The good news is that the streets of London, Manchester and everywhere else effected by the atrocities last week have been riot-free for almost a week. The football matches which took place apart from the Tottenham v Everton encounter have been peaceful giving the police and stewards easier time this weekend compared to the last. Over a thousand people have been arrested, convicted or remanded in custody over the ordeal and the Metropolitan Police have seemingly got everything under control, which is pleasing.
Is this time to celebrate? Perhaps. The riots appear to be over, or at least the worse of it's gone (without jinxing anything) and the perpetrators are getting locked up for their wrongdoings.
I'm not celebrating as there is another mini riot occurring - at the House of Commons. I read The Independent this morning and the front page quoted David Cameron and Ed Miliband who are simply pointing fingers blaming anyone but themselves that the riots happened. Cameron said "children without fathers and schools without discipline" are the reasons why places in England will never look the same again while Miliband blame the series of events on "bankers and MPs for failing to set a better example for society".
I'm going to analyse David Cameron's comments first as to me, I found it a little personal. Before I moved to University two years ago, I would have been classed as living at a "Lone mother family" home, according to statistics. My parents were divorced since I was very young and, although I do see my father occasionally, I would be classed as a child without a father, if that's what Cameron meant by "children without fathers".
Before I go off on one, let's look at the statistics. In a divorce settlement in the UK, around 90% of mothers keep their children with the father having the option to be the "secondary carer" (like my father) and get to see and support their child. 3.8million young people with ages ranging from baby to teenage years are living with a single parent - some of which are living with a step-parent. So let's calculate the two statistics together - 90% of 3.8m is 3.42m meaning Cameron is blaming on the horrific events on so many people instead of blaming the riots on himself and the lack of judgement by the government.
I didn't mind if he said that a small number of "children without fathers" have done a lot of damage to London, Manchester, etc. but he uses the word "blame". Little did he realise is that some of the rioters maybe fathers themselves taking expensive items back home for the whole family to enjoy. Maybe some of the rioters are youth who live with only their fathers? Cameron's words are full of assumptions and he gives his people very little credit for what they do. I know "children without fathers" and they are doing very well for themselves, making a living and being a benefit to society. How about the people who Cameron may have heard of himself such as Lance Armstrong, Mary J. Blige, Orlando Bloom, Mariah Carey, Eric Clapton, Bill Clinton, Jamie Foxx, Jay Z, Jet Li, Marilyn Munroe, Jack Nicholson. Even Barack Obama. All of these actors, singers, politicians, sports stars either never knew their father, were abandoned or lost their dads tragically. Look where they are/were now. Inspiration set of people, don't you think? They are under Cameron's category of "children without fathers", the type of people our Prime Minister reckons are to blame for riots.
David Cameron also point fingers on schools without discipline. The education system, to me has failed a long, long time ago and every government haven't mastered this as there is a big difference between the "better" schools and the "worse off" schools. Like the rich and poor gap, the gap between the higher achieving schools and lower achieving schools is too large. If Cameron does blame the riots on schools, then it's up to him and Michael Gove (Education Minister) to change the system. They have messed up the Universities with the rapidly rising tuition fees, but now it's the young children they have to try and inspire. The schools don't necessarily raise the children, the children are the one who have to adapt with the schools.
OK, now Ed Miliband's quotes. He blames the riots, according to The Independent's front page on "bankers and MPs for failing to set a better example for society". I agree with him on the MP part. People now have been more connected with politics than in previous decades and we look up to them as people who guide the country to different corners. The riots to send out a message to politicians that they must put their people first in order to make people happy - another "pledge" Cameron wanted to put into force (happy index).
Are the bankers primarily to blame? They do have a tendency to manipulate their clients in getting to increasing amount of debt with the magic of loans but I doubt that Ed was finger pointing at petty staff members. I'm sure he's blaming the riots on those who get millions of pounds of bonuses every Christmas. The latter I must say was Labour's responsibility when they were in power because bankers were given far too much freedom, hence the recession. But the first point maybe valid. People can be easily manipulated by bankers because they are shown as the "trusted ones" when it comes to our finances so if we do get involved in a bank loan, we're in trouble.
