Is it left wing to tolerate crack dealers?

[kyser_soze]

Yeah, and when does 'collective self defence' spill over into baseless accusations followed by violence? Does anyone seriously think that such action would be confined to driving out drug dealers (who of course would just migrate their business up the road, possibly causing more trouble if there are rival gangs when they move as well as spreading the potential patch for criminal activity) and not spread to anyone deemed 'suspicious' to 'the community'?

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

'Drive out the drug dealers' is a particularly good idea as no drug dealer has ever been known to be armed.

 

[In Bloom]

'Drive out the drug dealers' is a particularly good idea as no drug dealer has ever been known to be armed.

Yeah, that kind of occurred to me too.

This, on the other hand:

Yeah, and when does 'collective self defence' spill over into baseless accusations followed by violence? Does anyone seriously think that such action would be confined to driving out drug dealers (who of course would just migrate their business up the road, possibly causing more trouble if there are rival gangs when they move as well as spreading the potential patch for criminal activity) and not spread to anyone deemed 'suspicious' to 'the community'?

Is utter, utter wank. "Yeah, give the working class any kind of power over their own lives, and they'll be flinging shit at each other and burning people as witches within a week"

 

[knopf]

"Yeah, give the working class any kind of power over their own lives, and they'll be flinging shit at each other and burning people as witches within a week"

..... an attitude which is almost 'liberalism in a nutshell' -- let's look after the poor loves, because Lord knows they can't do it themselves.

 

[kyser_soze]

Yeah, that kind of occurred to me too.

This, on the other hand:

Is utter, utter wank. "Yeah, give the working class any kind of power over their own lives, and they'll be flinging shit at each other and burning people as witches within a week"

Not at all - you seem to think that I only think this about the w/c when I don't, I think it about people in general.

It'd be fun to find out who'd be right tho wouldn't it? I mean it's not like a national newspaper stirring up trouble DIDN'T lead to witch hunts about paedophilia was it?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Not at all - you seem to think that I only think this about the w/c when I don't, I think it about people in general.

It'd be fun to find out who'd be right tho wouldn't it? I mean it's not like a national newspaper stirring up trouble DIDN'T lead to witch hunts about paedophilia was it?

Who can be trusted then? And how do you decide?

Louis Mac

 

[William of Walworth]

Yeah, and when does 'collective self defence' spill over into baseless accusations followed by violence? Does anyone seriously think that such action would be confined to driving out drug dealers (who of course would just migrate their business up the road, possibly causing more trouble if there are rival gangs when they move as well as spreading the potential patch for criminal activity) and not spread to anyone deemed 'suspicious' to 'the community'?

This, on the other hand:

Is utter, utter wank. "Yeah, give the working class any kind of power over their own lives, and they'll be flinging shit at each other and burning people as witches within a week"

Sorry, In Blloom, I repect most of your posts (in fact almost all of them) but I think you're in denial of some degree of reality here.

It's NOT 'utter wank' to think that there at least might be some risk of vigilante power on some estates in some areas being abused.

I live on a council estate and, like most, it's made up of a mixture of responsible, smart, active-in-the-community people, and ... erm ... others.

In a vigilante system, I fear though that the loudest mouths are likely to end up having the most say, and in all communities, there's a risk of false accusations and duff rumours.

 

[In Bloom]

Not at all - you seem to think that I only think this about the w/c when I don't, I think it about people in general.

It'd be fun to find out who'd be right tho wouldn't it? I mean it's not like a national newspaper stirring up trouble DIDN'T lead to witch hunts about paedophilia was it?

Perhaps you'd like to give me an example of one of these "witch hunts" (and please don't pull out that tired old rumour about the paediatrician, it's a load of bollocks).

 

[kyser_soze]

I don't think PEOPLE can be trusted - I reckon that given the same chances you'd see gun totin' Chelsea and Kensington types out cleaning the streets of homeless people, setting up checkpoints to keep out the poor, arresting anyone walking as opposed to jogging, setting up discriminatory resident's associations to keep 'riff raff' out.

Tell people they can govern their own neighbourhoods and communities and give them authority over the use of physical force and they'll behave exactly the same way any community that's been given such freedom and power and use it as often as possible and in as locale-context a way as they see fit. In the case of a m/c suburb it'd be creating a gated, discriminatory community, in the case of a w/c estate it could be anything from a BNP led group or the vilification of anyone considered different or 'strange'. No doubt there would be people like yourself and many others on Urban the IRL who would try and use such an opportunity to do some good, but my feeling is that populist violence, prejudice, hate and fear would always be the winners.

