Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The police state is nearly here - Guardian

Tempt their market off the streets and into community-run spaces that the street-corner kids are involved in the running of, and are open 7 days a week ;)

Realistically, if I as a Citizen want to set something up, I need access to cash, and lots of it. People often know what they want, but don't know how to get it. I know there are grants available from the NOF (New Opportunities Fund) but realistically that takes 9 months to get hold of, and the business plan for it has to be spot on -with accounts projection for three years - firm details of how the project can be entirely self-funding after the first year, rent/electric/heating/water/council tax costs are a huge chunk of the budget - you have to have some idea of how much the building will cost to run and that means virtually having a building guaranteed for use before you have your first NOF consultant visit you. It's possible to cost in the renovation of the boarded-up council youth clubs, but they're not really fit for the purpose (as Reid would say), and this will eat into a large chunk of potential funding grant you'd use for kit. Really pushy types can get local business to sponsor the venture (hit all the HQ of the retail park businesses for donations to a skate-park next to the youth club, for example). It's a massive project, that can't just 'appear' overnight without masses of cash and lots of effort.

Dealing with the dealers? That aint so simple. I had a quiet word with the kids who were lured to them first - that depended on me witnessing the event - alot goes on out of sight of adults who are prepared or knowledgeable enough to avoid bullshitting or frightening the 'street corner-kids' - they need to be made wise, not driven into their arms. I told them straight - about what was in it (thanks to urban75, I knew!), and about why the dealer found it necessary to give them freebies in the hope that he might eventually make enough to fund his habit. I explained how his habit was like food to him - I asked them 'What is the first thing in the morning you want after you've been to the loo'. They laughed, and said the brandnames of various cereals. I replied - he wants a spliff like the rest of us want our breakfast in the morning, but instead of having a bowl of cereal or two, the more he smokes spliff, the more he wants, and it costs money, so he finds ways to fund his growing habit by selling it to you for more than he buys it, but he never actually makes any money, because his habit grows, and he goes out on the street looking for kids like you to sell it to.

I actually can't see any way to deal with it on the street other than showing neighbourhood concern for the kids on the street corners.

As for the street-dealer-twat on speed, I told my neighbour and she got the police involved - and we kept an eye out for the blue car, but it never visted that backwater again, whilst the kids kept hanging on the corner, so I presume the police got onto it.

Anarchist activists are not afraid to get their hands dirty and for the most part, we're socially & politically aware and we care enough to find grassroots solutions. The main problem with centralised govt. is that it stops listening to the Citizens who believed their election promises and voted them into power. They then cut off/close their ears to the grassroots, and reduce spending on society, and increase spending on thinktanks, corporate gadgets, new desks, new technology, etc "because a steering committee/thinktank suggested to them that would improve their ability to govern'. Like hell it will.

The Govt tends to prevent grassroots activists from influencing it's policies, and since it refuses to listen to it's Citizens, it loses the ear and the support of it's Citizens. It's not enough that the right-wing thinktanks are currently the dominant voice (or vice) in the ear of the present govt. - with their global security concerns and their covert sales of new toys for the boys. It's also not ok to close ears to what liberals and leftists have to say in favour domination by the right and the so-called 'centre' - a little bit of each has the some of the answer, and none are wholly correct.
 
treelover said:
Good thread this....

It is. Azrael has made some very good points, Luther others, and other people more.

I believe in absolute liberties: the moment they can take away and lock up anyone they can take and lock you up too.

But it is an obvious point that young people without money have nothing to do and nowhere to go except hang about the streets - unless they are hanging about the house, making their parents' lives a misery. It is also true that vast numbers of prisoners are mentally unbalanced, illiterate and unskilled addicts: capitalism is a machine for producing those. 'Feral' cats can hardly be blamed for being what they are - but I don't believe in 'feral' people - just in bullied, exploited, ignored and unloved ones who watch capitalist television and so on and nothing better.

People are terrified because the Bliaries spend a great deal of time and money on terrifying them. That is a political choice.

