the television, many questions are now being contemplated. Was there a cause behind the riots? Were the riots indicative of societal breakdown. Are particular age groups and races more implicated than others by what occurred? Many words have already been spilled, at times recklessly, trying to ascertain the answers.
The term 'riots' is being used as a blanket term, which covers a number of activities of variable severity. The riots followed a peaceful protest over a fatal police shooting. They included battles with riot police, the burning of cars, the burning of homes, the burning of small businesses, smashing shop windows, looting and murder. No doubt there were ringleaders, participants and those there to make up the numbers. It is not easy to sort the alienated in society from the scum.
Those who are definitely scum include thugs who murdered those protecting their property, who burned down retail outlets and smashed up homes. No amount of accusations that describing people as 'scum' dehumanises them will shift me from that position. These people are criminals, and their punishments must reflect their deeds.
The problem is what to do with those who committed lesser crimes of varying severity. One person has already been jailed for stealing bottled water, its seriousness being contextualised by the rioting that facilitated the theft. Then, the future needs to be dealt with and how to prevent more rioting.
Disorder has rarely had legitimacy in Britain as a means of bringing about change, even when the cause seems apparently clear, for example the vandalism that occurred on the same day as peaceful anti-cuts protests in London. When there is no definable cause, the chance of significant public sympathy may as well be zero.
Excuses for the disorder ranged from stealing from the rich, getting goods from wealthy people that can be sold on, loose definitions of 'respect' and 'having a laugh'. Without a unified cause, it is difficult to see how their actions can be looked upon with anything other than contempt.
In the absence of an overall cause, the only consistent theme is the acquisition of assets. Whether it is youths hoping to sell on their gains or people rioting through general anger regarding the rich/poor divide, the concept of what someone does not have is the one which recurs the most.
This is a capitalist society built on desired goods, ownership and possessions. Owning particular goods are viewed as a benchmark of success, which makes those in possession more attractive to potential peers and partners. The youngest in society, trying to write their futures, are inevitably going to be the most ambitious in pursuing material goods to achieve their ends. It should be no surprise that when there are no jobs for them and no scope to further their education they begin to live their lives outside of the law.
The tough standards which this society is constrained by create much unhappiness. One columnist described the riots as being an England he "didn't recognise." Sadly, I recognised it very well. I recognise it from the jobs I have had in a public facing role. I recognise it from the unpleasantness I have to witness as a user of public transport at various times of the day. England has more of its fair share of nice people, but we have to accept we have some very nasty citizens in our midst as well who will stop at nothing to enrich their own lives and make the lives of others a misery.
Other observers are trying to frame last week's trouble in terms of colour in a cheap attempt to package the riots as a black problem. This is nonsense. An attempt to arouse the public into a race conflict is both dangerous and unnecessary. Nobody needs to be told that a significant proportion of the rioters were black. Instead, people need to be told the reasons a significant proportion of the rioters were black.
There are two immediate theories that spring to mind. Firstly, the ever-difficult relationship between young black people and the police. Secondly, and even more illuminating, is that the location of the riots were in the most deprived areas of the country - and these areas of deprivation have a high percentage of black people living there. These hard facts will not prevent knuckledraggers from continuing to force-feed idiots a fallacy that criminality is determined by skin colour.
The government response can hardly be said to be any more intelligent either. David Cameron is typically talking tough and has brought in respected American 'super cop' William Bratton to advise on dealing with the rioting. This move has been widely criticised as being disrespectful to British police forces. To that, criticism can be added that the riots have happened, were brought under control, and at the very least equal attention must now be given to social solutions.
Is there a strategy for making young people more active in society? Will there be a reversal of closures to youth centres and the scrapping of Educational Maintenance Allowance? What can be done to create more employment for our excluded youth? The answer is there will probably be no such strategy when it is easier to strut around and give indirect satisfaction to the prejudiced and the racist with promises of tough sanctions.
Thursday 11 August 2011
This is our scum - London riots examined
England has been on fire this week. The patience and tolerance of even the most liberal of people were stripped bare as young rioters vandalised, looted and burned the homes and businesses of some of the most deprived towns and cities in the country.
It was a disgraceful display of violence by a rabble of criminals, many of whom we are already discovering have 'previous' as their cases are fast-tracked through the courts. There was no cause. Many could not explain convincingly why they supported the rioting.
One girl attempted to argue she wants her taxes back (she sounded 12). Another said the riots were about about taking resources back from the rich people. One sage was on the BBC arguing the riots were justified because of all the people migrating into the country, i.e. people from Poland. Did he actually see any of the riots, or understand the issue that initiated the first one in Tottenham? In short, these imbeciles have no idea why they are rioting.
Every cloud has a silver lining though, for many proficient criminals are set to be taken off our streets. Great news, if not only for police forces but for law abiding citizens disgusted by what they witnessed in their living rooms.