 

[In Bloom]

It's NOT 'utter wank' to think that there at least might be some risk of vigilante power on some estates in some areas being abused.

That's not what was said though, was it?

Does anyone seriously think that such action would be confined to driving out drug dealers...and not spread to anyone deemed 'suspicious' to 'the community'?

In other words, it'd collapse into witch hunts and hysteria (quite why, kyser hasn't yet deigned to tell us all).

Of course it would be necessary for any community policing itself to have some kind of transparency and safe guards in place. My objection is to the idea that this needs to be imposed from the outside.

 

[William of Walworth]

..... an attitude which is almost 'liberalism in a nutshell' -- let's look after the poor loves, because Lord knows they can't do it themselves.

You honestly think there's no validity at all in what kyser is suggesting?

To write off as 'liberalism' or 'anti working class' the utterly legitimate fear that some people in some communities might abuse any new vigilante power they end up getting, is a denial of reality.

It's not class-prejudiced to make this point. To fail to address the point lies dangerously close to a rosy-eyed view of what some people, in actually existing pragmatic reality, can be like.

There are utter arses in every class, and a vigilante system might give those people the opportunity they crave to exercise the power they look for to act like twats and intimidate others.

Do you honestly think that 'community justice' at street/estate level, would be restricted to (correctly) ousting hard drug dealers? Surely the risk is there anyway, that such dealers would simply move on to other neighbourhoods and victimise them instead.

 

[knopf]

In a vigilante system, I fear though that the loudest mouths are likely to end up having the most say, and in all communities, there's a risk of false accusations and duff rumours.

Very possibly so, William. But you could also make each of those points about a society (i.e. the current one) where the move to privatise the police function that we all share has been almost totally successful. And I'd far rather live somewhere where I had a real say in what goes on where I live than pass it all over to no-mark coppers & money-grubbing would-be local-celeb councillors.

And what about the "duff rumour" that some Brazilian electrician was in fact a mad mullah of some description?

Unless, of course, you're arguing (very subtlely & very well) that the cops are in fact little better than vigilantes.

Edit: didn't see your second post before I responded, but I think I cover it here.

 

[In Bloom]

Tell people they can govern their own neighbourhoods and communities and give them authority over the use of physical force and they'll behave exactly the same way any community that's been given such freedom and power and use it as often as possible and in as locale-context a way as they see fit. In the case of a m/c suburb it'd be creating a gated, discriminatory community, in the case of a w/c estate it could be anything from a BNP led group or the vilification of anyone considered different or 'strange'. No doubt there would be people like yourself and many others on Urban the IRL who would try and use such an opportunity to do some good, but my feeling is that populist violence, prejudice, hate and fear would always be the winners.

Has anybody suggested here that we should just have gangs of people roaming the streets with guns opening fire on anyone they don't like?

 

[William of Walworth]

Am I defending the existing Police???

I agree with you about the Demenzes case.

But that doesn't legitimise self appointed policemen acting as badly but in different ways.

 

[William of Walworth]

Of course it would be necessary for any community policing itself to have some kind of transparency and safe guards in place.

When I'm clearer what those are, I'd be happier about such a system being introduced ...

 

[poster342002]

Do you honestly think that 'community justice' at street/estate level, would be restricted to (correctly) ousting hard drug dealers? Surely the risk is there anyway, that such dealers would simply move on to other neighbourhoods and victimise them instead.

Where, with any luck, they'd similarly be ousted there as well. They'd scamper from area to area until they got it through their thick, greedy heads that everyone was sick and tired of their activities and wouldn't tolerate them anywhere.

 

[kyser_soze]

Has anybody suggested here that we should just have gangs of people roaming the streets with guns opening fire on anyone they don't like?

You live in some kind of idealised fantasy land if you think that giving local communities of ANY kind legal power over themselves won't lead to vigilante justice - what, you and all your lefty mates are going to be positive and engaging and help ensure that communities police themselves in a fair, balanced fashion? That there wouldn't be victimisation in any class group against others? Sorry, but I just don't share your optimism that humans can self govern in a fair and unselfish manner for any kind of extended period, and that ultimately the Rule of Force, not Law, will come to dominate.

 

[knopf]

But that doesn't legitimise self appointed policemen acting as badly but in different ways.

Self-appointed, no. Directly elected & subject to immediate recall, maybe. But that's definitely another thread.

