Retrospective excuses and how the cracks begin to show

My first post in a very long time, mostly because I've been plain lazy and just kept thoughts in my head rather than write them down, hopefully it won't happen again.

The August riots, along with the 'Hacking scandal' and home-bred Norwegian terrorism have ignited the social networking scene, turning each and every member into an automatic socio-political expert.
One need only refresh their 'News Feed' to see the point of view of their online friends and the ensuing debates which take place. Most of which are very sensationalist, inaccurate and founded on hearsay, I spend enough time reading the news, absorbing and arguing with contributors from around the world, when I click on facebook I'd much rather be confronted with the mundane occurrences of someone's day, not their stab in the dark as to why this, that or the other happened!

That rant aside, lets look at the recent spate of British anti-social hooliganism that has gripped the world and ignited trans-generational debate since its inception.

'They say are going to help us but I don't see any of it, there has to be more opportunities and jobs.'

'Everything we wanted we could get.'

'It was Comet - they didn't reply to me emailing my CV, or going up there so this was payback man, payback' (1)

Do either of the above quotations resound with the death of Mark Duggan at the hands of police? Do either of them relate in anyway to the IPCC investigation surrounding his death?
Do either of them have any link whatsoever to the candlelit vigil held in his honour?

A rather emphatic 'NO' seems to leap from the page doesn't it.

Violence erupts due to police handling of the situation at the aforementioned vigil and all of a sudden a storm of messages are sent round to people in local vicinities to take to the streets and cause some carnage. Shopfronts are smashed in and fires started, this continues through the night.
The world then wakes up to find that this has carried on and more and more people are piling onto the streets, looting high-end electrical goods, designer clothes and sports wear.

If anyone can draw a logical link between the shooting of a man and the need to trespass and steal a pair of trainers, please show me how.
Even better, if someone could show me how the shooting of a man in London leads to copycat vandalism and wanton destruction in Birmingham, Liverpool and other UK cities, then please, please let me know.

The three quotes given above are from a SkyNews special on 'The Riots' and why they happened, taking those three quotes each in turn, lets see what is trying to be said.

'They say are going to help us but I don't see any of it, there has to be more opportunities and jobs.'

'They', presumably the government, say they are going to help 'us', presumably the rioters. First and foremost, what role did the government play in the catalyst for this series of events?
Did the government shoot Mark Duggan?
It's very easy once you've committed a crime or done something wrong to turn around and point the finger of blame at the first thing that comes to mind. The government is of course a very easy target because the media and opposition (regardless of party) can pick up on it and try to seam a link but when the perpetrators of the majority of the damage turn out to be very young (11 being the youngest cited age), one has to wonder firstly whether they know who or what the government is and then question what they themselves have put into society to deserve said 'opportunities' and 'jobs'.

'Everything we wanted we could get.'

Imagine that. Everything that you wanted was right in front of you and you could freely take it at will.
Brilliant.
So who stopped these people from getting what they wanted?
Everyone has dreams and things that they'd like but most rational people I know have to go out and work for them, how did the rioters arrive at a situation whereby they could have everything they wanted?
The exact opposite. Rather than go out and work, they grouped up with friends, smashed a few doors down and tore a couple of televisions from walls, grabbed the latest playstation game on the way out for good measure and of course a DVD player for the fun of it.
It goes without saying that if that was the way of the world then 'nice things' and 'luxuries' wouldn't exist.
What kind of person brings a child into the world and lets them believe that is the right thing to do?
What kind of person destroys someone else's livelihood because they don't have the same things as them?

A very dark picture is painted when we sit back and reflect on these factors. The family unit and set of values is well and truly dead in the areas worst-hit by the riots. Blame government cuts all you like, blame 'social mobility', blame 'racism', blame any invented excuse under the sun but it all boils down to the values of our society today.
People have become far too reliant on the state (this is not a party political swipe) and now that the cost of this reliance has come to light and some belt-tightening has been suggested, people aren't happy... They're losing what they didn't do anything to earn; other than be born that is.
So the government takes away what they don't deserve, what happens? They take something they truly don't deserve BUT, herein lies the crux.
If they truly felt deep down that they did deserve what was taken away, why did they have to wait until a man was killed to jump on the back of his death? Why were they not in the streets and burning down buildings?
Because that isn't the reason at all. The reasons pure and simple are greed, laziness and lack of respect.

'It was Comet - they didn't reply to me emailing my CV, or going up there so this was payback man, payback'

I best forewarn the London School of Economics or one of the other 5 Universities that rejected me first time round, they turned me down without a reply so I'm going to go and torch them. That makes sense doesn't it? Then again I best wait until a policeman arrests somebody because then I'll have a great excuse... I hope they're prepared!

There you have it. Someone used to being given everything doesn't get given a response, therefore they must get pay back for the callous injustice carried out upon them.

That is THE problem with British society, everyone wants something but not everyone is prepared to work hard or make the sacrifices for it.
These events had no connection to the original death and violent breakouts but they soon become related by their own central locus, the disease of a welfare state and benefit culture.
It's not the police, it's not David Cameron, it's not the kids that did it. It's their parents and to some extent parents parents.

If we bring up children with no respect for authority, why does it surprise people when they act as such?

If we spend our whole lives out of work and getting what we want all the time, why is it a surprise when our children follow suit?

If we constantly blame someone else for all of our own shortcomings and never think of pointing the finger at ourselves, how will we ever get out of our own little rut?

It's easy to do something wrong and then think of who you can blame to quickly get out of it but when you've only got yourself the blame, the truth will always get you.

(1) http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16048584

The First Live Debate

The Leaders Debate: ITV

The stage has been set and the weeks of anticipation are up. Tonight we see the first ever UK leaders debate.
Will it prove to be a major success that opens the lid on politics and reveals who our party leaders actually are or will it be a total failure?
It's time to see whether this tried and tested US norm can work in a UK setting!

