Parents

At the end of August in 1997, I was on a cringe-worthy Californian self-development course in London.  (It was actually very good - but I'm half-English, and we don't do emotions and talking about them terribly well, so let's just call it that.)

Spilling my Guts

Anyway, during the course we did a unit on our parents.  It essentially said we owed everything to them: literally we wouldn't be on Earth if it weren't for them.  Of course our relationship with our parents, for most of us, also tends to be one of the most screwed up of them all.  I listened intently.  It all made good sense: yes, we had to tell them we love them - unconditionally - for who they were, not for who we wanted them to be.  Yadda, yadda.  (Editor's note: this *cannot* excuse their reading the Daily Mail - there must be some limits, obvs.)  Yup, I got it all.  Fine, next point?

Then up came the assignment.  Gosh, we actually had to go and call them and tell them that we loved them.  Eww - I mean, seriously?  Of course my parents knew I loved them.  It's part of the deal that everyone knows that, but most people don't say it, right?  I mean, c'mon.

Peter is ultimately a good boy, though, so off he trotted with - some apprehension -  to do the exercise.  Who should answer the phone - not Mutti, but my Father.  He immediately said "Do you want to speak to your Mother?"  I always did, let's face it: interactions with Dad were generally restricted to a "How are you? Fine".  He was an army man, for god's sake!

But I replied "No, Dad, I'd like to talk to you."  I proceeded to tell him over the space of 15 minutes what he meant to me.  I've no idea where it all came from.  I said that actually he was the one who encouraged me the most at school, not my mother.  He had bought me Lady Bird history books (Queen Victoria was my fave by the way: she rocked!).  He had taught me how to swim, how to tie my laces, how to read a clock.  He had given me £10 per O level and £100 per A level passed; and we weren't that well off.  I said that I thought he unfairly put himself down, and that I always related to him as being incredibly bright.  I wouldn't have got into Cambridge without his encouragement, or had the job I now did.  I went on and on.  I told him I loved him - straight out, just like that.

Fine, Noted

At the end of the call, Dad simply said "Fine, noted....  Your mother and I are off with the caravan at the weekend to the New Forest..."  I felt my blood pressure rising.  I'd just spilled me sodding guts (and I always wear nice shoes: messy :s ) and his reaction was "Fine, noted?"  Couldn't he show some emotion back for once and tell me he loved me or something similar?  Hadn't I just pressed the magic button to change and deepen our relationship forever?  FFS.

Then I stopped myself.  Hmm, wasn't there something about loving them unconditionally?  Not for how I wanted him to react or to be?  The penny dropped.  I tried to listen to what he was saying; I actually did listen and had a nice conversation about the caravan and about the dog.  It wasn't what I had wanted, but it was actually lovely.

In March 2000 I paid for both of my parents to come over Bermuda where I was living and working on a case.  We had the most fabulous time: it was perfect.  I could now afford to return a favour and show them a great time for once.  Mutti hadn't wanted to go up the lighthouse: my Father said "no come on, we'll never know if we'll be back."  2 weeks later Dad was out training for the London Marathon: running was what he lived for.  He had run 5 marathons in one year alone.  I was sitting in my office in Hamilton when I got the call from my brother Alan: Dad had a massive heart-attack and died before the ambulance arrived, aged 60. 

That Conversation

In the time that followed we obviously talked about things amongst the family.  I asked Mutti if Dad had ever mentioned the conversation we'd had.  She looked at me and said "I knew your father since 1963.  I saw him cry twice: once when Davy [our collie] died; and once when he came off that call with you."  Do you have any idea how precious that fact is to me?

I had told him I loved him all because of some ghastly American self-development course.  I would have left it unsaid in that terribly English way, and never have got the chance.  But I'd done it - and - I will have that knowledge with me forever.  I've since done the same with Mutti, and continue to do so.

