Its difficult to understand how you can prevent something from happening again if you don’t make a serious effort to research and analyse its causes in the first place.

One can only conclude that the Guardian is the paper with the genuine commitment to preventing a second outbreak of rioting – and to protecting public safety and law and order – while the Sun has no real interest in such matters.

But then, the sight of the gutter press attempting to colonise the moral high-ground always makes for a laughable spectacle. And never more so than in 2011.

The right’s explanation was a bit of a tautology really:- “It were criminals committing mass crime because of their criminality!”
Which tends to fall apart when you ask such questions like, “why ain’t there gonna be a riot tonight then?”

@ 2 Cylux

“Which tends to fall apart when you ask such questions like, “why ain’t there gonna be a riot tonight then?””

Or, indeed: “Weren’t you ever told not to use the word you’re defining in the definition?”

What do you expect from thick right wing journalists writing for a thick right wing readership. There is no rationalising with these people.

But then, the sight of the gutter press attempting to colonise the moral high-ground always makes for a laughable spectacle. And never more so than in 2011.

This.

Septicisle @OP:

Agree with the main thrust re: rightwing media, but want to pick up a couple of your criticisms of the research itself:

“As others have pointed out, it’s not wholly surprising that so many of those who took part hate the police….”

Just because finding are not a suprise doesn’t make research invalid.

“Far more interesting would have been a comparison between those convicted before they took part and those who hadn’t as to their attitudes towards the police, as well as to how many times they’d been stopped and searched, if any.”

Data on previous convictions and ‘stop and search’ frequency was collected in interviews, and I’d hope such analyses will be in the research report to be published on 14th December.

“Indeed, even better would have been a quantitative rather than a qualitative study, or at least one running alongside the other: finding out why some from the same area and background rioted and others didn’t would have added much to the debate.”

As indicated, there were quantitative elements to the study, which I hope will be reflected in the report. I don’t know if they’ll do regression analysis, for example, to see if there’s a statistically significant link between being stopped/searched a lot and using particular terminology to describe the police, but it’s important to wait and see what is produced before being too judgmental.

As for asking people who didn’t riot about why they didn’t, there is some analysis of this in the NatCen report pulished last month, and this may also come out of phase 2 of the LSE study. Clearly it makes sense to take into account other research studies – again, I don’t know how much this will be built into next week’s full report.

The Murdoch crime family don’t need to riot. They use spying, blackmail, and intimidation to get what they need.

If the same justice and proof that was used in the case of the rioters, was used against News International, most of the board of directors and newspaper ececs would be hanging from a lampost for treason.

It is the way of the the far right, to lecture on morality,while gaming the system.

Meanwhile, Tories impose austerity in the Caribbean:

http://www.suntci.com/index.php?p=story&id=2157

Look like they had public sector strike there too.

Who cares what the Sun says? Their editors are idiots and always have been.
But as for not wanting an enquiry, I think that’s a perfectly legitimate position to take, because it’s not possible to do one on something like this. We’ve moved a long way as a society since Scarman, and what caused the summer riots is too nuanced for the kind of clanking dusty machine of well meaning middle class do-gooders that an enquiry would end up being. It would be like the judge who once famously asked ”who are The Beetles?”

And so the ”expertise” would be filled in by liberal advocates …. kind of like the Guardian research has shown. The problems are cultural as much as anything IMO.

We could start off with a curve ball though – and ask why is the racist tram lady from Croydon going to be in prison over christmas.
I see that as an example of how screwed up our society has become. She’s in prison for her own protection, yet muggers get arrested and released on bail within a few hours.
We are ”a sick society” in that way. We really have lost our moral authority as a country.

“[F]our months on, the Left has regrouped to concoct its perverse excuses for evil”.

I don’t see anything “utterly vile” in this.The tabloids have said and done far, far worse things than make this particular judgement. So your disgust is just more faux outrage, as with Clarkson’s silly remarks.

I’d say the statement is broadly true of those left-liberals who are always more willing to ‘understand’ than to condemn, playing down personal responsibility and playing up ‘society is to blame’. I’m afraid you can see this pattern in the response of many on the left to a lot of issues – from crime and the underclass to 9/11. They begin by either being silent or by joining in muted condemnation, but soon they are making excuses for the perpertrators (unless they are racists). Think Harriet Harman after the riots, for example.

@ 9 damon

“I see that as an example of how screwed up our society has become. She’s in prison for her own protection, yet *alleged* muggers get arrested and released on bail within a few hours.”

Fixed it for you.

Would you prefer that we locked up possibly innocent people who are not considered a risk to society to make people in protective custody feel better, or that we forced Tram Lady out to be attacked by vigilantees to balance things out with people on bail?

In other words: these are two unrelated issues, I don’t see what bearing they have on each other, and I think you’re using the fact that the world isn’t perfect to claim that our society is becoming progressively worse.

10

I Seem to remember that it was Cameron who used the phrase ” everyone deserves a second chance” regards Coulson. Spare us your clap trap morality lectures. Brownshirts have no morals.

Morals, taxes, and laws are only for the little people in tory land.

Chaise Guevara. I’m not saying that society is becoming progressivly worse at all. In many ways it’s getting better and better. But theire are areas where things get seriously screwed up.
And tram woman is one of them. If she is in danger of being attacked then surely it’s the job of the police to prevent her being attacked by criminals, not just decide that the easiest thing to do is to put her in prison. They didn’t put Salman Rushdie in prison for his own protection. What’s happened to Emma West is the sympton of a society that has lost its balance IMO. The same with the John Terry racism on the football pitch case.
Maybe even the same with police sending letters to people who have previously been arrested on student demonstrations telling them to watch it. There’s a lack of proper leadership and oversight.

But that’s a side point. This thread has the headline ”The tabloid mentality is to rather not know” …… but that’s true lots of people. The liberal mentality doesn’t ”want to know” a whole load of ‘other things’.
We have major cultural and intellectual fault lines running through the country, where attempts at communication across them is basicly pointless.
I say that as someone who is banned by one of Sunny’s moderators on his other website Pickled Politics. Bannned completely, and deleted if I do comment. The gulf between us was too wide.
And so the Sun see a liberal enquiry into the riots as a total waste of time because of how it would be conducted, and I have to agree with them on that. It would be a sham.

