Dealing With the Renegades - Revisited

[Fedayn]

Interesting article in the Herald, sort of echoes what 39thStep said about intervention in gangs up here...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/scottish-gang-scheme-cuts-offending-in-half-1.1117414

 

[Pickman's model]

(going back to the op) given that gangs have not previously been conspicuous in looting or taking on the police, it seems to me rather a large shift in practice for them to suddenly take the lead in looting and rioting, which is what i thought the quote in the op was at least hinting at. the range of people out in the week can be gauged from the court reports, and unless the gangs are better organised than seemed the case - and none of them got caught - i feel that they have been awarded too prominent a role in the debate.

i suspect there's been rather more anti-hierarchical violence going on than has yet been reported - some of you will no doubt recall the chronology of anti-state, anti-hierarchical violence from the mid-1980s. i'm not too sure the iwca were right on this one.

 

[TopCat]

(going back to the op) given that gangs have not previously been conspicuous in looting or taking on the police, it seems to me rather a large shift in practice for them to suddenly take the lead in looting and rioting, which is what i thought the quote in the op was at least hinting at. the range of people out in the week can be gauged from the court reports, and unless the gangs are better organised than seemed the case - and none of them got caught - i feel that they have been awarded too prominent a role in the debate.

i suspect there's been rather more anti-hierarchical violence going on than has yet been reported - some of you will no doubt recall the chronology of anti-state, anti-hierarchical violence from the mid-1980s. i'm not too sure the iwca were right on this one.

It's a myth that the people involved in the disorder are predominately unemployed, all black, members of gangs etc. The court reports thus far show a very diverse cast of characters involved. it was ever thus. The 81 riots were the same, initially demonised as being a race riot, the arrests of white people proved otherwise.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It's a myth that the people involved in the disorder are predominately unemployed, all black, members of gangs etc. The court reports thus far show a very diverse cast of characters involved. <snip>

That was my impression also.

Not that the IWCA article linked in the OP doesn't have interesting stuff to say, but my suspicion is that once the facts about the demographics and composition of these riots are a bit clearer, it'll seem less applicable than people might have assumed.

Hence my remarks earlier about it possibly being a good idea to look for some facts ...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What people tend to forget is that those at the forefront of this week's riots are the kind of people who make life in many working class communities a misery, especially for the weakest and most defenceless. For those of us who grew up in the inner-cities, the despicable wanker rifling through the Malaysian student's bag after he'd been attacked is an eminently recognisable character.

It's a big jump to go from that incident to say that he was typical of 'those at the forefront of this week's riots'. How many of the rioters at any time turned on any of the other rioters? Fewer than 1 percent? I would think so.

TBH I think you're being blinded a bit by what you perceive to be the wisdom of your personal experience, which you think trumps the actual evidence.

 

[TopCat]

It's a very thoughtful piece. I recollect answering it more fully elsewhere a while back.
I'm not trying to pick holes here. I just think this is one situation where you will find lumpen, working class and not a few middle class people giving "I got caught up in it" explanations in court over the next few months.

 

[LLETSA]

Who said that was a cure-all? IMO drug prohibition has been enormously damaging to our society. Enormously. And reversing that policy is a necessary prerequisite to effectively addressing a whole raft of social problems including pretty much every social problem being talked about on this thread.

You don't agree. Fine. But don't misrepresent my position, please.

I wasn't necesarily referring to you, but to the way the zealots normally advocate it. Although if you look at what you say above, and in your previous posts on the subject, you do make some pretty grand claims.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I wasn't necesarily referring to you, but to the way the zealots normally advocate it. Although if you look at what you say above, and in your previous posts on the subject, you do make some pretty grand claims.

Well I do think that drug prohibition has been a public policy disaster. Absolutely. It has caused untold unnecessary misery.

 

[LLETSA]

It's a big jump to go from that incident to say that he was typical of 'those at the forefront of this week's riots'. How many of the rioters at any time turned on any of the other rioters? Fewer than 1 percent? I would think so.

TBH I think you're being blinded a bit by what you perceive to be the wisdom of your personal experience, which you think trumps the actual evidence.

Judging by what went reported, as well as the direct evidence of the film footage, the type of people who set fire to buildings with people still inside, and turn on those who try to put the fires out were pretty much towrds the forefront of what went on. I don't know how many rioters turned on other rioters, and neither do you. Anyway, was the Malaysian a rioter?

I might be relying on 'the wisdom of my own experience,' but you, with your 'fewer than 1%' and suchlike comments, seem to be just guessing.

 

[LLETSA]

Well I do think that drug prohibition has been a public policy disaster. Absolutely. It has caused untold unnecessary misery.

As I said, it leads you to make some grand claims which are as much speculation as anything else said on the subject.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm guessing from the footage I saw, yes. But again, how many buildings were set alight in total? There were thousands of rioters but only a handful of them were arsonists.

 

[_angel_]

I think there's something of a logical fallacy there. Take away the opportunity to make money out of selling drugs and you remove a massive source of potential criminal behaviour. Another source doesn't magically take its place.

Doesn't it?

And do they stop dealing drugs or just target other "markets" that aren't able to buy legally (ie the underage) and sell cheaper than the state.

 

[revlon]

Interesting article in the Herald, sort of echoes what 39thStep said about intervention in gangs up here...

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/scottish-gang-scheme-cuts-offending-in-half-1.1117414

the frankie vaughan solution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6GXSyGcDxA

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Doesn't it?

And do they stop dealing drugs or just target other "markets" that aren't able to buy legally (ie the underage) and sell cheaper than the state.

They would have to stop dealing drugs if their customers were suddenly taken away from them. Many of those who are already used to a life of drug dealing as work will no doubt look for other ways to make money illegally. But how many new recruits will they have to their ranks once the best way of doing that - drugs - has been taken away?

