Sorry NS.. it's #91, right next door in the quote with Ikosmos's name on it.
Evidently my twists and turns aren't evasive enough to escape your powers.
And since we're busy clarifying things, I am not sure why I was accused of ignoring the forces of oppression which caused this riot when I mentioned them, most recently at #67.
If I misunderstood the "architect" reference, perhaps it is because I didn't think I had to restate my points in full with every post.
BBC "forced to apologize" for racist "interview" of Darcus Howe.
Whaddaya expect from an interviewer named "Lady MacGregor" ffs?
"BBC presenters tend to come from the idle rich class. I don't know what its like in the USA but in Britain the rich make sure their offspring fill all those jobs that require very little effort, are paid staggeringly well and have no use value whatsoever."
No-one wants to hear social and economic justifications for rioting, least of all anyone in the UK political class. But justification is not what is at stake. The issue is explanation, as that will determine the response.
Prime Minister Cameron, and London mayor Boris Johnson, have a very simple explanation: it is opportunism, a chance to smash, grab, burn and run.
Their response, therefore, is a simple policing one. Increase the numbers of police forces on the street, and arrest more people. Some go further. Liberal MP Simon Hughes called for the use of the water cannon. Tory MEP Roger Helmer urged that the army be sent in, and looters shot on sight. With towns and cities rioting across the UK, involving at least thousands of youths, this would result in a bloodbath - if a condign one by Helmer's standards.
In fact, the government's response is totally empty: it amounts to saying, people loot because they want to loot, a circular argument that explains nothing. The question remains: why here, why now...?
ETA: This is a much better question to try and answer than the regurgitated and manufactured outrage that we read even here on babble.