We could start off with a curve ball though – and ask why is the racist tram lady from Croydon going to be in prison over christmas.

She is going to be on remand because she has been filmed in the apparent commission of and subsequently charged with a crime.

Hope that answers your question.

There’s anti-intellectualism on both sides, the Right which decided instantly that the riots were the product of ‘gang culture’ and the Left who, as recently as yesterday, romanticise the riots as an ‘insurrection’.

The right’s explanation was a bit of a tautology really:- “It were criminals committing mass crime because of their criminality!”

A bit like asking whether its possible to make a more equal society without redustribution.

@9 – Exactly, you already know that criminals are criminals, bang em up! No need to study…ooh…how to stop it happening again. (Start with criminal charges against quite a few police officers…)

And no, intimidation of people who have been charged with no crime, threatening them with GBH for exercising their democratic rights. You know that protesters are criminals too, after all!

“Understanding ” is not neutral .The Guardian wants to “understand “rioters it doesnot want to”understand “,American Christian Fundementalists , Orangemen , Zionists and many more of its enemies ( although it does want to “understand ” the IRA ). Like the BBC it puts much effort into “understanding ” the motives radical British Muslims and none into understanding the fears of those whose Communities have chnaged overnight without their consent

To understand is to start to forgive,and thats what they want.

Who’s criminal behavior has cost more, rioters or bankers? Rioters already in jail, Cameron on way to Europe for bleeding heart liberal speech on behalf of bankers.

Bankers, politicians, police, and scummy tabloids all in it together. No justice in the UK.

@11 – Our “society” is being torn apart and flushed away, as the Government enacts “reform” far more damaging than Thatcher dared.

@ 13 damon

“Chaise Guevara. I’m not saying that society is becoming progressivly worse at all. In many ways it’s getting better and better. But theire are areas where things get seriously screwed up.”

OK, but the fact that we have both bail and protective custody doesn’t prove that any specific areas are screwed up.

“And tram woman is one of them. If she is in danger of being attacked then surely it’s the job of the police to prevent her being attacked by criminals, not just decide that the easiest thing to do is to put her in prison. They didn’t put Salman Rushdie in prison for his own protection.”

If it’s protective custody, I assume that she’s agreed to it on the understanding that the police can’t definitely protect her if she goes about her daily life.

Salman Rushdie spent years hiding out in little rooms, unable to show his face in public. There’s no big difference between that and protective custody. If you want to know why she’s literally (I assume) behind bars and he wasn’t, my guess is that protective custody is seem as a cost-effective short term solution. The Tram Lady thing will probably blow over fairly soon. Rushdie once had an indefinite, credible death sentence on his head.

“What’s happened to Emma West is the sympton of a society that has lost its balance IMO. The same with the John Terry racism on the football pitch case.”

I think it has more to do with a natural human inability to deal with scale and perspective. Loads of people behave like West without consequences like these. But because West’s rant was seen by millions and reported by newspapers, it becomes Important, and people end up thinking she’s a legitimate target (not that there is such a thing as a legitimate vigilantee target, but it is weird that the mob focuses on such a minor offender).

“”The tabloid mentality is to rather not know” …… but that’s true lots of people. The liberal mentality doesn’t ”want to know” a whole load of ‘other things’.”

There’s a problem with making broad-stroke claims about people based on a poorly defined term, and that’s that you end up wrong in a huge number of cases. Tabloids are pretty much a fixed group. Liberals (and conservatives etc.) aren’t.

So… I’m a liberal, and thus presumably have a “liberal mentality”. While I can think of things I wouldn’t want to know on a personal level (upsetting facts about people I care about, maybe), I can’t think of any political ones. If the data counteract my prior assumptions, I want to know, because otherwise I’ll continue to be wrong.

Humanity as a whole is often guilty of confirmation bias. Acting as if this is a problem specific to a political group you want to slag off is unhelpful… and is in itself normally confirmation bias. Tabloids are different, they’re a set of papers whose M.O. includes deliberate deception through selective reporting.

“We have major cultural and intellectual fault lines running through the country, where attempts at communication across them is basicly pointless.”

No argument there.

@ 15 Shatterface

“There’s anti-intellectualism on both sides, the Right which decided instantly that the riots were the product of ‘gang culture’ and the Left who, as recently as yesterday, romanticise the riots as an ‘insurrection’.”

I wouldn’t call either of those anti-intellectual as much as I’d call them blinkered, agenda-led thinking.

Interesting that you describe it as a tabloid mentality and then only refer to The Sun. I’m unaware of the Mirror demonstrating this attitude, whereas the Telegraph has. It’s not a tabloid thing, it’s a right-wing thing.

22 very good point. It is the tory way to steal, plunder, and rape but call it business.

One. Of the problems we have is that the state and the judiciary will not prosecute police officers for their actions on duty. I don’t think a single officer has been convicted for the numerous deaths at the hands of police officers in custody or not. Even when the crown prosecution will bring a case, the judge will usually intervene to stop the case or announce that the officer will not get a fair trial.

Only last week a judge reinstated the police officer who beat up that woman and dragged her across the floor of the police station. In full view of the cameras. The police force did not want him back yet once again a judge showed that the judiciary will not tolerate police officers being held to account. The politicians are spineless because they fear being labeled weak on crime by the far right criminal press. So it is hardly surprising when sometimes people have got to the point wben they erupt in anger.

Contrast this to when tories are in the dock. They don’t need to riot because their friends in the media will campaign for them, and they have the best lawyers to make sure the stae pays huge compensation to the poor darlings.

” Even when the crown prosecution will bring a case, the judge will usually intervene to stop the case or announce that the officer will not get a fair trial. ”

I’m not sure how much coverage the Lynette White case has recieved outside of Wales, but it is a case the rest of you should make familiar with: http://fittedin.com/lynette.html

Not only do the police fit up 3 people for a murder comitted by someone else (who gets caught a decade later with DNA), but the witnesses they initimidated to help the fit up the 3 men get sent to jail for reluctantly participating in the fit up (despite being threatened).

When eventually the police face charges over the incident, the trial collapses because the officers destroyed initial complaints made against them, and the judge cannot be sure the police did not destroy additional evidence that may have proved the police did not fit up the people in the first place (following this? – it’s absurd isn’t it)

After being acquitted, the officers stand outside court and pretend the men they fitted up in the first place were involved in the murder all along, despite the real murderer confessing to the killing. The officers will probably now get gold plated pensions. Makes you proud.