If we were allowed to make political choices for ourselves, we could deal with these matters. The current system prevents that - and it is that I see as the real problem.
 
Attica said:
Its bullshit to blame the 'liberals' - historically innacurate. The rule of law in Britain was built by capitalists and the aristocracy.
The rule of law predates capitalism by a good long while, and was hardly the child of the aristocracy. (Unless the likes of "freeborn John" and the jury in Bushell's Case all got peerages on the quiet.)

Liberal reformers promoted policies which changed our prisons from houses of correction to chaotic slums often ruled by violent inmates. They gained momentum after the government foolishly imprisoned conscientious objectors in the Great War. The 1922 report English Prisons Today, edited by Stephen Hobhouse and Fenner Brockway (imprisoned for refusing to serve in the trenches) was seminal.

It was also foolish modernises who removed beat policing. Read some history.
And there is a serious and fatal contradiction between 'democracy' and 'draconian police powers'...
We have a functioning democracy in the UK. The police have draconian powers. Contraction there is none.
and this is if you accept that the police are neutral in the first place [which they are clearly not e.g. in any crisis situation in history].
It's precisely because the police may not be neutral that I support extensive procedural safeguards.
Azzhol is a vicious and silly right winger....:D
Before you inflict any more of your Wildean wit on us, respecifying usernames is against the rules here.

If you've got nothing but childish insults and cackhanded respecifications to offer there's really not much point talking to you.
 
Luther Blissett said:
The Govt tends to prevent grassroots activists from influencing it's policies, and since it refuses to listen to it's Citizens, it loses the ear and the support of it's Citizens. It's not enough that the right-wing thinktanks are currently the dominant voice (or vice) in the ear of the present govt. - with their global security concerns and their covert sales of new toys for the boys. It's also not ok to close ears to what liberals and leftists have to say in favour domination by the right and the so-called 'centre' - a little bit of each has the some of the answer, and none are wholly correct.
It's certainly true that a certain type of right-wing thinking, fundamentalist neo-liberalism, is very influential with New Labour (although it's got far more to do with Hayek and 19th century laissez faire fundies that it does conservatism as known by Burke, Peel and Disraeli) but their "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" rhetoric is a fundamentally left-wing doctrine. (Albeit one twisted by a virulent strain of authoritarianism.) They're trying to use neo-liberalism as the means to a left-wing end: that's the idiocy of the "third way" for you.

If the government were truly "right-wing" they wouldn't detest capital punishment or reduce the time convicted criminals spend behind bars. This ridiculous "pre-cog" attempt to identify criminals from birth is rooted in the "background causes crime" argument.

I'm a conservative but I have nothing but contempt for Labour's remote and bureaucratic authoritarianism. I'd far rather local communities again felt empowered to confront thugs making like a misery for everyone else, and the courts and police welcomed, instead of punished, people who brought such people before them.
 
Darios said:
Azreal sees a solution primarily in the form of restructuring the current justice and policing system I see a solution primarily in a change of attitudes amongst the public and the empowering of individuals and communities to act in their own interests instead of waiting for "someone" to "do something about it".
I see a strong and fair criminal justice system as one element. An essential one, but not the whole picture. It could hold the line against ignorant, violent and cruel young felons (your description of incoherent thugs justifying themselves with "respect" and being a "gangasta" rings painfully true) while fractured and scared communities rebuilt themselves.

Odious as I find it, I must try to empathise with such people. "Civilised" methods are not going to work on them (at least, not initially) because they are not themselves "civilized". They operate on a primitive tribal morality (although that's unfair to the intricate social relations in many tribes) and skilfully manipulate the "poverty causes crime" arguments for all they're worth. One barrister told me that the worst part of his job was meeting his clients, because they'd tell him that "everything was going great before this happened", "this" being caught committing a crime. They all acted like they were victims, like their wrongdoing was some unwanted and inexplicable bit of ill-fortune that tumbled from the heavens. Complete denial of responsibility: the notion they were expected to act lawfully appeared entirely alien.