Do something amazing tonight.  Don't just read this and think "Aww isn't that sweet" or alternatively "Oooh that Peter's a soft head".  Phone up your parents if you're lucky to have them.  Particularly if it's awkward and this is the type of thing you'd never do.  Tell them you love them and why.  Please don't put it off.

Dad running the Berlin Marathon, 1999

Color

On a simple evening stroll through our Skuggahverfi this amazing collaboration of colors made my day. I've been on a little late summer hiatus, but will continue bringing you more scenes from our pretty little city as we stretch into autumn. This, by the way, is my 596th post! Hard for me to believe...

A Fake Belief

Lord Credo (@lord_credo)  is well known to those interested in politics on Twitter.  He described himself as "a government Tory communications guy" on his profile; now he says he's a "former govt comms guy".  He has 4400 followers and is in the top 10 "House of Twits" favourite political tweeters currently.

In brief this is the picture of how he has portrayed of himself (note he did not say this to everyone, or all at once - he was too clever for that and it's what I have pieced together):

- He was David Cameron's personal advisor and representative
- He reported only and personally to David Cameron and the Chief Whip
- Only the Chief Whip and his "good friend" William Hague knew his identity online
- He was on the same level with Andy Coulson, was offered his job, but refused it
- He previously worked for the Canadian PM and was personally head-hunted to work for ours
- Somehow, however, he also fitted in working for the Archbishop of Canterbury in comms
- He had read theology, trained as a priest, worked as a policeman briefly in Ontario, then as a pilot, before going into politics/ communications. He suffers from MS.

Just to be clear, the "Lord" title has always been a joke - he and a couple of others took the title at the time of one of the Honours Lists.  Before that he was just "The_Credo".  I don't think anyone ever took the Lord title to be a real thing.

Credo resigned his job for David Cameron in May, but is currently on gardening leave.  This was because of a personal falling out, even though the Prime Minister has apparently called him and begged him to return to his job.  It coincides with the diagnosis of a brain tumour (more on this later).

Credo's "offline" name is Mike Paterson.  He has always taken pains to protect his identity, because he is so "high level".  I did hear him give this name, however, in my presence to officers of the Essex Constabulary in May 2011.

Emperor's New Clothes

I had huge doubts Credo could possibly be who he said he was quite early on.  Many of us did; how could anyone be tweeting as much as he did in a job so high level, and be so indiscreet about government goings on.  However, we met and he seemed genuine. Very likeable in fact.

Moreover I met him the presence of a BBC chap (who is real) and two people who work in the Commons (who are also real).  I saw him talking online to people like Sally Bercow (I was in Hampshire hotel lobby with him when her name flashed up on his mobile).  I'd been to drinks with him and the infamous undercover blogger and real life journalist Fleet Street Fox.  More recently he's been talking openly to Louise Mensch MP: people see this, they see his profile bio, and don't think any thing more than "he must be real".

Indeed, the Huffington Post ran an interview (click on link) with "Credo" on 3 August 2011 as one of top four "Tories who tweet anonymously".  In this he speaks with extreme self-assurance about his top position.  The journalists involved clearly did not bother to delve too much further into his actual identity.

Remember the Hans Christian Andersen Story? Everyone in the crowd looks on at the Emperor who is not wearing anything.  Because everyone thinks everyone else can see the lovely clothes, not a soul says a thing.  Credo didn't ever turn up in nice clothes though - he wore the same threadbare ill-fitting jacket every time I saw him, coming from "work" or from home, clutching a dirty worn out BBC bag.  But none of us was the little boy in the crowd who shouted out "he's naked!"

Abuse of Friendship

Credo weaseled his way into my group of friends.  He and his girlfriend spent the entire summer staying with various of them, moving from house to house, apparently because his house in Sussex had sold and a new purchase had fallen through.  The longest was 8 weeks with a lovely woman, from whom he "borrowed" money and didn't pay a penny in food contributions, towards utilities or the huge phone bill he ran up.  He also borrowed cash from another friend on Twitter.  It was a standing joke that Credo would come along to drinks and forget his wallet.  He has asked all of us to put him up at one time another; more recently there have been requests for money.