I can’t believe that the tram woman wants to be in prison. If things were that dangerous for her – and she’s from New Addington in Croydon for Pete’s sake – she’d have a lot of people who would stick up for her or keep and eye out for her I bet.
Or they could have told her to go on holiday or stay somewhere else for a while.
She’s not in there for her own protection, she’s in there for the police’s convenience.
Maybe there could be a bit of a row locally with some of her neighbours if she came back. These things happen all the time. It’s because the police and courts are so cack-handed at knowing how to deal with such cases – like the John Terry one.
Common sense fails them, because they have been bombarded with anti-racist ideology for so long they take the cowards way out.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8067/

And then to my idea that the left is as bad as the Sun in rather not knowing or going into stuff. For example, this is a Croydon ”gang” from Thornton Heath. The kind of lads that Emma West will sometimes come into contact with when riding on the tram.
I quite like their rap, but I wouldn’t trust them an inch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fjql5Qjd47I

They will have been very much involved in the rioting in Croydon I’m sure.
How did they get like that? It wasn’t like that when I was getting the bus to school in Croydon in the 1970s. But then, they hadn’t been born then. I saw the beginnings of this culture though when their parents first moved into the area, as black people moved south into the northern parts of Croydon 30 years ago. There’s been aspects of this ”ghetto” culture going on there since then.
This is what I mean about liberals being as bad as the Sun, as they won’t probably want to approach it from that angle.
Which is fair enough. I’m willing to hear any talk about this and how it came to be like that, but you can see from some of the commentators even on this thread, that it’s more or less impossible to have the conversation.

Lee Jasper must take some blame for this too. For promoting confrontational race based politics, which uses slogans like ”No Justice – No Peace” and always presumes the worst if a black person dies in police custody, and doesn’t mention the thousands who don’t.

very good point. It is the tory way to steal, plunder, and rape but call it business.

I am seeing the melancholy office in which I toil is a new and thrilling light. Yes indeed, it is virtually indistinguishable from a Viking long boat, ablaze with blood lust upon a flinty black sea … Must e mail Colin( cleaver of his enemies in twain)to pop out and get a flagon of bezerker and run amok. We do it every Thursday.

@ 25 damon

“I can’t believe that the tram woman wants to be in prison.”

I’m working on the assumption that what’s being described as protective custody is, in fact, protective custody. If it’s against her will it’s just custody, and I’m not sure they could legally do that all the way to Christmas without charging her.

“They will have been very much involved in the rioting in Croydon I’m sure.
How did they get like that? It wasn’t like that when I was getting the bus to school in Croydon in the 1970s. But then, they hadn’t been born then. I saw the beginnings of this culture though when their parents first moved into the area, as black people moved south into the northern parts of Croydon 30 years ago. There’s been aspects of this ”ghetto” culture going on there since then.
This is what I mean about liberals being as bad as the Sun, as they won’t probably want to approach it from that angle.”

Hang on, what issue and from what angle? You mean the bit where you assume people you don’t like the look of are criminals? No, personally I’d rather let facts dictate whether or not I call someone a rioter. How horribly PC of me… Did your meaning get lost, or are you really having a go at the left for not “approaching” issues from the “angle” of prejudice and knee-jerk judgements about individuals?

“Which is fair enough. I’m willing to hear any talk about this and how it came to be like that, but you can see from some of the commentators even on this thread, that it’s more or less impossible to have the conversation.”

I’m really not sure what conversation you’re trying to have.

@17

No, you’re wrong – we understand, or seek to understand, Orangemen and Zionists in much the same way as the rioters.

I say that as someone who is banned by one of Sunny’s moderators on his other website Pickled Politics. Bannned completely, and deleted if I do comment. The gulf between us was too wide.

So this chap who posted on there today under your name, isn’t you?

http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/13928#comment-243433

Does a good impression, I’ll give him that.

Well Chaise Guevara, therein lies a pronlem. Those young people are calling themselves ”a gang” – or at least they have a name. They call themselves ”Shine My Nine” or ”SMN” and are from Thornton Heath. Google the words and you will see that people associated with that name have been found guilty of serious crimes including murder.
So then were does that leave you (one)? Saying…. ”yeah but just because they’re part of this group that associate together and have a name that is a ‘player’ in the south London gang scene, that doesn’t mean that any of the young people in that video are guilty of anyrthing.” Even when they’re rapping about violence and robbery on it.

My point was though that given the gulf between your very liberal view and that of The Sun for example, it is one of those classic fault lines.
A half an hour’s reading about groups of people like the SMN crew and their rivals in Croydon called ”DSN” would tell you that these are the very problems that any discussion about why the riots happened would need to take on board.

I posted this profile of this young man on LC the other day, who did some short fils for Channel 4 a couple of years ago. He cane from Congo as a young child and grew up trapped in the gang culture in Hackney.
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/i4i+aj+nakasila+biography/1394447.html

He fits the profile of many of the young ”gang” members in Croydon who have African parents. If you want to be informed at least a bit about these things, a person has to do at least a little research. Try googling ”DSN Croydon African” and see all the things that come up.

My point Chaise Guevara was that any enquiry into why the riots happened that doesn’t look into things like that, or shies away from them isn’t really worth having.
Sir Ian Blair was on Newsnight on monday and he was saying that these kinds young people were deemed as ”police property” they had so much involvement with them.
And as we’ve seen, that police involvement is deeply resented and said to be one of the causes of the riots.
How the police are to ”police” young people like that I don’t know.
By knowing every one of them’s name and face? Or would that be seen as too heavy handed and intrusive even?

@14. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells: “She [Tram Woman] is going to be on remand because she has been filmed in the apparent commission of and subsequently charged with a crime.”

My understanding of the facts in this case come from the press and thus need to receive that qualification.

Tram Woman is accused of an offence (racially aggravated public disorder) and has received death threats.

The magistrates placed her on remand for “her own safety”. Quote from the court: “For these reasons we are remanding you in custody for your own protection.”

It is not normal practice to hold accused people on remand unless the alleged offence is likely to earn a prison sentence. Locking up Tram Woman for an offence that would normally receive a fine or community sentence is therefore questionable.