The knowledge that society will not tolerate their thuggery and will punish them severely at the first opportunity could scare off the hangers-on most effectively. Of course there should be provision to keep bored teenagers off the streets: but it shouldn't be seen as a catch-all solution. The likes of Zoe Williams must accept that discipline and punishment are a vital part in the process, something they patently do not do.
 
Azrael said:
The rule of law predates capitalism by a good long while, and was hardly the child of the aristocracy. (Unless the likes of "freeborn John" and the jury in Bushell's Case all got peerages on the quiet.)

It was also foolish modernises who removed beat policing. Read some history.

We have a functioning democracy in the UK. The police have draconian powers. Contraction there is none.

It's precisely because the police may not be neutral that I support extensive procedural safeguards.

Before you inflict any more of your Wildean wit on us, respecifying usernames is against the rules here.

If you've got nothing but childish insults and cackhanded respecifications to offer there's really not much point talking to you.

We have a democracy once every 5 years, for one day - the rest of the time we have 'elected dictatorship' (King Blair). Even the Chartists were more progressive than you, 165 years ago at least they wanted annual parliaments.
The police get round ALL safeguards and emergency powers anyway - they are not to be trusted full stop.

Yer right - there were great prisons in the 20th century. BUllshit.

I dunno what a 'functioning contraction' is but we have the police with considerable power and a total lack of control.

Anyway Azzhol - I promise not to call you Azzhol again. BUT i have no wish to engage you, such a prejeudiced right winger, with your selective history which chooses to emphasise rubbish and ignore the facts. Good bye. GOod riddance. Fuck off to your Spectator website.
 
Attica said:
We have a democracy once every 5 years, for one day - the rest of the time we have 'elected dictatorship' (King Blair). Even the Chartists were more progressive than you, 165 years ago at least they wanted annual parliaments.
Representative government, actually, "elected dictatorship" is an oxymoron. I've said nothing for or against the duration of our parliaments, so you haven't a clue how "progressive" I am.

Assuming we had pure democracy, all the draconian policies I listed would, in all likelihood, already be passed. Which helps my argument, not yours. (Whatever that may be, it's hard to distil coherent points from the general abuse.)
The police get round ALL safeguards and emergency powers anyway - they are not to be trusted full stop.
*Sigh* Yes, I agree we shouldn't rely on "trust", but on oversight. (As for the police "getting round ALL safeguards", that's complete fantasy. Their inability to charge criminals promptly is causing half the problems.)
Yer right - there were great prisons in the 20th century. BUllshit.
Oh yes, winning retort that.
I dunno what a 'functioning contraction' is but we have the police with considerable power and a total lack of control.
Erm, yes, I know they have too much power (although "total lack of control" is again fantasy), I've been arguing they should have less. Do keep up.
Anyway Azzhol - I promise not to call you Azzhol again. BUT i have no wish to engage you, such a prejeudiced right winger, with your selective history which chooses to emphasise rubbish and ignore the facts. Good bye. GOod riddance. Fuck off to your Spectator website.
What "facts"? You've certainly presented none amidst the pisshead-standard of abuse permeating your replies.

"Prejudice: an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason." Sums up your general tone very nicely.
 
I'll come back to kids-on-streets later.
Let's return to this:
The ejection of Walter Wolfgang is just the latest example of the government's policy on dissident voices. Despite government assurances, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, along with numerous others, have been used largely to persecute peaceful protesters. When the Prevention of Terrorism Act was passed, who could have foreseen that it would one day be used to prevent a pensioner from re-entering his own party conference?
Keith Taylor
Principal speaker, Green party
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour2005/story/0,,1582596,00.html
 
Yes, well, that's one of many reasons why these excessive and vague laws should be repealed.

Another is that they inadvertently glamourise what terrorists do, and gives them an over-inflated sense of importance. If you're so dangerous a government must shred civil liberties and deploy draconian powers against you, then you're clearly making an impact.