Brown vs Cameron vs Clegg... Head to head

Domestic affairs

So then, those who watched sat and endured 90 minutes of a suped up 'Question Time' (or as the ever comedic Brown called it, 'Answer Time').
How did it go? Well firstly, the format has to be addressed. Surely Gordon Brown should have taken centre stage as he is meant to be the one in power. Understandably, those arranging the positions were probably using a degree of foresight by putting David Cameron in the middle or were they putting him in a corner?

The result of the evening was rather predictable. Brown and Cameron were lured into fighting each other in their little corner allowing Nick Clegg to appear the more attractive candidate. Surely anyone who has an inkling of political know-how could see the obviousness of the situation, even if it wasn't purposeful it was clearly evident that Nick Clegg was destined to seem the better man, a token victory.
Although yes, he was confident, he did argue his case and he did engage with the actual questions moreso, everything he said was purely theoretical. His party's brand of liberalism is untested and almost unknown in a British political arena, the party can say pretty much what they like as they have nothing to lose.
As a performer, Clegg was clear, straightforward and very collected and with his talk of 'decent, open politics', it is a no-brainer as to why he came across (to the panels) as the better man.

David Cameron spent much of the evening being stared and glowered at by Brown but on the whole performed very well, he acted naturally, he spoke how we would if at PMQs, a constituency or one of his frequent podcasts; with confidence, understanding and vigour.
His rhetoric that 'Britain can do better' was echoed in almost every answer he gave and rather interestingly he honestly admitted that the Labour party 'haven't always been wrong'.
Body specialist analysts today are claiming that he was staring out into the audience too imperially and unlike his yellow counterpart wasn't staring 'down the barrel' and at the home audience. Cameron was being himself once more in this instance, he was looking at the people around him, the people that were asking of him and not necessarily at those who were sat down at the other end of a TV screen.

Brown, like Cameron was himself last night and in no way is that a good thing. He gave us all a history lesson laced with hefty dollops of policy and what he had done... Gordon we don't need you to tell us what you've done. We can see the results for ourselves!
Another typical Brownism that has come into fruition recently are his attempts to be funny or involve some kind of humour. Tell me, what relevance to a question on burglaries and crime reduction does a poster of David Cameron or mentions of Lord Ashcroft actually bear?!
He's tried it so many times but the only one who was actually laughing was Gordon himself.
I did like how shocked and sickened Brown said he was over the expenses scandal, especially after he paid for a maid service using taxpayer money; she must've left a stain.

The moment of the evening for me came in the form of Joel Weiner's dramatic return to the fray of politics... Evidence that the audience was to a degree hand-picked thanks to the inclusion of the young Jewish political celebrity who was upset at competition in schools... My heart truly bleeds.

Having left school myself only last year, I know what it is like to be in this apparent minefield of exams and pressures... The real fear at schools should be the lack of power given to teachers and as Mr.Cameron pointed out, the weakness of headteachers who are being held to ransom by 'Appeals panels'. How the teachers have now become the children in the classroom!
I have been in classes of 2 pupils and classes of 32 pupils and now at University over 200 students all crammed into one room... Mr Clegg's 20 pupil infant school school and 16 pupil secondary school proposals will do little; if a child wants to learn it will go to school, do the extra reading and strive to be the best (Sorry Joel, competition is unavoidable), those who don't want to learn won't learn. If they cause disruption to a class they should be isolated, that way they've got no audience and if they're still not working it's a waste of the taxpayers money to keep them in school, especially at KS3 level.

I sat for the full 90 minutes last night frantically tapping away on my laptop making pages and pages worth of notes on what was said and how I read it. To me, a piece of revision which may come in handy but also a good place to draw evidence for this piece from.
I could go into detail on every single question however I'll just highlight what I found to be the most prominent points.


Gordon Brown

• Continually mentioned how he would make things different, when told his party had 13 years to do so and hadn't he froze.
• Thought that Clegg was on his side. Was rather abruptly shot down.
• Found it relevant to mention the 'X-Factor' , 'Britain's Got Talent' and various media outlets in what was meant to be a serious political debate.
• Attacked the Conservatives whenever possible but laid off the Liberal Democrats.
• Is already putting his novelty desk lamps into boxes.

Nick Clegg

• Used his allotted time well, answered clearly and made a good impression.
• Continually played on 'Old Party' system; Table football politics... Red vs Blue.
• Wanted a consensus on health care and asked other leaders to set aside differences on the issue.
• Tackled Cameron on spending cuts.
• Unable to justify £17bn spending gap in manifesto and on give-aways of £700 for taxpayer.

David Cameron

• Alerted viewers to Brown's campaign of 'Fearing the Conservatives', offering the public a government which works on hope and not fear.
• Unable to give clear figures when pressed by Brown. Will need to be more open in future debates or could face problems.
• Very honest detailing on his values; will support those who work hard, are ill or in need.
• Questioned useless bureaucracy and continually referred to cutting waste which Brown could not justify.
• Looked like a leader, looked like a man who can take the country where it needs to be.

So there you have it, my view of how the events unfolded. You may agree, you may not but realistically there is not much that can be said until the 2nd and 3rd legs of these debates kick off.
The popular polls put it: Clegg 1 - Cameron - 0 - Brown - 0... We'll all have to see how this translates into voters in the upcoming weeks.

What will be required next time?

I think it's fair to say that the next debate on SkyNews will be interesting indeed, what will the leaders take forward, what will be different and what will stay the same. If Clegg can pull off another decent performance he will gain some credible support however Cameron will be smarting from what has appeared to be a defeat and of course Gordon will be there too keep an eye on things ;).