One likely consequence is that Tram Woman will have been imprisoned (held on remand) longer than a sentence imposed in court. Following which Tram Woman will be released, having served her term, to the community of ranters who sent her death threats and to the state bodies which determined that she needed to be locked up to protect her from ranters. The ranters will tell us that “she got off Scott free”.

Tram Woman’s outburst was indefensible. Her treatment in the judicial system is indefensible in a different way.

This piece, the ‘journalism’ and subsequent comments here pretty much explains the reason that I came to the conclusion regarding the Right and their bigoted views.

Many (most, I would guess) on the Right have deeply offensive views (as well as fairly benign ones too, I may add), not because they are ‘mistaken’, form an ‘error of judgement’ or any other innocent explanation; they have offensive views because they set out to deliberately offend. They have not been ‘misled’ over AGW; they deliberately set out to be misled. They do not ‘miss-understand’ how ATOS works, the have chosen not to give a fuck. They do not fail to ‘realise’ the problems of the unemployed, they simply do not care about them.

The Tories and the hacks who pander to them are basically walking bags of prejudices, spewing out whatever idiotic knee jerk crap they need to cover any and all blank spaces that occur in normal conservation. Clarkston was pandering to the crowd, so was Richard ‘Black culture’ Starkey and Nigel Lawson.

Why is it for the last ten years or so, we get a ‘Winterval’ editorial at this time of year? Is it because we on the Left have failed to explain it properly? Why doe we get a ‘Global Warming? What with all this snow, pull the other one’ every winter? Is it that the scientific community have failed to put the science into the public domain? No, it is because the Tories that lap these things, are simply not interested in the ‘truth’ they are interested in having their vile little prejudices pandered to.

I have said this before and I say it again, these people are not ‘like us, albeit with different views’. These people (the truly committed Right Winger) are completely different from us. They are petty minded bigoted scumbags who are simply unable to accept that they habitually turn a Nelson’s eye to evidence that does not fit their considerable prejudices.

A couple of years ago, I heard both one of the funniest and deeply depressing calls on a talk show on R5; Radio four had a spoof phone in show, but none of those sketches come close. To paraphrase ‘your call, with Nicky Campbell’, it went something like this (cannot remember verbatim, but the gist went like this):

Typical Tory Ranter ‘…and another thing, that MOBO thing, racist innit’
Nicky Campbell ‘MOBO is Music of Black Origin’
TTR ‘they wouldn’t have a white’s only award, would they’
NC ‘MOBO is not for black artists only, it is open to anyone who performs music of black origin’
TTR ‘but they wouldn’t have white only music, would they?’
NC ‘but MOBO is open for white people, in fact Joss Stone won an award’
TTR ‘but they wouldn’t let a white only award would they’.
Etc, etc etc.

The fact is the guy eventually ‘won’ because these cunts are completely unsinkable. There is NOTHING you can say, they will always deny or distort anything. No matter how much science you have, Global Warming is still shite and cancer patients will still be able to work, if they try hard enough.

It is not normal practice to hold accused people on remand unless the alleged offence is likely to earn a prison sentence. Locking up Tram Woman for an offence that would normally receive a fine or community sentence is therefore questionable.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhaff/193/19312.htm

The fact that over 50% of all remand prisoners are not subsequently given a custodial sentence points to an urgent need for reform to reduce the numbers of remand prisoners..

One likely consequence is that Tram Woman will have been imprisoned (held on remand) longer than a sentence imposed in court. Following which Tram Woman will be released, having served her term, to the community of ranters who sent her death threats and to the state bodies which determined that she needed to be locked up to protect her from ranters. The ranters will tell us that “she got off Scott free”.

Tram Woman’s outburst was indefensible. Her treatment in the judicial system is indefensible in a different way.

What you’ve described is a large element of the justice system; the state bears the ‘responsibility’ of punishment in order to stop the mob taking matters into it’s own hands. Hence the colloquialism – ‘pay your debt to society’.

You decry the fact, rightly, that society has sought to take matters into its own hands, but then bemoan the state’s role in preventing that – you can’t have it both ways.

DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells @29

”So this chap who posted on there today under your name, isn’t you?”

I didn’t mean banned off the whole site, I just meant off threads started by a particular mod there. Which is fair enough as I think his OP’s on the EDL and BNP are mundane and dreary.

As for your comment @14 about the Tram woman …..

”She is going to be on remand because she has been filmed in the apparent commission of and subsequently charged with a crime.

Hope that answers your question.”

…… it doesn’t answer my question at all (to any satisfaction) because why on earth is someone in PRISON over christmas because they said some offensive things on a tram?
As I said earlier, people get let out on bail for far more serious offences.
We’ve all seen the wrist slaps people get at the end of those reality cops shows like ”Police, Camera, Action”.
I think this is actually quite an important case. It’s certainly an overreaction and poor judgement, but why exactly I’m not sure.

It’s helping the BNP anyway. Google ”Free Emma West”.

…… it doesn’t answer my question at all (to any satisfaction) because why on earth is someone in PRISON over christmas because they said some offensive things on a tram?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/section/32

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/63/schedule/1

The defendant need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that the defendant should be kept in custody for his own protection or, if he is a child or young person, for his own welfare.

As I said earlier, people get let out on bail for far more serious offences.
We’ve all seen the wrist slaps people get at the end of those reality cops shows like ”Police, Camera, Action”.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/bail/.

The nature of the offence which the defendant faces is relevant if it illustrates the risk created by granting bail. Examples might be extreme cases of personal violence such as murder, rape, robbery or aggravated burglary, particularly if it is alleged that weapons have been used in offences of violence or during the commission of sexual offences.

Nothing about going mental in a stolen ford focus, unfortunately.

It’s helping the BNP anyway. Google ”Free Emma West”.

Nah, you’re alright.

(Are we still pretending the bnp even vaguely matter?)