Just as gang-related crime has flourished in the conditions of an illegal drugs market, it will go into decline once that market has been removed.

 

[frogwoman]

Not really sure I fancy the idea of the control of the production of drugs being in the hands of drug companies any more than i fancy it being in the hands of drug dealers tbh

 

[Fedayn]

the frankie vaughan solution
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6GXSyGcDxA

A slightly different and comparatively ineffective approach i'm sure you'll agree.

 

[_angel_]

They would have to stop dealing drugs if their customers were suddenly taken away from them. Many of those who are already used to a life of drug dealing as work will no doubt look for other ways to make money illegally. But how many new recruits will they have to their ranks once the best way of doing that - drugs - has been taken away?

Just as gang-related crime has flourished in the conditions of an illegal drugs market, it will go into decline once that market has been removed.

You wouldn't stop it, they'd just try to undercut the state. A bit like the trade in cheap booze and fags.

 

[revlon]

A slightly different and comparatively ineffective approach i'm sure you'll agree.

the film's narrative is strangely familiar though.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not really sure I fancy the idea of the control of the production of drugs being in the hands of drug companies any more than i fancy it being in the hands of drug dealers tbh

You wouldn't want people to have access to safe supplies of medical-grade heroin? I would. I have friends who would still be alive today if they had had such access.

 

[_angel_]

You wouldn't want people to have access to safe supplies of medical-grade heroin? I would. I have friends who would still be alive today if they had had such access.

I think GPs should be able to prescribe it definitely (the same with cannabis).

 

[frogwoman]

You wouldn't want people to have access to safe supplies of medical-grade heroin? I would. I have friends who would still be alive today if they had had such access.

I think for medicinal use that's slightly different though, and I agree with you that prohibition policies have caused harm but I'm just not sure that full legalisation of drugs is the way to go tbh

 

[Fedayn]

the film's narrative is strangely familiar though.

Well yes, interestingly some of those who handed their knives in during that amnesty are involved in the current approach.

Btw, i'm not necessarily advocating the approach as seen merely highlighting what seems, at present, to be rather successful in reducing gang/anti-social crime in w/c communities.

 

[butchersapron]

You wouldn't want people to have access to safe supplies of medical-grade heroin? I would. I have friends who would still be alive today if they had had such access.

You've really got to stop this 'You wouldn't want *insert good stuff* to happen then?" bollocks. It's the most worthless form of arguing. What price would the profiteering companies jack medical-grade heroin up to? Why would it's availability effect ability to pay for it?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You've really got to stop this 'You wouldn't want *insert good stuff* to happen then?" bollocks. It's the most worthless form of arguing. What price would the profiteering companies jack medical-grade heroin up to? Why would it's availability effect ability to pay for it?

Bollocks. I'm talking about giving access to safe supplies. Where have I said that I think heroin should be on sale in corner shops? Heroin dealers are in the main nasty cunts. I'd like their source of income removed as far as possible.

If you look at the statistics for heroin use, you see a very striking fact: heroin use exploded after it had been made illegal. Decriminalisation would reduce use, imo, because it would reduce the financial rewards of pushing it.

 

[butchersapron]

Bollocks. I'm talking about giving access to safe supplies. Where have I said that I think heroin should be on sale in corner shops? Heroin dealers are in the main nasty cunts. I'd like their source of income removed as far as possible.

If you look at the statistics for heroin use, you see a very striking fact: heroin use exploded after it had been made illegal. Decriminalisation would reduce use, imo, because it would reduce the financial rewards of pushing it.

The post you replied to talked about control by drugs companies rather than dealers - i.e sales - and the very little difference between them.It didn't talk about socially provided medical-grade heroin or anything of the sort, that you assumed that it did. I'm not interested in the decriminalisation argument, i'm not interested in the other stuff that you're now bringing in - i was pointing out the lazy form of argument you often use and the misreading it was based on in this case.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well the answer to that narrow question is simple. Control by drug companies is infinitely preferable because you know what you're buying, thus dramatically reducing ODs. Which was my point, in case you misread it.

But you then have to set the thing into the context of how you would like decriminalisation to be handled - ie how much power and how many profiteering opportunities you are offering to any drug company.

 

[London_Calling]

God fucking help us. Another really informative discussion goes down the toilet.

 

[butchersapron]

Well the answer to that narrow question is simple. Control by drug companies is infinitely preferable because you know what you're buying, thus dramatically reducing ODs. Which was my point, in case you misread it.

But you then have to set the thing into the context of how you would like decriminalisation to be handled - ie how much power and how many profiteering opportunities you are offering to any drug company.

I didn't ask a narrow question. There was no question at all. There was just a pointing out of the form of 'You wouldn't want *insert good stuff* to happen then?" that you often adopt. Point's been made now. We can all get back to the ignoring of the OP and other points relating to it.

 

[smokedout]

Nor do I see that anybody has romanticised the Krays or the Richardsons-the point is that when they killed it was about 'business' and not for something as trivial as infringing on a rival gang's perceived territory.

you just did it yourself. there was a well known family who had a couple of clubs where i grew up. they beat and tortured people, i dont know if they ever murdered anyone but do know they were the people you went to to buy a gun. sometimes they beat people up for business, sometimes they did it because one of the younger ones was pissed and someone looked at his pint. i could say the same about certain families in london, i could even name names, but i wont, because im scared of them.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I didn't ask a narrow question. There was no question at all. There was just a pointing out of the form of 'You wouldn't want *insert good stuff* to happen then?" that you often adopt. Point's been made now. We can all get back to the ignoring of the OP and other points relating to it.

Go fuck yourself, butchers.