Ed does offer valid points but I don't like the blame game the politicians are playing as The Independent's page five suggests. Cameron has been squabbling with the likes of Boris Johnson, Nick Clegg, Theresa May and the Met Police about cutting police numbers recently and on plans to bring in directly elected police commissioners. Those mentioned plus Iain Duncan Smith (Work and Pensions Secretary) have been involved in heated discussions about the situation yet no real eye-grabbing actions have been taken.
Whatever happens in Britain will reflect on the government, it applies with every country. The people who died while protesting in Cairo, Egypt earlier this year reflects on then President Hosni Mubarak and his government, hence why he's currently on trail. Same applies with Libya and Muammar Gaddafi and everywhere else. Cameron has failed to apologise to the public over the ordeal which is frustrating because saying "sorry" is a word for true and honest people.
Jens Stoltenberg, Norway's Prime Minister didn't need to apologise about Anders Breivik's attacks on July 22, instead he acted on it, as there is a greater deal of democracy, openness and humanity in the Norwegian political system. He didn't blame anyone, he just led a country toward a better society, a secure society.
Why can't Cameron do that? He added more police officers to watch the streets which proved too late and says that the current society is "sick". His society, the "Big Society" he boasts about. He doesn't want to admit his plans have failed and instead taking a snipe at people who don't have fathers as the main carer.
Is this time to celebrate? Perhaps. The riots appear to be over, or at least the worse of it's gone (without jinxing anything) and the perpetrators are getting locked up for their wrongdoings.
I'm not celebrating as there is another mini riot occurring - at the House of Commons. I read The Independent this morning and the front page quoted David Cameron and Ed Miliband who are simply pointing fingers blaming anyone but themselves that the riots happened. Cameron said "children without fathers and schools without discipline" are the reasons why places in England will never look the same again while Miliband blame the series of events on "bankers and MPs for failing to set a better example for society".
I'm going to analyse David Cameron's comments first as to me, I found it a little personal. Before I moved to University two years ago, I would have been classed as living at a "Lone mother family" home, according to statistics. My parents were divorced since I was very young and, although I do see my father occasionally, I would be classed as a child without a father, if that's what Cameron meant by "children without fathers".
Before I go off on one, let's look at the statistics. In a divorce settlement in the UK, around 90% of mothers keep their children with the father having the option to be the "secondary carer" (like my father) and get to see and support their child. 3.8million young people with ages ranging from baby to teenage years are living with a single parent - some of which are living with a step-parent. So let's calculate the two statistics together - 90% of 3.8m is 3.42m meaning Cameron is blaming on the horrific events on so many people instead of blaming the riots on himself and the lack of judgement by the government.
I didn't mind if he said that a small number of "children without fathers" have done a lot of damage to London, Manchester, etc. but he uses the word "blame". Little did he realise is that some of the rioters maybe fathers themselves taking expensive items back home for the whole family to enjoy. Maybe some of the rioters are youth who live with only their fathers? Cameron's words are full of assumptions and he gives his people very little credit for what they do. I know "children without fathers" and they are doing very well for themselves, making a living and being a benefit to society. How about the people who Cameron may have heard of himself such as Lance Armstrong, Mary J. Blige, Orlando Bloom, Mariah Carey, Eric Clapton, Bill Clinton, Jamie Foxx, Jay Z, Jet Li, Marilyn Munroe, Jack Nicholson. Even Barack Obama. All of these actors, singers, politicians, sports stars either never knew their father, were abandoned or lost their dads tragically. Look where they are/were now. Inspiration set of people, don't you think? They are under Cameron's category of "children without fathers", the type of people our Prime Minister reckons are to blame for riots.
David Cameron also point fingers on schools without discipline. The education system, to me has failed a long, long time ago and every government haven't mastered this as there is a big difference between the "better" schools and the "worse off" schools. Like the rich and poor gap, the gap between the higher achieving schools and lower achieving schools is too large. If Cameron does blame the riots on schools, then it's up to him and Michael Gove (Education Minister) to change the system. They have messed up the Universities with the rapidly rising tuition fees, but now it's the young children they have to try and inspire. The schools don't necessarily raise the children, the children are the one who have to adapt with the schools.