Typical Tory Ranter ‘…and another thing, that MOBO thing, racist innit’

You will note the class denominator whereby someone who would read the Daily Mail is demoted to someone who might read the Star. It fascinates me this seething class hatred. I pick it up here all the time .It is the contempt of the Public Sector Graduate class for the lower middle and upper working class, the people Labour has lost.
The Winterval story may not be true, but countless schools have nativity plays (?) free of any offensive Christian content . Black history month is a common theme of libraries ( aka all white people are racially guilty month). The Mail is a purveyor of rumours and scraps true ( and it gets criticised by blogs ..!!!? ) . An old fashioned paper in fact, a role long since abandoned by the Guardian who operates as a government funded hot house for left wing propogandists feeding the BBC

Jim is obviously just a young would-be radical ( the darling ) and he has not thought hard about this but on one issue he has a point. The country is fragmenting . I notice it all the time, the different factions have less and less to say to eachother and it is a worry
Thats why I greatly admire the efforts of Hopi Sen and Co. to find common ground at the centre ,its a thankless task but he does it with such obvious good intentions it almost makes you believe the Labour Party might be a force for good again. AS a Conservatuive I am happy to admit it frequently has been .

@ 30 damon

“So then were does that leave you (one)? Saying…. ”yeah but just because they’re part of this group that associate together and have a name that is a ‘player’ in the south London gang scene, that doesn’t mean that any of the young people in that video are guilty of anyrthing.” Even when they’re rapping about violence and robbery on it.”

These facts raise the odds of them being guilty of something, they don’t confirm it. But you’re trying to shift the goalposts here anyway – you specifically accused them of rioting.

“My point was though that given the gulf between your very liberal view and that of The Sun for example, it is one of those classic fault lines.”

Believe in presumed innocence is fairly mainstream, not “very liberal”, and the Sun shares it (if only for legal reasons).

“My point Chaise Guevara was that any enquiry into why the riots happened that doesn’t look into things like that, or shies away from them isn’t really worth having.”

This I agree with.

@ 36 Paul Newman

“The Winterval story may not be true, but countless schools have nativity plays (?) free of any offensive Christian content .”

Of course, that’s YOU using the word “offensive”, not them. So it sounds like a bit of a supposition on your part. Why wouldn’t a school produce a show that all its students want to take part in? What motive is there NOT to do that?

“Black history month is a common theme of libraries ( aka all white people are racially guilty month).”

Please provide a source for the claim that black history month = “all white people are racially guilty month”. Because I’ve never noticed, myself.

“The Mail is a purveyor of rumours and scraps true ( and it gets criticised by blogs ..!!!? ) ”

The Mail is a single outfit that relies not only on rumours and scraps, but on lies and half-truths that damage society and destroy lives. The fact that it gets criticised merely shows that there are decent human beings among us.

“Blogs”, on the other hand, are a whole category of sites that aren’t mutually responsible. If blogger A criticises the Mail, he or she is not made a hypocrite by the fact that blogger B acts like the Mail.

You’re trying really, really hard to build a straw victim here (hey, check out the thread on taking offense!). Pity you had to leave such things as accuracy and logic behind. Basically you’ve smeared your own prejudices across the thread. Gratz.

Paul Newman makes my point for here with this contribution:

Black history month is a common theme of libraries ( aka all white people are racially guilty month).

Okay, if any decent people are reading this, ask yourself this: Has Newman formed his opinion from:

1) Attending a few ‘black history months’ in the local library, got that distinct impression from the reading material?
2) From an editorial via the Daily Hate, telling him what to think and why to think it?

I am going to go out in a limb here. Sticking my neck out my guess is that Paul Newman has never actually attended one of these events, is not the slightest bit interested in attending and will never actually attend one. That’s okay though because you don’t have to actually attend anything like this to have an opinion on it, not if you are part of the Tory vermin. All you need is someone else on the Right to spoon feed your opinions to you.

Let us imagine that half a dozen people who have attended such an event posted things like: ‘Well I went to one and it wasn’t like that’, do you think that he would change his mind? Do you think six hundred posts would change his mind? Six thousand?

No, these bastards are not interested in facts, they are Tories and for these sociopaths, once you are a Tory, you are hardwired for life.

DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells, what you say @35 doesn’t really wash (with me).
Protective custody would need to be voluntary – or at least not done so blithely as seems to be the case here. If specific threats had been made against her then they were an issue for the police. But just to deem from on high that saying what she said is so terrible that she needs to be put into Bronzefield prison – presumably segregated from all the other inmates because they would all (obviously) be after her blood too – is actually preposterous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronzefield_(HM_Prison)

But for me it’s why this happened that is more interesting than the legal stuff you were linking to there. Couldn’t Emma West have gone to stay with a family member somewhere if New Addington was deemed to be too dangerous?
Couldn’t she have been advised to not go out on her own and just to keep her head down? Much worse criminals are released into communities all the time, and so it’s something to do with the nature of the way that the police and courts deal with race issues I think. The police wanting to proscecute John Terry being a perfect example.
And it has to be said, the Stephen Lawerence case is too.

And no, I don’t actually think the BNP are important, but people on LC and Pickled Politics passionately do. There have been loads of threads about them. Remember the carry-on with Nick Griffin on Question Time?

@ 40 damon

“Protective custody would need to be voluntary – or at least not done so blithely as seems to be the case here.”

Do you actually have any reason to believe that it wasn’t voluntary? Because I agree that this changes the issue.

“If specific threats had been made against her then they were an issue for the police.”

They were.

“But just to deem from on high that saying what she said is so terrible that she needs to be put into Bronzefield prison – presumably segregated from all the other inmates because they would all (obviously) be after her blood too – is actually preposterous.”

You’re twisting things again. If it’s protective custody, then it’s nothing to do with the authorities judging how “terrible” her words were, it’s to do with the authorities judging how high a risk she would be at in her community.

And if she’s segregated, I imagine that’s because you don’t put legally innocent people in with potentially dangerous criminals. I’m under the impression that jails tend to treat prisoners differently depending on whether they’ve yet been convicted or pleaded guilty.

“But for me it’s why this happened that is more interesting than the legal stuff you were linking to there. Couldn’t Emma West have gone to stay with a family member somewhere if New Addington was deemed to be too dangerous?”

You have no idea whether or not this was an option. Maybe all her family live in the area. Maybe none of them wanted to share the risk.

“Couldn’t she have been advised to not go out on her own and just to keep her head down?”

If vigilantees who knew my name, face and address were after me, I don’t think I’d be happy with this option.