When he was "diagnosed" with cancer - a malignant brain tumour - we were all extremely concerned.  He announced it online: his follower count shot up.  Offers of support and help poured in.  He told us his wife, from whom he was estranged, had suddenly committed suicide in Sydney just before their divorce was finalised.  She was a medical doctor and knew which pills to take.  As a result of the divorce however, all his accounts were frozen.  The latest was that he was expecting a cheque for hundreds of thousands of pounds from the estate - but somehow it never arrived.  Credo's cancer fortunately disappeared amazingly rapidly; when I saw him I couldn't believe how well he looked.  It was almost as if he had never had it... 

I'd had a former Lib Dem friend who had constantly doubted Credo could be who he said he was.  He had worked at the House of Commons and rationally set out his doubts.  I simply refused to believe it.  I liked Mike and yes some of these things were a bit odd.  When he claimed to have been instrumental in bringing Andy Coulson down and presented him with damning evidence - well it was brushed off as Credo blowing his own trumpet.  The epic 48 hour drive he made to Scotland at Christmas just didn't seem real; the time he was in Amsterdam and crossing areas on foot faster than a gazelle (at around 18 stone, Mike is NO gazelle) didn't quite add up.  The sheer amount of drama and chaos going on in one person's life - from his mother having a stroke, then breast cancer, then a heart-by pass... through to the dead wife.  It just didn't seem plausible.  But my friends knew him and "proper" people were talking to him online.

Rumbled

Then he came up to my home in Suffolk last week. He was showing off about having picked up "1000 followers during the riots".  It seemed to all be going to his head.  I'd unfortunately seen this before (click on link: a fake QC, much less high profile).  Mike offered to invest £250,000 in my business project.  He failed to recognise a very well known Henry Mee portrait at a friend's house - its twin is hanging at Portcullis House - and seemed embarrassed.  He failed to answer an email about the investment.  He claimed his phone had been switched off for 24 hours (given the PM calls him night and day this seemed unlikely).  He made a big show of his having poured wine over his laptop - a reason he hadn't answered my email perhaps?  I'm not Miss Marple, but alarm bells were ringing and this made me want to talk to people.

So those of us who knew him started talking to one another.  It's not easy if you're wrong to be going out there and doubting every thing about a friend, to your mutual friends.  Through a contact, David Cameron's Deputy Chief of Staff confirmed no one had knowledge of a Michael Paterson who had ever worked for the Prime Minister.  I got in touch with the people I'd seen him with at pubs in Whitehall: no one had actually checked him out.  When he boasted he'd had "top level background checks" I asked the person who apparently had carried them out.  He hadn't.

I also spoke to @markstamps - a good friend on Twitter and one of our circle of friends.  Now the whole thing really came crashing down.  Whilst Mike was enjoying the free hospitality of another friend, he'd carelessly left his passport lying around.  His name wasn't Mike Paterson - it was in fact Michael Gordon Bracci.  A couple of photocopies were taken, just in case.  Why would he be lying about his name to us all? Mark had asked an official contact to do some checks.  Mark had been doing a lot of work building up a dossier without any of us knowing.  No one with those names had any form of House of Commons clearance.

Religious Right Alert

It doesn't take much to do some Internet searches.  Michael Gordon Bracci is the real name of another alias Credo has used: Mike Daley.  He appears on the "Religious Right Alert" website as a "notorious and self-pronounced 'shit disturber' on the Canadian Anglican Right".  He seems to be some relatively low-level character who sets up cyber squats and was pushing for the schism of the Anglican Church in North America over gay and women's rights through a body called the "Cranmer Foundation" (of which he was the sole director). He moved to London in 2009 and suffers from MS.