These views may appear uncompromising, but I am no social conservative who elevates myself above the perceived inferiority below. I grew up on a council estate with others who struggled through the early years of our lives. We made the best out of the hands we were dealt, mostly consisting of similar low cards. And we did it lawfully. I like to think it is people like ourselves most disappointed by the activities of the scumbags, who unapologetically resort to criminality and blame others for their own failures. It has not been easy for any of us, but we avoided violating others.
However I have become intolerant of the views of those who want to see understanding and sympathy. Were they not watching the news? These rioters were not asking for sympathy. They did not want understanding. Many were shamelessly bragging about their actions for the TV cameras and microphones.
I have seen bloggers arguing that labels such as 'scum' dehumanise the offenders. As far as I am concerned, they dehumanise themselves with their behaviour, and by wearing dehumanising hoods and face masks.
Sentencing has to be fair though. Lengthy sentences for offences such as stealing bottles of water are simply unacceptable. Nobody should be locked up for six months for stealing a resource that can be acquired for free in our homes. The sentences must fit the deeds. Arsonists and vandals should be given more porridge in the cells than those who stole water and crisps.
We must also not ignore the social formation that facilitated these riots. Riots may have been arranged via Blackberry phones and Twitter, but we must remember it does not follow that the perpetrators are well off financially. The gap between rich and poor continues to widen, as British governments have spent over three decades sustaining a neo-liberal economic consensus built on private enterprise and market forces.
Also, these Blackberry phones have come down in value over recent months and years. They are frequently bundled in with £30 per month phone contracts, making them one of the few treats affordable to the impoverished as long as they can pass the necessary credit checks. The truth is, most of these people do not own their homes and many do not drive - their Nike Air trainers and fancy telecommunication devices are the only items of value they own - and they like to show them off.
Yet young people continue to be bombarded by messages of consumerism, and the importance of the ownership of goods. However, there is a major problem with youth unemployment in this country. This problem is set to be exacerbated by the number of young people who cannot continue their education because of the abolition of Educational Maintenance Allowance for college students. With no money, no jobs and no hope, it should be no surprise the chickens are coming home to roost. It has been confirmed in a news article most of those charged with riot offences are young, unemployed and male. Even though rioting by idiots is not the answer, wider society ignoring the problem is not an option either.
A good government needs to deal with the immediate problem, which involves mobilising police back on to the streets and ensuring those who work for the emergency services are not made the victims of cuts. Then, steps must be taken to refinance the education of young people. These are the first steps to help us move on from this awful week.
It was a disgraceful display of violence by a rabble of criminals, many of whom we are already discovering have 'previous' as their cases are fast-tracked through the courts. There was no cause. Many could not explain convincingly why they supported the rioting.
One girl attempted to argue she wants her taxes back (she sounded 12). Another said the riots were about about taking resources back from the rich people. One sage was on the BBC arguing the riots were justified because of all the people migrating into the country, i.e. people from Poland. Did he actually see any of the riots, or understand the issue that initiated the first one in Tottenham? In short, these imbeciles have no idea why they are rioting.
Every cloud has a silver lining though, for many proficient criminals are set to be taken off our streets. Great news, if not only for police forces but for law abiding citizens disgusted by what they witnessed in their living rooms.
These views may appear uncompromising, but I am no social conservative who elevates myself above the perceived inferiority below. I grew up on a council estate with others who struggled through the early years of our lives. We made the best out of the hands we were dealt, mostly consisting of similar low cards. And we did it lawfully. I like to think it is people like ourselves most disappointed by the activities of the scumbags, who unapologetically resort to criminality and blame others for their own failures. It has not been easy for any of us, but we avoided violating others.
However I have become intolerant of the views of those who want to see understanding and sympathy. Were they not watching the news? These rioters were not asking for sympathy. They did not want understanding. Many were shamelessly bragging about their actions for the TV cameras and microphones.
I have seen bloggers arguing that labels such as 'scum' dehumanise the offenders. As far as I am concerned, they dehumanise themselves with their behaviour, and by wearing dehumanising hoods and face masks.
Sentencing has to be fair though. Lengthy sentences for offences such as stealing bottles of water are simply unacceptable. Nobody should be locked up for six months for stealing a resource that can be acquired for free in our homes. The sentences must fit the deeds. Arsonists and vandals should be given more porridge in the cells than those who stole water and crisps.
We must also not ignore the social formation that facilitated these riots. Riots may have been arranged via Blackberry phones and Twitter, but we must remember it does not follow that the perpetrators are well off financially. The gap between rich and poor continues to widen, as British governments have spent over three decades sustaining a neo-liberal economic consensus built on private enterprise and market forces.
Also, these Blackberry phones have come down in value over recent months and years. They are frequently bundled in with £30 per month phone contracts, making them one of the few treats affordable to the impoverished as long as they can pass the necessary credit checks. The truth is, most of these people do not own their homes and many do not drive - their Nike Air trainers and fancy telecommunication devices are the only items of value they own - and they like to show them off.