“Much worse criminals are released into communities all the time, and so it’s something to do with the nature of the way that the police and courts deal with race issues I think. ”

I think it’s more to do with how police deal with individuals who are nationally famous, whose address is known, who cannot afford to provide serious security for themselves, and who have received death threats.

Honestly, I think you want to make this about how the UK treats race issues. While that’s obviously relevant to the case, you appear to be ignoring all other factors as a result.

Chaise Guevara

”These facts raise the odds of them being guilty of something, they don’t confirm it. But you’re trying to shift the goalposts here anyway – you specifically accused them of rioting.”

As I wasn’t in England during the riots, it’s fair to say that I don’t really know if people affiliated to a group who go by the name ”Shine My Nine” were involved in the riots which took place in their area, but some of them MUST have been. It’s wild speculation on my part I know, but I just presume they would have been.
This is a description of them in the Guardian.

”Shakilus Townsend was beaten and stabbed to death by members of the notorious Shine My Nine (SMN) gang, whose members identify themselves by orange bandanas or clothing. Samantha Joseph, the girl who lured Shakilus to his death, wore an orange T-shirt to the first day of her murder trial.

Police believe the SMN gang has been active for more than a decade and has been built up by its original older members. It is one of a number of London-based groups that exist in a parallel culture in which stepping on to the wrong turf can result in a beating or worse.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/08/shakilus-townsend-gang-police

I can’t believe that people associated with that group wouldn’t have been involved in the serious rioting and arson that took place on their doorstep in Croydon.
Maybe I’m just prejudiced.

The thing though is how did they get like that and how do you stop the contagion?
It’s inside their schools, it’s all over public transport and in the streets where they live. They might not like it that at the age of twenty they feel washed up and marginalised and with few options, but that’s because there wasn’t enough intervention when they were eleven and through their high school years. At twenty they may well be unemployable.

I remember Croydon College as a place where apprentices came and did their day release and it being a rather dull FE college for the not so gifted (like me).
It was a place where there were quite a lot of white working class ”football” type blokes who might have fancied themselves as a bit tough.
Thirty years later, it’s still a further education college, but it’s become much more racially cosmopolitan and has picked up on the urban street culture, and the students have concerns about knife crime.
http://www.thisiscroydontoday.co.uk/Croydon-College-students-make-film-discourage-knife-crime/story-11360622-detail/story.html

@30 – Right, anything which doesn’t match your pre-chosen prejudice isn’t worth it. Sure.

@35 – Matter? Ignoring them is a mistake, they’re dangerous. Dangerous clowns, but dangerous.

@40. damon:

Spot on. If Tram Woman is being threatened by ranters, she should not be imprisoned for an alleged offence for which a custodial sentence is the maximum (exceptional) penalty. People who cause a public disturbance, whether or not racially aggravated, are not normally sent to prison. Tram Woman deserves to be treated in the same way as an alleged offender whose antics were not broadcast on Youtube; she deserves normal justice and treatment.

Disgusted @35 reminds us that courts have the power to imprison people for their own protection. The fact that courts have that power does not justify its use in this case. Paying for Tram Woman (not convicted of an offence at this time) to take an extended break in Kettering (random town with good transport links to her home) with her family would be more fair and cheaper than banging her up.

So Chaise @41, whilst sharing your belief that systems do what systems do, I disagree. Tram Woman allegedly committed a crime and has been threatened. However there is no legal concept of “voluntary imprisonment” to protect oneself from violent citizens. The closest, perhaps, is voluntary segregation inside prisons for offenders who might be vulnerable in the general prison population. That case does not apply to Tram Woman. Provision of alternative accommodation and a living allowance for witnesses of crime is “normal” and should be provided to Tram Woman and her family.

Get back to the circumstances of this alleged offence. Tram Woman shouts racist insults and is recorded on video; she should be treated in the same way as anyone who shouts racist insults. Tram Woman receives threats; she should be treated in the same way as anyone who receives threats. UK society should not imprison people who receive threats.

@Damon: re Stephen Lawrence case. The Metropolitan Police knew who killed Stephen shortly after his murder. Officers of the Metropolitan Police covered it up and fouled up the investigation. A public enquiry bizarrely determined that the Met were “institutionally racist”, whatever that means, but somehow failed that some of the investigating officers were corrupt, at best incompetent.

@41

”Do you actually have any reason to believe that it wasn’t voluntary? Because I agree that this changes the issue.”

Only that it says on everything that I can see that her application for bail was turned down. And the fact that her children have been taken into care and she’s in prison does seem to suggest that the decision was not made by her. Maybe by others ”in her best interest”. Which is so patently rubbish, as she doesn’t seem like someone who would be so terrrified by the thought of a bit of trouble even if there was any.
And she comes from New Addington, where there would be plenty of people to come to her aid if she was being targetted by thugs. I think anyone who says that she’s in prison of her own desire needs to show where she has requested that, rather than the other way around, as it seems just so unlikely. And anyone locally who knows who she is and where she lives and bears her ill will, isn’t just going to forget about it when they next see her in two months time.
So the idea that she is being kept safe is a nonsense.

Come on, these internet conversations are difficult enough. She’s not inside for her own protection. Maybe to stop a race riot in New Addington. That could have been a police concern. If blacks and whites were to clash there it could be a nasty situation.
Unlike the northern parts of Croydon, in New Addington there is enough of a lumpen white working class culture that the police were probably worried about incidents.
Whereas if she lived further north, it would have been more her own lookout.
If she was from Brixton or Peckham say. I don’t think the police would have been so concerned. It’s not her they’re woried about, it’s some trouble kicking off between different groups in New Addington. Because New Addington still has that assertive white lumpen culture that is very much on the back foot in much if the rest of inner city south London. At least if it came to trouble where blacks and whites found themselves squaring up to each other. Most of the time it doesn’t happen because it would be too fierce.
Whites fighting blacks couldn’t happen in Brixton to any degree, but it could in more fringe places like New Addington, and I’m sure that’s why she’s in prison.

@ 43 Charlieman

“However there is no legal concept of “voluntary imprisonment” to protect oneself from violent citizens. The closest, perhaps, is voluntary segregation inside prisons for offenders who might be vulnerable in the general prison population. That case does not apply to Tram Woman. Provision of alternative accommodation and a living allowance for witnesses of crime is “normal” and should be provided to Tram Woman and her family.”