Mike is still married.  His wife is not a dead medical doctor in Sydney, but in fact teaches philosophy at an American university.  She is a former evangelical Christian, turned traditionalist.  From what I can see on line she appears to be very much alive.  She did grow up in the Black Forest, which he had mentioned a couple of times to me about his "late wife".  She talks in one Canadian magazine interview about their traditional marriage and how her husband Mike has moved to London for a job in PR, but that they make things work.  I've no idea if she knows about his now girlfriend and how that fits in exactly with this viewpoint.

Conclusions

Well, Credo is a fake.  He's a confidence trickster, he's pulled the wool over the eyes of many people and he's been left to do it by the actual Downing Street communications team.  Did no one there think to check out and stop someone so well known on Twitter in political circles, who claimed to be so high level?  Instead MPs were happily chatting to him in public.

He's taken hospitality and money from friends of mine.  According to his passport he has no residency or work permit to be in this country.  He has weaseled his way in to a group of people - including gays and lesbians - even though he is a traditionalist Christian and has worked to further Church homophobia.  He has spoken positively about people I know from the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement - but whom he must actually know from the bitter "other side of the fence".

He's currently - apparently - back in Canada, where his mother died unexpectedly just a few hours after his arrival.  His response to the hundreds of messages of sympathy and all the attention on Twitter was "wow, thanks everybody."  Michael Gordon Bracci been building up a totally false identity for himself and thriving off the attention he's been getting.  His motivation? Well in his own words "I struggle with self-esteem and depression and invent elaborate fantasies to cope with the depression and anxiety" [sent to me by IM by him at 16.49 after this was originally posted].

How do I feel? Angry, sick, embarrassed, violated, and furious on behalf of my friends he has exploited.  Police and Immigration should be involved here.  If I find out Mike has set his foot in this country again, they will be.

Pic c/o @Art_Li - the irony of Credo's name is not lost on me

20/8 Additional Information: Credo admitted in public on his profile, after this post was published, that he was a liar.  He then deleted the profile.  He has been in constant IM contact with me throughout today, threatening suicide at one moment if I did not remove this blog (only to ask 10 minutes later: "are you still there?"), through to begging for forgiveness, and then justifying his actions.  He's admitted that his wife is not dead and says he's in contact with her.  I'm simply screen saving everything, refusing to let him manipulate me in the way he wants, and warning him to steer clear of anyone in my circle of friends.

For anyone thinking "whatever" I want to stress this is not about a fake Twitter account - it's about a person who has used the medium to trick people in real life and caused massive upset.  Help he clearly needs, but my responsibility is to those I care about, which is why I published this.

21/8 Finally, according to his girfriend (and as tweeted by her) his mother is "very much alive" and she has spoken to her.  She has also tweeted that Michael conned her personally out of £15,000.

Scotland's healthcare

I just came back from the GP. The last time I visited the GP was in January. I worked in England for two months and piled up all my ailments because I was unwilling to pay 7.40pounds per prescription there. When I came back to Glasgow, I delayed going to the GP because I was reluctant to pay 3 pounds for prescription.  Today, the GP told me that everyone in Scotland gets free prescriptions starting March 2011. That was amazing news. My jaw dropped. Medications are FREE! It got me thinking about the recent amount of cough medicines I bought from Boots, I could have gotten it for free by seeing a GP here.... Hmm, I don't think everyone knew about the change in policy. From paying 3pounds to ZERO pounds. And we have the people in England fuming even more because they pay high tax and higher prescription charges... Very encouraging for people to see their GP more than a pharmacist.

What else is fantastic about Glasgow in August:
I have an awesome view from my room window!
The weather has been fantastic! Even better than rainy England..
Lastly, George Square and the surrounding is being transformed into Philly for two weeks because....
BRAD PITT is in Glasgow filming a movie less than 10mins from where I stay!!

Peace

Turn off the news, turn away from the papers, step outside. Find a bloom and let it bring you peace.

(This photo is part of an album entitled Ridiculously Beautiful Flowers Growing Between Gravel and Corrugated Iron in a Driveway in Reykjavik, which you can view here.)