If, on the other hand, a terrorist is arrested under the ordinary law and treated like the common criminal they are, it'll can only help to puncture their delusions of grandeur.

But no, let's instead wallow in dangerous and unjust powers and confirm genuine terrorists' every deluded fantasy.
 
:rolleyes: Asshole


Look - I do not mind debating with those with open minds, vaguely left or liberal either. But this guy is a waste of time right winger - fuk him.
 
Attica said:
:rolleyes: Asshole


Look - I do not mind debating with those with open minds, vaguely left or liberal either. But this guy is a waste of time right winger - fuk him.
So you don't mind debating with people so long as they vaguely agree with you. If not you ignore their points and shout personal abuse. What a tolerant chappie.

What was it you were saying about prejudice, again ...?

If you don't want to debate with me, fine, don't debate with me. I assure you I'll survive the loss. How about not derailing someone else's thread in the process. There's a good fellow.
 
Oh yes, and anyone who wants the terrorism laws repealed is an "asshole"?

How very right wing of you, Attica!
 
Azrael said:
So you don't mind debating with people so long as they vaguely agree with you. If not you ignore their points and shout personal abuse. What a tolerant chappie.

What was it you were saying about prejudice, again ...?

If you don't want to debate with me, fine, don't debate with me. I assure you I'll survive the loss. How about not derailing someone else's thread in the process. There's a good fellow.

FUck off asshole. No, most people (left/liberal) do not agree with me, of that I am well aware. There is a vast difference between those positions and Marxism/Anarchism. I am tolerant but not of right wing wankers like you - you're either a public schoolie or went to a posh uni where they taught you that crap - it's certainly not your own work. You see I recognise right wing crap when I read it:D

I tolerate anything, except right wing wankers like you:D I would rather debate with the BNP than you as well:eek: :p As for the thread - it IS mine you Asshole - I started it:D Go look... and then fuck off.
 
Attica said:
...
you're either a public schoolie or went to a posh uni where they taught you that crap - it's certainly not your own work. You see I recognise right wing crap when I read it:D
...
As compared to left wingers who all came to their views completely independently...
 
Attica said:
FUck off asshole. No, most people (left/liberal) do not agree with me, of that I am well aware. There is a vast difference between those positions and Marxism/Anarchism. I am tolerant but not of right wing wankers like you - you're either a public schoolie or went to a posh uni where they taught you that crap - it's certainly not your own work. You see I recognise right wing crap when I read it:D

I tolerate anything, except right wing wankers like you:D I would rather debate with the BNP than you as well:eek: :p As for the thread - it IS mine you Asshole - I started it:D Go look... and then fuck off.
Ah, so it is. Excuse me, I didn't think that anyone would be so stupid as to kick off in their own thread. Live and learn (or in your case, live).

Come and tell the working class how anyone who supports an effective justice system is a wanker. What a welcome you'll get. And you'll be delighted to know that the vast majority of people at "posh unis" would be nodding along to your views.

Respect, chinless, respect!
 
Closest I've been to a public school was a day trip to Windsor.

If I'd crossed the river I've have seen you in prep, offering up favours for the next recycled slogan. Hope you had a decent fag-master chinless.

Up the workers eh chinless ... so long as they hug a hoodie and get orf your land.
 
I've known for as long as you've been posting that you are a bit of a berk, Attica - but you're usually just a comic berk. Your daft abuse of Azrael shows you've taken a turn for the worse.
 
JHE said:
I've known for as long as you've been posting that you are a bit of a berk, Attica - but you're usually just a comic berk. Your daft abuse of Azrael shows you've taken a turn for the worse.

Sorry JHE but I can't be bothered with him - its just right wing shite... Daft abuse it maybe but he's still an asshole.:D
 
eton-boys.jpg


Chinless bigs it up for the workers!
 
While I seek out that aristocratic lineage, how about you get over your debagging by the Bullingdon club. No shame mate, that quarter shandy could have floored anyone. Worry not, you'll be a Bullingdon Man soon enough. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom