Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

wonderpup

Compare And Contrast- Is Looting A Fashion Crime?

Recommended Posts

Heard on radio 4 this morning that a guy who stole a bottle of water in the riots got six months. Meanwhile that other group of looters in the banking sector get sent on their way with bonus's and pensions intact.

So dress code would appear to be an important factor here; do your looting in a nice suit and you are home free- commit the fashion faux pas of wearing a hood and face mask and not only will the law be applied to you in the normal fashion- you will receive that 'special 'version of the law reserved for those the state does not like- 24/7 rolling court rooms and inflated sentences that do not reflect the seriousness of the charge, but do reflect the degree of state anxiety concerning your behaviour.

Fine- but for this little detail- the legal system is not supposed to be a tool of the political class. I am all for people getting caught and punished if they break the law- but to pervert that legal process in the interests of making a point is an error.

If part of the rationale for this outbreak of looting was the notion that the 'system' is not playing by it's own rules then this sudden departure form normal legal procedure is simply confiming that suspicion. You can't distort the law in the cause of upholding the law- which is precisely what seems to be going on.

Something else; any bloated sentencing policy that is pursued in the interests of making a point rather than dealing out justice will now be observed not just by the immediate family of the target but by the social network of which that target is a part- a network which now extends into cyberspace via social networking sites.

Part of the reason the police found controlling the riots so problematic is that they were not dealing with an unorganised mass but with something that had a crude communal intelligence- those people were connected and coherent in a way that is new.

I do not think the authorities have yet grasped the implications of this fully- now, what they do to the individual nodes of this network they also do to the whole of it- the pain and sense of injustice is shared far more widely than before.

It is unwise therefore to treat the looters as 'special' in the legal sense. If they are offenders then treat them as such, with appropriate process and sentencing. But target them for 'special treatment', suspend normal process and sentencing norms and you will sow the seeds for the next round of looting because this will simply confirm the mythology that the system is non neutral in both intent and action- and the collective consciousness that the social networking system represents will disseminate and mythologise this perception thus creating the momentum for the next round.

Also- I am far more erudite on line than in person- why? Because I am one click away from google, the most efficient and extensive information resource that has ever existed. In a sense my 'intelligence' is enhanced, my ability to correlate data ect is far stronger than if I was just relying on the contents of my skull.

Could it also be true that the sum total of a social network could be 'smarter' than it's parts- could a social network learn and adapt more quickly than an isolated individual? I don't want to claim too much here- just observing the fact that an angry and resentful 'hive mind' is maybe not something you wish to feed.

So- treat people fairly and justly and be seen to do so- other wise risk awakening a strange 21st century social blight- a collective consciousness that festers and transmits virally it's message of alienation and despair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We quite clearly need to be tougher on posh criminals too.

That referendum about voting ... would that have meant people might have been better represented?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard on radio 4 this morning that a guy who stole a bottle of water in the riots got six months. Meanwhile that other group of looters in the banking sector get sent on their way with bonus's and pensions intact.

So dress code would appear to be an important factor here; do your looting in a nice suit and you are home free- commit the fashion faux pas of wearing a hood and face mask and not only will the law be applied to you in the normal fashion- you will receive that 'special 'version of the law reserved for those the state does not like- 24/7 rolling court rooms and inflated sentences that do not reflect the seriousness of the charge, but do reflect the degree of state anxiety concerning your behaviour.

Fine- but for this little detail- the legal system is not supposed to be a tool of the political class. I am all for people getting caught and punished if they break the law- but to pervert that legal process in the interests of making a point is an error.

If part of the rationale for this outbreak of looting was the notion that the 'system' is not playing by it's own rules then this sudden departure form normal legal procedure is simply confiming that suspicion. You can't distort the law in the cause of upholding the law- which is precisely what seems to be going on.

Something else; any bloated sentencing policy that is pursued in the interests of making a point rather than dealing out justice will now be observed not just by the immediate family of the target but by the social network of which that target is a part- a network which now extends into cyberspace via social networking sites.

Part of the reason the police found controlling the riots so problematic is that they were not dealing with an unorganised mass but with something that had a crude communal intelligence- those people were connected and coherent in a way that is new.

I do not think the authorities have yet grasped the implications of this fully- now, what they do to the individual nodes of this network they also do to the whole of it- the pain and sense of injustice is shared far more widely than before.

It is unwise therefore to treat the looters as 'special' in the legal sense. If they are offenders then treat them as such, with appropriate process and sentencing. But target them for 'special treatment', suspend normal process and sentencing norms and you will sow the seeds for the next round of looting because this will simply confirm the mythology that the system is non neutral in both intent and action- and the collective consciousness that the social networking system represents will disseminate and mythologise this perception thus creating the momentum for the next round.

Also- I am far more erudite on line than in person- why? Because I am one click away from google, the most efficient and extensive information resource that has ever existed. In a sense my 'intelligence' is enhanced, my ability to correlate data ect is far stronger than if I was just relying on the contents of my skull.