SCUM

SCUM: (noun) "extaneous matter or impurities risen to or formed on the surface of a liquid often as a foul filmy covering"

SCUM: (adjective, urban dictionary) "possibly the worst word you can have your name associated with.  It is hard to define the word, but it is basically used to describe someone so disgraceful that they are seen as the lowest form of life.  "Worthlessness", "waste of skin", "dirt". Nothing.  Far worse than most other insults, where the victim is often just referred to as genitalia.

I have literally lost count of the number of times I have seen people I like and respect calling the looters SCUM over the last few days.  Since Monday, I have also seen huge numbers of people wanting to bring in the army on our streets for the first time in 100 years.  I've seen people calling to take away all benefits of all the looters (yeah: more poverty: whatever the complex causes that is bound to help. Further, as a retrospective measure it would have zero deterrence effect.)  Apparently 90% of those surveyed are behind calls for the use of water cannon (which can blind) and plastic bullets (that can and do kill).  Cameron indeed confirmed both could be used this morning and said he would "ignore phoney concerns about human rights".  I saw a trainee barrister saying "fuk their rights... the hospitals would have been full if I'd been in charge".  I've seen calls for soldiers to shoot people on sight, without trial.  I even actually last night saw a call from a young educated professional to "castrate looters and bring in adult euthanasia".

Watercannon at work: Stuttgart Railway Station Protests 2010

How little does it take - just four miserable days of arson and looting (in limited urban centres, directed almost exclusively at shops, not homes) in a still broadly stable, wealthy, developed country - for educated people to be calling for the use of State violence, for the suspense of the rule of law and for extra-judicial killing?  Is this the Lord of the Flies? Did William Golding actually have British society pegged so correctly?  How quickly would we be leaving in a truly authoritarian State if things were really bad? Look at history and suddenly understand how rapidily countries can descend into extremism.

I wish I could attribute the original tweeter, but what amazing words:

"Norway loses 92 children and suggests more democracy; we lose 12 JD sports and some Nandos and demand the army and rubber bullets".  

Thanks to our Prime Minister ("Hug a Hoodie Dave") there's a good chance we'll be getting the latter fulfilled, should the looting continue.  I also note the fact that the presence of a large number of Police, using traditional British policing methods, did prevent trouble in London last night without recourse to these vicious methods of dealing with people.


We have all been angry, upset, confused, perhaps terrified for our loved ones and property the last few days.  I get that, I share that.  I went to bed on Monday feeling physically sick: I've friends all over London.  But I utterly disagree with escalating the violence and using State brutality to restore "law and order".  I also totally refuse to take away someone's entire humanity because of their criminal actions and reduce them to SCUM.

For the love of God, the looters out across Britain the last four nights were criminals.  They were dangerous criminals, thoughtless criminals, reckless criminals, some maybe even murderous criminals.  They are young people taking terrible choices, the consequences of which we all hope they will face.  Deal with them according to the law as civilised societies do; don't lower yourself by adding to the existing violence by calling for our Police to become the killers and blinders of people, and by expressing your fear with the violent language of pure hate.

(While I'm on it, fellow lefties, Tories are not SCUM.  I might utterly disagree with their policies and dislike some of the personalities, but they are not SCUM.  Mrs Thatcher is not SCUM.  The Police are not SCUM, nor are they "PIGS".  Tony Blair is not SCUM whatever the debatable legality of his actions taking this country to war.)

Please think about your words and what they mean.  They can be violent, they can create a reality.  Do not diminish your own humanity by seeking to take away other people's.  Think also of what you are so casually and glibly calling for.  Think about what type of a country we want in the light of these events.  An educated person, not even directly affected, who from his armchair actually proposes genital mutilation and/or death for someone stealing a plasma screen, or even for setting fire to a building is, to me, every bit as ugly and repulsive as the people holding our country in fear the last couple of nights.

Hold up a mirror when you say "shoot young people on sight without a trial: the SCUM" and just look at what *you* are in danger of becoming.



