I vividly recall how the Los Angeles urban insurgency of 1992 was basically a case of the police needing to prove they were the most powerful gang in town. And already I hear Tory politicians on TV talking about “eradicating the thug element.” Do they really think people will go quietly into poverty and destitution?
Click here for freeform media.
The Tories are back in Government. A year later, the economy's tanked and there are riots in the streets. As regular as clockwork, 1980 all over again.
ReplyDeleteThat was when I last lived here.
ReplyDeleteDare I say "Mick the catalyst".
ReplyDeleteBut to answer your question--YES they do. They will perish waiting for the apocalypse and the second coming.
Just remember Orwell. Under the right circumstances 2+2 does = 5.
If the police really are out to prove they're the toughest gang in town, they've failed miserably so far. And as convenient, tempting, or even romantic, a notion as it may be, I really don't believe this is about the downtrodden and dispossessed rising up against The Man (man). This is a real live video game, where there's thrills and spills, smoke and fire, and for some the chance to grab some free goodies, with no real danger of any consequences. But mostly the opportunity for a bit of swaggering and posturing, 'cos that's what real men and feisty women do - get on TV and therefore "be famous".
ReplyDeleteYeah, you've got it all figured, pal. The children of the poor and hopeless are just plain stupid and evil and we need a more efficient police state to keep them down.
ReplyDeleteWhat London needs is blanket CCTV coverage. That will make everyone feel safe and secure. Like they had a big brother watching out for them.
ReplyDeleteHello Diamond Jim,
ReplyDeleteThe children of the poor and helpless are often inarticulate, as are their parents and close acquaintances. I never for one moment suggested they were "evil" or even "stupid", unless by stupid one includes the slavish addiction to celebrity culture fed unscrupulously by sections of the media and seized upon hungrily by many supposedly intelligent people
who presumably weren't all out on the streets smashing and burning.
Neither did I express a desire for "a more efficient police state". I just questioned Mick's assertion that the police were proving themselves "the toughest gang in town", although subsequent events have indeed validated his comment.
But yes, I did say that it was more about an instinctive collective desire for excitement and some free goodies than making a political point about lack of opportunity. Do you disagree?