Could it also be true that the sum total of a social network could be 'smarter' than it's parts- could a social network learn and adapt more quickly than an isolated individual? I don't want to claim too much here- just observing the fact that an angry and resentful 'hive mind' is maybe not something you wish to feed.

So- treat people fairly and justly and be seen to do so- other wise risk awakening a strange 21st century social blight- a collective consciousness that festers and transmits virally it's message of alienation and despair.

b0llocks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard on radio 4 this morning that a guy who stole a bottle of water in the riots got six months. Meanwhile that other group of looters in the banking sector get sent on their way with bonus's and pensions intact.

If Fred Goodwin were to get caught nicking a bottle of water, he'd be up in front of the bench too, although a smart shyster lawyer might spare him the shame of a 6 months stretch.

The problem with your posit is that what the bankers did is not necessarily illegal. Immoral - yes, but not technically illegal.

You have to overstep the mark like Conrad Black or Robert Maxwell to earn a stretch inside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is unemployment apparently. Seeing as the feral scum are so good at grabbing loot, the unemployment problem could be solved by giving them jobs going door to door collecting money directly from taxpayers to funnel into massive bonuses for fat robbing bankrupt banksters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Fred Goodwin were to get caught nicking a bottle of water, he'd be up in front of the bench too, although a smart shyster lawyer might spare him the shame of a 6 months stretch.

The problem with your posit is that what the bankers did is not necessarily illegal. Immoral - yes, but not technically illegal.

You have to overstep the mark like Conrad Black or Robert Maxwell to earn a stretch inside.

Agreed. What the bankers did probably *should* be illegal, but meh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. What the bankers did probably *should* be illegal, but meh.

Yes - but it made the Elite shareholders and owners Billions

(they were 4x richer after 10 years of illusionary Brown economy and looting of the UK.

When they realised looters in USA had sold them crap and their edifices were bust hoodwinking the UK public/taxpayer & 'socialising' their gambling losses became the 'norm' of the heredi-tory norman sherrifs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heard on radio 4 this morning that a guy who stole a bottle of water in the riots got six months. Meanwhile that other group of looters in the banking sector get sent on their way with bonus's and pensions intact blah, blah, blah

So large groups of violent angry youths intent on causing maximum damage, mayhem, death and destruction have been dealt with harshly? Such a shame. :lol:

Agree that "bankers" (whoever they are) have been richly rewarded for causing financial mayhem but this is no excuse.

Unfortunately when I lived in Weston-Super-Mare and Portsmouth in recent years the whole place was full of feral workshy scum. There was no end of petty criminality at one end and violent overtures at the other (having been on the receiving end of such intimidation several times myself). :ph34r:

I will probably be viewed as a "Right Wing Nutter" for these opinions but unfortunately these have been my experiences.

Will locking them up solve the problem? No :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
b0llocks

Impressive as the intellectual depth of your counter argument is , you might want to take a look at this- it does have a few long words in it but I feel you are up to the task.

Authorities in the US city of Philadelphia have ordered a weekend curfew for minors in an effort to halt a series of violent flash mobs.

Mayor Michael Nutter said that the curfew would apply at 22:00 for anyone under 13 years of age and at midnight for those under 18.

Flash mobs, organised through social networking websites, have left several city residents injured in recent weeks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14466369

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So large groups of violent angry youths intent on causing maximum damage, mayhem, death and destruction have been dealt with harshly? Such a shame.

What is the real distinction between those youths abusing other peoples rights and the state abusing theirs? Surely you can see that if we allow the law to be perverted in order to generate a few good sound bites for TV the legitimacy of that law is called into question?

It's not about dealing with them 'harshly'- it's about dealing with them with due process- otherwise you-we- are the same as they are.

If rule of law means anything it means an impartial system of justice- not one that panders to middle class anxieties concerning the underclass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with your posit is that what the bankers did is not necessarily illegal. Immoral - yes, but not technically illegal.

The truth is that there will be no serious attempt to investigate how much of what went on was legal or not. But the point is that the legal structure is founded on the principles of fairness and justice.

We accuse those kids of immoral behaviour and they simply point to Fred Goodwin et all,or the MPs expenses ect.

I simply did not- do not- see the condemnation of these people, the raw outrage, that these riots have attracted. No one called Goodwin 'scum' despite the fact that his actions and those of his kind have brought misery for millions.

These kids may not be smart but they are able to see quite well that the moral legitimacy of those who spit on them is shot to hell- so why the hell should they even listen?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is that there will be no serious attempt to investigate how much of what went on was legal or not. But the point is that the legal structure is founded on the principles of fairness and justice.

We accuse those kids of immoral behaviour and they simply point to Fred Goodwin et all,or the MPs expenses ect.

I simply did not- do not- see the condemnation of these people, the raw outrage, that these riots have attracted. No one called Goodwin 'scum' despite the fact that his actions and those of his kind have brought misery for millions.

These kids may not be smart but they are able to see quite well that the moral legitimacy of those who spit on them is shot to hell- so why the hell should they even listen?

Goodwin is scum, and there are plenty here on HPC and elsewhere who have called him so. How many other bankers have needed a police guard on their home after having their windows bricked?

(Without prejudice) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.