Yet young people continue to be bombarded by messages of consumerism, and the importance of the ownership of goods. However, there is a major problem with youth unemployment in this country. This problem is set to be exacerbated by the number of young people who cannot continue their education because of the abolition of Educational Maintenance Allowance for college students. With no money, no jobs and no hope, it should be no surprise the chickens are coming home to roost. It has been confirmed in a news article most of those charged with riot offences are young, unemployed and male. Even though rioting by idiots is not the answer, wider society ignoring the problem is not an option either.
A good government needs to deal with the immediate problem, which involves mobilising police back on to the streets and ensuring those who work for the emergency services are not made the victims of cuts. Then, steps must be taken to refinance the education of young people. These are the first steps to help us move on from this awful week.
Wednesday 3 August 2011
Where has all the money gone? (Part One)
It seems as though the world has been consumed by a vacuum, which has taken all our money from us. The UK is struggling to make ends meet. The USA legislatures have spent the week scrambling around to increase the country's credit limit. Greece, Portugal and Ireland are among a group of countries that have teetered on the brink of going under because of their debts. Who is owed all this money and where has all the money gone?
Are the debts owed to other countries? If so, which ones? If the USA cannot pay its bills, then I doubt many countries are doing any better. Or maybe these countries have borrowed from the banking sector? That cannot be the case either, as governments had to bail them out for their incompetence.
The problem is I am no economist, so I do not have the answer. It seems as though dollar bills and pound notes have just vanished off the face of the earth. Maybe an economist has an explanation for this. Is it possible for money to just vanish? More reflections to follow later in the week or at the weekend.
Are the debts owed to other countries? If so, which ones? If the USA cannot pay its bills, then I doubt many countries are doing any better. Or maybe these countries have borrowed from the banking sector? That cannot be the case either, as governments had to bail them out for their incompetence.
The problem is I am no economist, so I do not have the answer. It seems as though dollar bills and pound notes have just vanished off the face of the earth. Maybe an economist has an explanation for this. Is it possible for money to just vanish? More reflections to follow later in the week or at the weekend.
How much will the new football season cost?
The new football season is approaching and once again the clubs are ripping off fans with admission prices that would make eyes water across continental Europe. Even fans of League Two side Port Vale can expect to pay a minimum upwards of £20 for a ticket.
The BBC website researchers have been hard at work, producing a summary of ticket prices based on information given to them by the clubs in the four top English leagues and the one relevant league in Scotland. I will let you draw your own conclusions about the obvious methodological flaw, but needless to say in 2011 there are still some football clubs attempting to claim their lowest priced tickets are a mere £10, often based on concessions and special offers.
The issue of admission fees is a topical one. Miniature earthquakes could have been caused in west London by the amount of feet stamping by supporters of Queens Park Rangers because of the increase in their ticket prices. They have been raised to a minimum of £47 for an adult ticket. Ouch.
It could be argued the increased fare to climb aboard the QPR Premier League bandwagon comes with the premium product now being offered at Loftus Road. Last season their visitors in the league included Scunthorpe. Next season they will be hosting Manchester United.
The downside of course is the home team is still QPR, so no fixture will have the same appeal as a match between any two of Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool or Chelsea. £47 for QPR versus Wigan? You decide.
The price of football continues to rise because we mugs pay above the market value for tickets, and football clubs in turn pay above the market value for players, the latter being the only winners in all this. Some prices, especially £47 to watch a probable relegation battle, is outrageous. The day will come when fans of all clubs cannot do it anymore.
The BBC website researchers have been hard at work, producing a summary of ticket prices based on information given to them by the clubs in the four top English leagues and the one relevant league in Scotland. I will let you draw your own conclusions about the obvious methodological flaw, but needless to say in 2011 there are still some football clubs attempting to claim their lowest priced tickets are a mere £10, often based on concessions and special offers.
The issue of admission fees is a topical one. Miniature earthquakes could have been caused in west London by the amount of feet stamping by supporters of Queens Park Rangers because of the increase in their ticket prices. They have been raised to a minimum of £47 for an adult ticket. Ouch.
It could be argued the increased fare to climb aboard the QPR Premier League bandwagon comes with the premium product now being offered at Loftus Road. Last season their visitors in the league included Scunthorpe. Next season they will be hosting Manchester United.
The downside of course is the home team is still QPR, so no fixture will have the same appeal as a match between any two of Manchester United, Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool or Chelsea. £47 for QPR versus Wigan? You decide.
The price of football continues to rise because we mugs pay above the market value for tickets, and football clubs in turn pay above the market value for players, the latter being the only winners in all this. Some prices, especially £47 to watch a probable relegation battle, is outrageous. The day will come when fans of all clubs cannot do it anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)