Update: the complex debate about the various causes of the looting continues.  In the meantime this little clip from the BBC website on 3 November 2011 is just so interesting and depressing in a much wider societal sense.

London's Burning

Tottenham Hale Carpet Right

Twitter has been a very fractious place since the riots.  People are clearly scared, perhaps angry. And they're throwing round a right load of old crap*

*I am the fountain of all wisdom and therefore entitled to say that.

 Things I noticed:

• The left (in particular) FALLING over themselves to condemn the violence.  Erm, yes, isn't it kind of self-evident that smashing things up, destroying businesses, setting fire to cars and stealing Plasma screens isn't exactly something to be condoned? I believe in a market economy with a social conscience.  What do those views have to do with these events? Zero.  Accordingly I shouldn't be afraid that because I'm "a lefty" that I might be labelled as an anarchist by the Right, if I do not state the completely bloody obvious.
• Many a Tory calling for the "FULL FORCE OF THE LAW" to be brought to bear on the offenders. I'm sure it will be. Given the nature of high profile events like this I don't think we need to worry too much about namby-pamby magistrates and judges (are they actually any?) going all touchy feely and lenient on this one.
• People saying you shouldn't make PARTY POLITICAL GAIN out of this.  This seemed to come mainly from LibDem coalition supporters.  Cast your mind back to Clegg's somewhat silly pre-election rhetoric that "Tory cuts" would lead to "riots in the streets" and begin to wonder why they're a bit defensive. But why shouldn't this be discussed in the light of government policies, if appropriate? Any event, social policy, policing, even a war in which thousands die is the subject of party political debate. Why exactly shouldn't these events be?
• An obsession with MATERIAL DAMAGE. WHY does the press and everyone else put material damage on such a pedestal? Yes, it's terrible.  I'd be devastated if my car were set on fire.  I'd be beyond consolable, though, if my mother were beaten or burnt and put in hospital. People being injured (private individuals and police) is far worse though.  Why no interviews with them or pictures of that? Because we're a property obsessed society that evidently places greater importance on things than people. We saw it during the student protests, we're seeing it again now.
• People saying THIS ISN'T A PROTEST, IT'S A RIOT.  Erm, no shit, Sherlock. Did anyone from any side *really* suggest this was a valid form of political protest? No of course it isn't: arson is crime, rioting is crime, stealing electrical goods is crime.  So again why state the ever so incredibly obvious?
• The Daily Mail AND the Telegraph BLAMED TWITTER.  Do I really need to point out that the Brixton and Toxteth Riots, or Broadwater, managed along just nicely without the wonders of social networking sites? I hear the distinct death rattles of the traditional media somewhere here.
• People saying NOTHING JUSTIFIES THIS. Quite, but see below.
• People saying "SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST THUGS/CRIMINALS".  This annoyed me rather a lot, see below.

The Below Bits

So.  Let's conform immediately to Godwin's Law.  I like studying/ talking about the Third Reich, and again I'm allowed to do this (see * above).

When I talk about the Third Reich,  I say for example that the causes of the Holocaust can be traced back to 2000 years of organised Christian antisemitism, to the Versailles Peace Treaty, to the polarisation in Europe between far right and left, to the economic situation in Germany.  Not terribly contentious: all holocaust museums tread this familiar path.  However, what this is not is AN EXCUSE.  An excuse is a justification.  It is an EXPLANATION.  Explanations are not the same thing.  

The above is rocket science. My point isn't

Is the foregoing set of propositions, *actually* rocket science?  Then why, when anyone speculates as to the possible causes of this rioting, does at least one person (often many) jump down their throat to say "that's no justification".

NO, IT'S NOT, AND IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE.  It's an explanation, not an EXCUSE!  We need to understand why things happen if we want to learn from them.

What is the Explanation then?

So, if we are dare, we move to all the speculation as to why this happened.