That being the case, I agree. I assumed that protective custody was a voluntary and recognised practice. It shouldn’t happen against her will, and she should get the same treatment as anyone else in such a situation.

@ 44 damon

Fair enough, it seems I was wrong about the circumstances. Although I maintain that she isn’t being kept in jail simply for being racist. Maybe, as you say, because her release could cause public disorder, which in turn is because of her racist comments, but I don’t believe that the police have a special policy for racist people in a direct sense.

46. Chaise Guevara and @ 44 damon: “…I don’t believe that the police have a special policy for racist people in a direct sense.”

Me neither. I believe that the police and the magistrates do not have a clue about how to respond to an apparent offence published on Youtube (answer: treat it like everything else) and have been bounced by public outrage into a situation where Tram Woman is treated differently from others.

The role of the police and magistrates should be to ignore public outrage and to do what is right.

BTW: I deliberately do not name Tram Woman. Had her outburst not been broadcast on Youtube, Tram Woman’s name might have been mentioned in the local paper on page 21.

“I deliberately do not name Tram Woman”

Good call.

Not mentioning her name? It’s all over the internet. A pro EDL group held a protest outside the prison she’s in the other day.
http://www.demotix.com/news/951463/prison-protest-calls-release-tram-rant-woman-emma-west

As for people of a ”tabloid mindset” just not wanting to know, as I’ve said – I think that attitude is much more commonplace than just a tabloid one. I mentioned Stephen Lawerence, because his case is much more than about the bungled police investigation and institutional racism. It was also very much about the brutal racist murder itself.
It seems pretty clear cut that it was that, so is easier to highlight and be appalled by. Less so the more common murders that take place with much less individual scrutiny. One happened just last week in east London, but has been declared that there was no racial element to it.
http://www.newhamrecorder.co.uk/news/danny_o_shea_murder_in_custom_house_second_man_arrested_1_1146326

But who’s really to say race wasn’t a factor so quickly, when much of the ”post code gang culture” in London most definitely has a racial cultural element to it?
The ”SMN” group from Thornton Heath I mentioned before even have an alternative tag to fit their initials which is (so I read) ”Straight Merkin Niggaz ”.

Now, any group of black young people who go around calling themselves that and who have violent clashes with someone of another race might be suspected of being little racists.
Or maybe they’re not – but it would certainly be something to be looked into.

These groups/gangs aren’t exclusively black or any particular ethnicity, but they can be culturally different to more ”traditional” local people who used to speak in a very broad ”cockney” accent before the demographic change brought in the new way for young people to speak English.
When anyone is killed or attacked across this colour/cultural divide, a racial motive surely has to be a possibility.
But this is one ofthe area where I think the ”liberal mindset” goes AWOL and looks the other way. That’s what my point was.

As for this bit of rioting on London Road, West Croydon, I can’t believe that the Thornton Heath lads would not want to be part of this.
The 198 is even their bus that takes them from TH into Croydon town centre.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3xpDcOOHas&feature=related

@50. damon: “Not mentioning her name? It’s all over the internet.”

I know, Damon, I know. I refrain from saying her name, just in case. Just in case Tram Woman is mentally disturbed. I am merely trying to conduct myself online as I would face to face.

@40

DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells, what you say @35 doesn’t really wash (with me).

I didn’t really say anything, I told you what the law is.

Protective custody would need to be voluntary– or at least not done so blithely as seems to be the case here.

Where does it say that? Or is that a different law?

‘Blithely’ suggests a lack of concern btw – which is the exact opposite of what you’re claiming.

If specific threats had been made against her then they were an issue for the police.

Certainly would.

Incidentally the fash are claiming her family have denied that threats have been made, The fash infer that the whole thing has been fabricated as an excuse to lock her up.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=55159591

Though oddly enough the mail (and of course the prosecution) tells a different tale.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070647/Racist-woman-tram-spend-Christmas-bars-protection.html

But just to deem from on high that saying what she said is so terrible that she needs to be put into Bronzefield prison – presumably segregated from all the other inmates because they would all (obviously) be after her blood too – is actually preposterous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronzefield_(HM_Prison)

As you’ve said yourself, society/the mob has decided what she’s said to be deserving of (apparently violent) sanction, that’s the diametric opposite of ‘on high’.

Whilst her status in the prison itself is conjecture (unless you’ve got evidence to the contrary). I’d be very surprised if they’re going to ad hoc throw someone into a solitary for a month. Vulnerable prisoner units exist for this purpose.

But for me it’s why this happened that is more interesting than the legal stuff you were linking to there.

You might deem it ‘interesting’ but it’s not particularly relevant.

Couldn’t Emma West have gone to stay with a family member somewhere if New Addington was deemed to be too dangerous? Couldn’t she have been advised to not go out on her own and just to keep her head down?

Can’t see any mention of that in the Bail Act, have a look yourself, maybe it’s in there.

Much worse criminals are released into communities all the time, and so it’s something to do with the nature of the way that the police and courts deal with race issues I think.

Criminals are released due to the fact that they’ve served whatever sentence the state has (or hasn’t) imposed and because of that, they’re released into a society that by implication agrees not to enact collective revenge.

Whether or not they’re ‘worse’ or even ‘better’ isn’t important, that’s why the whole thing functions.

There are of course a handful of contra examples; that pair who murdered James Bulger and Maxine Carr come to mind.

The police wanting to proscecute John Terry being a perfect example.
And it has to be said, the Stephen Lawerence case is too.

No idea what this means.

And no, I don’t actually think the BNP are important, but people on LC and Pickled Politics passionately do. There have been loads of threads about them. Remember the carry-on with Nick Griffin on Question Time?

The ‘carry-on’ was derived from the fact that they don’t matter yet the bbc were trying to mainstream them. Even at their peak they had a massive 58 council seats, out of 10500 and because of that we were subjected to fanciful tales about ‘the rise of the bnp’.

Now the electoral commission are starting to get tough on their persistently fraudulent accounts, his car has been repossessed (I believe it was actually auctioned off yesterday) and the creditors want their money back, they matter even less.

@43

Paying for Tram Woman (not convicted of an offence at this time) to take an extended break in Kettering (random town with good transport links to her home) with her family would be more fair and cheaper than banging her up.