(Dammit, I've started capitalising things. You, Sir, have a very infectious posting style. )

 

[kyser_soze]

Where, with any luck, they'd similarly be ousted there as well. They'd scamper from area to area until they got it through their thick, greedy heads that everyone was sick and tired of their activities and wouldn't tolerate them anywhere.

What about if they just went round terrorising anyone who didn't agree with them and simply removed the good people like yourself from communities for being a pain in their collective ass? I'm pretty sure that businessmen who saw their trade dissappearing could quite quickly form their own loose collective and remove the thorns in their side.

Directly elected & subject to immediate recall,

Do you seriously think for a second that people with access to guns and other weapons who wanted to keep them and the power they confer would have any compunction about using them to maintain that power regardless of how you elect them?

 

[likesfish]

well if your on a shitty council estate with crack dealers and all the crap that goes with them and the police won't deal with it.
don't you think proposing to set up a community clay pigeon shooting club which would entail a largish group of residents having access to shotguns and ammuntition would light a massive fire under the local council and police force to actually do something about the problems facing the estate before the residents do
If I was a local copper the last thing I'd want to see is a large group of residents attemting to aquire firearms legally with media support tabloids would love it.
notice I'm not saving actually get the weapons just make the powers that be realize the shit has hit the fan

 

[poster342002]

What about if they just went round terrorising anyone who didn't agree with them and simply removed the good people like yourself from communities for being a pain in their collective ass? I'm pretty sure that businessmen who saw their trade dissappearing could quite quickly form their own loose collective and remove the thorns in their side.



Do you seriously think for a second that people with access to guns and other weapons who wanted to keep them and the power they confer would have any compunction about using them to maintain that power regardless of how you elect them?

I'm not sure who you're reffering to here. I was referring to ousting the drug dealers from every neighbourhood they scampered and scurried to.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

I'm not sure who you're reffering to here. I was referring to ousting the drug dealers from every neighbourhood they scampered and scurried to.

It's a big assumption that they'd scamper and scurry though. I'd have thought there would be a fair number of crack dealers who are armed and prepared to use their weapons.

 

[kyser_soze]

And if the police DO deal with it and the dealers are all locked up, how long before more move into the area to replace them?

 

[tobyjug]

I'm no fan of Giuliani or zero tolerance but he does show what can happen when a politician starts to set the agenda and force the cops to follow it.
Can anyone think of a similar example anywhere in the UK?

Yes Ray Mallon (sp) up in Geordie land, his zero tolerance was so successful I think he was impacting on the bribery and corruption in High PLaces so he was fitted up and kicked out.

 

[poster342002]

It's a big assumption that they'd scamper and scurry though. I'd have thought there would be a fair number of crack dealers who are armed and prepared to use their weapons.

How long could they do that in the face of a mass uprising (exscuse the hyperbole) against them?

 

[knopf]

Do you seriously think for a second that people with access to guns and other weapons who wanted to keep them and the power they confer would have any compunction about using them to maintain that power regardless of how you elect them?

Well, there are historical precedents that would suggest that I would be justified in thinking that.

You seem to have a very bleak view of human nature. Are you a Calvinist?

 

[tobyjug]

It's a big assumption that they'd scamper and scurry though. I'd have thought there would be a fair number of crack dealers who are armed and prepared to use their weapons.

And not live for very long is they started to user those weapons on the general public. If everyone in an area is hacked off with drug dealers they can't shoot everyone.

 

[poster342002]

And if the police DO deal with it and the dealers are all locked up, how long before more move into the area to replace them?

Suppose they dared to try and colonise a newly-liberated area where they were certainly not wanted by the community that was still glad to see the back of the last lot of dealers? Don't you think they'd worry they'd go the same way?

 

[kyser_soze]

@ Knopf

Not especially, it's more having travelled a lot and mixed with a wider social circle than most people here and seeing the same types of behaviour mirrored in all social contexts - self destructive behaviours, selfishness, bigotry, fear of 'them', resentment - if anything I've found that at the extremes of wealth the results of having too much money or too little have much the same impact on people, with having money simply meaning that the person has more opportunity to get themselves out of the situation. It still fucks people up one way or another, only the material benefits it brings make the fucking-up bit easier to deal with - or at least to hide.

 

[Jo/Joe]

You live in some kind of idealised fantasy land if you think that giving local communities of ANY kind legal power over themselves won't lead to vigilante justice

In some cases perhaps, but it isn't logical to assume that communities are incapable of holding this kind of power responsibly.