OK, now Ed Miliband's quotes. He blames the riots, according to The Independent's front page on "bankers and MPs for failing to set a better example for society". I agree with him on the MP part. People now have been more connected with politics than in previous decades and we look up to them as people who guide the country to different corners. The riots to send out a message to politicians that they must put their people first in order to make people happy - another "pledge" Cameron wanted to put into force (happy index).
Are the bankers primarily to blame? They do have a tendency to manipulate their clients in getting to increasing amount of debt with the magic of loans but I doubt that Ed was finger pointing at petty staff members. I'm sure he's blaming the riots on those who get millions of pounds of bonuses every Christmas. The latter I must say was Labour's responsibility when they were in power because bankers were given far too much freedom, hence the recession. But the first point maybe valid. People can be easily manipulated by bankers because they are shown as the "trusted ones" when it comes to our finances so if we do get involved in a bank loan, we're in trouble.
Ed does offer valid points but I don't like the blame game the politicians are playing as The Independent's page five suggests. Cameron has been squabbling with the likes of Boris Johnson, Nick Clegg, Theresa May and the Met Police about cutting police numbers recently and on plans to bring in directly elected police commissioners. Those mentioned plus Iain Duncan Smith (Work and Pensions Secretary) have been involved in heated discussions about the situation yet no real eye-grabbing actions have been taken.
Whatever happens in Britain will reflect on the government, it applies with every country. The people who died while protesting in Cairo, Egypt earlier this year reflects on then President Hosni Mubarak and his government, hence why he's currently on trail. Same applies with Libya and Muammar Gaddafi and everywhere else. Cameron has failed to apologise to the public over the ordeal which is frustrating because saying "sorry" is a word for true and honest people.
Jens Stoltenberg, Norway's Prime Minister didn't need to apologise about Anders Breivik's attacks on July 22, instead he acted on it, as there is a greater deal of democracy, openness and humanity in the Norwegian political system. He didn't blame anyone, he just led a country toward a better society, a secure society.
Why can't Cameron do that? He added more police officers to watch the streets which proved too late and says that the current society is "sick". His society, the "Big Society" he boasts about. He doesn't want to admit his plans have failed and instead taking a snipe at people who don't have fathers as the main carer.
Hey John, I have to say that I completely agree with your insight regarding the assumptions made by David Cameron on children brought up without fathers.
ReplyDeleteI think he could have worded it "broken families" as to me, that implies bad families, ones that do not care where their children are at night.
Ed Miliband, unfortunately, doesn't have a great deal of awareness to this situation in my opinion. Regarding his statement on the bankers not setting the right example, he would have been correct if these riots were nation-wide and had people clearly labled with a message on the streets with their displeasement with how the bankers are doing things. That would be extreme protesting, we did not see that happen.
In my own view, what I saw happen was opportunistic people of varying backgrounds, although mainly people in the late teens to mid twnties age bracket getting involved in the riots and looting.
Why did this happen?
We could analyse in too much detail, and that is the mistake that I believe that is part of the mistake being made now. I'm glad that government is taking time to discuss it seriously but the events seem clear to me (although I acknowledge that my own opinion may not be correct):
After the shooting of Mark Duggan by police, no representative / high ranking authority of the police force stepped forward to talk with the family of that boy. Thus encouraging them to protest (and rightly so).
Since there were a few people (I presume, within his gang / a friendly gang) who felt even more angry about his death, they began rioting. This was not contained effectively by police and in some cases there was no police presence.
Without the law being enforced, it will encourage others to question their morality and some would disregard it, even if only for that occasion (as seen in the trials, people have clearly been remouseful and regretful).
And finally, as the chaos ensued, the police reaction was tame to begin with (as many of our leading politians were away on holiday). I am not blaming -them- as there was a chain of command still running the country, where were they?
With police being cautious to avoid a similar incident to the G20 protests where a man was killed, I think all of these incidents build up a profile of what happened.
It wasn't one cause, but a chain of cause and effect, and for every new cause, the effect is far worse every time.
Just want to add, as I don't want to distract from your blog John, thanks for putting up hot topics like these! It's great to hear your thoughts on them and be able to discuss them somewhat too. :-)