Why did it happen? I don't know.  You probably don't either, but it doesn't stop some of us speculating to high heaven from the comfort of our armchairs.  I don't know these areas of London well or the problems they are facing.  I am pretty sure there is a combination of complex interrelated long term factors (economic deprivation, race relations, lack of opportunity, failing education, failing parenting) along with some short term ones (anger at police behaviour, anger at local cuts, jumping on the bandwagon, chance to nick a TV, chance to watch something go up in flames) etc. 

What I do see though is the traditional polarisation between the political camps and people generalising wildly.  "It's not something you can sort out by throwing money at"; "It's all because of anger at the cuts"; "It's nothing to do with deprivation, it's just people being criminal"; "it's because of lenient sentencing" etc.

My own feeling? It is likely to be a big mish-mash of the long and short term things I've mentioned, plus some I haven't.  Around 300 people were apparently involved: perhaps there are 300 different sets of reasons.

Look at the costs; worth examining the causes?

I do agree with the brilliant @gaijinsan21 however that we *are* more generally on the edge of a fundamental break-down in the social contract across the country.  This has been going on a long time, but the financial crash, cuts and fear of cuts have made it much worse.  Many people feel alienated, angry at authority and particularly politicians, and do not understand why the State props up banks, but we are continuing to pay in so many different ways.  There is fear for the future, for economic stability and for our prospects.  It's a very unhealthy mix and it's not confined to Tottenham Hale.

In the areas affected by the riots it's not too contentious to say the Met has also lost trust with swathes of people.  It goes further though: it's not just localised, and it is not just with the economically deprived that this has happened.  It's also with middle class people whose default setting is to be on the side of "law and order".  I still instinctively respect my Suffolk Bobby; but right or wrong, I look on the Met with fundamental distrust.  I'm unfortunately no doubt not the only one.  This has been particularly the case since the kettling of students last autumn.  It benefits absolutely no one that a large group of young people has had such appallingly negative experiences at the hands of the Police.  Throw in stats on young black men being stopped and searched, repeated individual and official Met outright lies and cover-ups over the past decade, and we do have an issue which (according to local interviews and in my unqualified guess work) has to be <one> of the more significant factors in this.

Back to Godwin

We also come though to the those who say: forget the causes, some people are JUST CRIMINALS.  Well, I disagree.  I think you're morons.  And I think that you are skirting dangerously close to taking the philosophical line of none other than the Nazi Party.  People are not genetically or congenitally predisposed to crime ("Berufsverbrecher" was the term given to the "habitual criminals" who wore green triangles in the concentration camps).  

People BECOME criminals, they are not BORN criminals, nor will they necessarily remain so all their lives if they have broken the law once.  They make choices; stupid choices, wrong choices, bad choices.  But they do so out of the background of the circumstances they face.  These are economic and social circumstances (including quality of policing), the circumstances of the upbringing and education they have received, the experiences they have had, their opportunities for the future, as well as the prejudices they face in their daily lives. If these circumstances change then levels of crime change.  As I heard more than once, those with the least have the least to lose.

It's also important to note that many people live in economically deprived areas such as Tottenham.  The vast majority in the same boat did not make the same choices that the rioters did.  But the larger that boat, the higher the absolute number of people who will inevitably choose to join in.

People are a complex mixture of potentially good and potentially bad.  We all have both capabilities within us.  Does anyone of these people spouting off that "some people are just bad" actually believe that if you took one of these kids and raised them 2 miles away in Holland Park, attending a £30,000 school, showering them with love, affirmation and affection, that they'd still be out rioting and looting from PC World?  As I said: moronic.  To write off individuals as "bad" and predisposed to crime is even worse than that: it is inhumane and wrong.

Heavens, Rant Over!

Well, that *was* a rant wasn't it?  I really hope for everyone that tonight is quieter in London.  I love that city and so do millions of others.  There are big problems to be addressed here.  Hopefully people much more qualified than I will begin to do so.  Shouting "They're just criminals!" will not solve the problems, though, not matter how many people do it and how loud.