Regarding London riots & rioters: Which lie is true?

Enroute home this evening, I noticed that one of the daily papers citing a 'fact' that London rioters had originated from 44 separate countries. In contrast, the Evening Standard had an article stating that 'half of the juveniles arrested during the summer riots were educational failures who had not mastered the basics by the age of 11'. Of course, it is of my opinion that when children are educational failures, the failing is largely on the part of the educational system rather than the individual. Yet I digress...

Moving on, further into the paper, there is a article regarding an alleged theft by Peaches Geldof from Boots, entitled 'We take because we can'. One wonders whether she will face any privation in punishment for her behaviour; or whether, because she can pay for the items, she will face no punishment at all.

Which leads to the title of my blog - Which lie is true? Despite the innumerable reasons why the rioters might have chosen to pursue the behaviours which we observed on TV, what I find of greatest importance is what is being done to prevent recurrences? And although in some cases, severe punishment is clearly warranted, I wonder whether vengeful justice and extensive imprisonment leans more towards problem than solution. Is this harsh justice simply a 'sweeping under the carpet' knee-jerk reaction? And who will be in power when the offenders are released back into the system?

If the rioters should be punished for their behaviours which have harmed all of society, then should the same not also be true of our leaders? How much wiser would political decisions be if politicians were held accountable for the decisions which they made whilst in power? The capitalist system appears to be founded upon economic separation which might work when transition between social echelons is safely within reach within a given lifespan. When the gap widens to a degree when this is no longer achievable, but it formerly was, society is broken. And increasingly I wonder which is more broken, the criminals whose behaviour reviles us such as during the London riots, or our leaders whose focus appears to be on sweeping the problems under the carpet rather than addressing the core problems and finding solutions?

Brian Coleman, politics, twitter & accountability

I was going to tweet: 'Is Brian Coleman a 20th century Marie Antoinette? Off with his head!', but then I remembered the case against Paul Chambers who received a £1000 fine and a criminal record for a sarcastic tweet and I decided to compose a blog post instead. So just for absolute clarity: this quip was intended solely as a humourous jest reflecting the ignorance and distance which separates the political elite from the 99% of the masses. Based on an alleged historical quote stated by Marie Antoinette dating to the French revolution; the beheading reference reflects the use of the guillotine dating to that historical period and certainly not some malign intent on the authors behalf. I abhor violence and merely wish to express my shock and disbelief at the behaviour of an MP. Although in light of the expenses scandal and the ongoing fallout, perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised.

This BBC links to some details regarding this story should you be intrigued: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11742182

However, although I read the story in the evening news, I find myself feeling increasingly angry about this comment. Briefly, Brian Coleman, a Barnet councillor on a salary of £120,000/yr responded to a query from one of his constituents, with a tirade of blind stupidity which beggars belief. His constituent, a part-time student with a disadvantaged child who had asked for assistance regarding housing when her private landlord increased her rent from £950 to £1100. In response, Mr Coleman made numerous noteworthy quotes:

'I am afraid you have to live in the real world where the country has no money and residents will have to deal with their own issues rather than expecting the system to sort their lives out. This correspondence is now closed.'
After being challenged regarding the lack of empathy in his response, he is also quoted as having said
'Lack of empathy???? Councillors simply cannot conjure housing out of this air and the private sector is your only option. That is a fact.'
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24000058-pound-120000-a-year-tory-tells-desperate-mother-to-live-in-real-world.do


I find these responses the political equivalent of a defence lawyer stating to their client: 'If you can't do the time, don't do the crime', a Dr. saying to a cancer patient 'Perhaps you should have taken more time to consider the consequences of smoking, sucks to be you', or a Priest stating to a parishioner 'AIDS is God's punishment for your homosexuality'. Of course the difference is that I can imagine consequences for all three of these examples, whereas I somehow doubt the repercussions to Brian Coleman will extend much beyond a brief and transient public lambasting in the press.

And I can certainly empathise for Ms Osman. As a private tenant myself, I am constantly awaiting the same axe to fall on myself. As it happens, this was ultimately the initial incentive behind this blog. I already work as many hours as humanly possible and as my career choice will never lead to high earnings, although I maintain that my choice is correct as I believe what I am doing is of lasting benefit to more than just myself. Therefore, I started the blog to condemn social injustices and argue politics, with Adsense adverts dotted around the sides of the blog as a potential source of income. In theory, if people click on the adverts, I will allegedly make some money. Fortunately I wasn't expecting much; this was more of an optimistic daydream much the way you enter contests to win trips or gadgets but of course you never do. Nor does anyone you know. Or at least this is my experience but perhaps there are those who have actually won random contests. Either way, I will continue to be optimistic, or idealistic, I'll leave the decision to you dear reader.

As it happens, most of my early blog posts involved railing against the bankers in light of the economic disaster. Turns out that Google selects words from your blog to define the 'likely' target audience for the adverts it posts, hence many of the adverts relate to banking and finance. Sadly I am still attempting to see the humour in the irony. It's not as though I am affluent. After rent, bills and food, there simply isn't more money to be had, so payday is a rather short trip. And I suspect that my colleagues view me as anti-social as I rarely, if ever, socialise, although I still find this preferable to the loss of pride should they know the truth, which they probably have deduced but are socially capable of not making this an issue. It is clearly fortunate that I do not work with Brian Coleman.

And I am quite certain I represent the norm, not the minority. The '99%' whose voice seems to grow stronger by the day. I can't recall the exact phrase, but hopefully the following roughly paraphrases a line from the Handmaids tale by Margaret Atwood: 'Better never means better for everyone, better only ever means better for some'. Times are getting harder and greed is insatiable and it seems that current political changes offer no benefit for the masses but seem to protect the rich. This does not bode well for the future. Let's hope that Brian Coleman's colleagues choose to send a strong message to him the way they have for Paul Chambers, Edward Woollard and the London rioters. Accountability for actions should be equal across society, not dictated by affluence, as always I remain optimistic for an appropriate result, but will likely have to settle for disappointment.

Has David Cameron lost the plot or was he simply not following the story?

First Cameron attempts to rail at the British public to pay off their outstanding debt. Then he's swiftly advised not to accelerate the economic slowdown by his adviser's so he recants. All the while ignoring that in the interim the banks have been raking in gobs of cash from the public by refusing to pass on the benefits of lowered Bank of England rates.

If parliament could impose this as a requirement by British banks, public spending could be maintained in addition to assisting the general public to reduce their personal debt. Two birds, one stone.

So now Britain is facing even harder times whilst our glorious leader appears to remain utterly baffled by both the current problems and a plausible strategy for the future. Two stones but no birds...

 Please David, try to focus and not be a 21st century Marie Antoinette.