Can’t see any government ever passing such a liberal, touchy feely law, at least not in the current climate.

@52. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells: That was a vulgar and unnecessary post, unnecessary because you were reciting previously discussed arguments.

@52. DisgustedOfTunbridgeWells: “Can’t see any government ever passing such a liberal, touchy feely law, at least not in the current climate.”

Have you ever thought about plugging your brain in? It improves comprehension vastly and reduces random verbal outbursts.

Note to self 1: Are you sure that you want to post that?

Note to self 2: Yes, but don’t say cunt or fuck.

@ 52

“As you’ve said yourself, society/the mob has decided what she’s said to be deserving of (apparently violent) sanction, that’s the diametric opposite of ‘on high’.”

We don’t want trial by popular vote, either.

@54 He’s right though, they ain’t likely to pass such a law at all any time soon, regardless of it’s merits. Hell, Kenneth Clark actually did take a step towards more liberal, touchy feely laws regarding prisons, and was very nearly strung up by his own party for his trouble.

@55

That’s my point, as I said in #33 – the law is infinitely preferable to the mob.

@56 – To be clear, what he did was try to step towards an evidence-based policy on sentencing…

Disgusted @52

”I didn’t really say anything, I told you what the law is.”

Indeed you did. Rather dryly I thought, by linking to some legal texts.
So sure, she’s being held because of this clause for refusing bail:

”The defendant need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that the defendant should be kept in custody for his own protection …”

It’s ”protective custody” without her consent and without having to answer in any meaningful detail what the nature of the threats were. Saying ”your adresss has been posted on Facebook and anonymous internet threats have been made” is not good enough.

Not good enough for me that is. I know the law doesn’t care what I say. What’s happened to her is like being sectioned under the mental heath act. That’s what I meant by ”blithely”.
They did it on a technical whim. If she said there was no problem and she had plenty of people to look after her in New Addington – which I think she would have, it would have shown what her incarceration is. A convenient sham.

”No idea what this means”

John Terry is being lined up for prosecution for being suspected of saying the words ”black C**t” whilst playing in a football match between Chelsea and QPR. I think it’s pathetic, but the police behave very strangely in cases like this. They have been so beaten up and called racists themselves and forced into anti-racism retraining classes, that they probably feel obliged to act when they hear of such a case.
There was a youtube of it apparently, and it looked like those words might have been coming from the England captain’s mouth.
It’s the context of him using those words that he disputes I think.
The police don’t seem to believe that there can be any ”context” for saying the words ”black c**t” so they have recommended prosecution.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/11373/

Stephen Lawrence’s case is known throughout the land while most other victims of knife crime are quickly forgotten. Unless they have a link to someone famous or are particularly middle class or something out of the norm of these pointless gang culture killings. And some ”institutionalised racism” too. Whatever that is exactly.

It’s ”protective custody” without her consent and without having to answer in any meaningful detail what the nature of the threats were. Saying ”your adresss has been posted on Facebook and anonymous internet threats have been made” is not good enough.

Her partner claimed there were death threats when she was arrested, according to the mail, anyway. Maybe he was trawling the twitters looking for them, but surely that suggests something specific?

Not good enough for me that is. I know the law doesn’t care what I say. What’s happened to her is like being sectioned under the mental heath act. That’s what I meant by ”blithely”.

There were plenty of her supporters suggesting she’s mentally ill rather than racist, there was one on here infact – http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/11/30/racist-tram-woman-best-video-remixes/#comment-335923

Of course, she might be sectioned if she’s found guilty.

They did it on a technical whim. If she said there was no problem and she had plenty of people to look after her in New Addington – which I think she would have, it would have shown what her incarceration is. A convenient sham.

You’re forgetting that Griffin was never remanded and walked away scot free for doing far worse on camera.

If there was anyone to enact a ‘sham’ upon, surely it’d be him.

John Terry is being lined up for prosecution for being suspected of saying the words ”black C**t” whilst playing in a football match between Chelsea and QPR. I think it’s pathetic, but the police behave very strangely in cases like this. They have been so beaten up and called racists themselves and forced into anti-racism retraining classes, that they probably feel obliged to act when they hear of such a case.

They’re (supposedly) obliged to act on allegations of criminality – if there’s been no complaint then I’d agree that’s an issue.

There was a youtube of it apparently, and it looked like those words might have been coming from the England captain’s mouth.
It’s the context of him using those words that he disputes I think.
The police don’t seem to believe that there can be any ”context” for saying the words ”black c**t” so they have recommended prosecution.

FWIW, if we’re talking purely in opinion terms I agree – if the police are going to involve themselves with what goes on during a football match there’s plenty of acts of fraud and deception they can get started on.

Oh and public order offences every time rooney calls the ref a cunt.

Stephen Lawrence’s case is known throughout the land while most other victims of knife crime are quickly forgotten. Unless they have a link to someone famous or are particularly middle class or something out of the norm of these pointless gang culture killings. And some ”institutionalised racism” too. Whatever that is exactly.

Tell me about it – http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/38658/stabbing-outside-middleton-pub

Oh, puh-lease.

The liberal mentality is not to know, and “the right” in this country are really nothing more than moderately right-of-centre liberals. Of course they want to forget about the riots. They made the current regime look like a bunch of incompetent asses.

And what is the current regime? Society has never been more permissive and liberal. Govt spending as a pc of GDP is at an all time high. The welfare state is about as generous as it has ever been.

And so what is the problem, oh all seeing Guardian? The problem is obviously that we are not liberal enough.

Classic quick medicine. What’s that–the cure is making the patients teeth fall out, and not doing anything for his headache? Well then, double the dose.

Simple facts.
Two types of journos (tabloid or broadsheet)
1. Right wing ones who admit their politics
2. Liars.
There is no such thing as a left of centre journo. Well perhaps one or two.
Look at the creeps who claim to be lefties, Cohen, kelner and bright.
There as left wing as maggie’s knickers.
F*****n depressing.
Nearly as depressing as the blogosphere.
Harrys place and hopi sen are lefties.
Your having a laugh.

All journos are right wing.
It is in their DNA.
Cohen, and bright and harrys place lefties.
Give me a break.
Gove boys

No such thing a left wing journo.
Nick cohen, martin bright or harrys place.
Left wing as maggies knickers