London england social problems Videos

Great points. Besides, whatever the cause of the riots, it should bother us not in a justification sense but in a prevention/ problem solving sense. Excusing mobs is dangerous, cause it infects healthy protests, and also it makes a paradigm of the wrong tolerance. If one man, me, behaved like a madman with bricks in the streets, I would be caught and punished. Why if many do it its alright? Whats illegal for one, is illegal for all. And protest and social media, are legal for one and for all.

@ElPresidenteTel well there is your problem - might want to do a bit of research within the health care industry - they are pretty messed up people who don't seem to know how problems are solved - only someone with your logic would respond with a tin foil hat - you make yourself look like a fool - usually people who get into health care have major issues they can't solve - your so good why is your system so wrong. maybe stop blaming people and look at your actions that cause things to happen

@ElPresidenteTel I'm fully aware greedy people want police to protect them so they can keep getting away with criminal actions and when people try to stop people like you - you call them criminals - your nothing but a banker who thinks you've done something good but you are harming your own society and when society tries to stop you - you call them criminal - you are no victim - you asked for this clearly - enjoy it I will not feel sorry for you while I watch you walk into your own oven

great vid tel. i can personally understand why ppl try and explain what happened because i think that we are all so shocked that it happened we are trying to understand what caused this so we can prevent it in the future. i to think its bollocks about the poverty argument cos im barely scraping by and im not looting. i personally think parents should take responsibility for the children involved in this about not teaching them right and wrong and not disciplining them enough at home

To be fair I also think if the police had brought in the batons on day 1 there would've been backlash against that. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I do think social inequality is conducive to these kinds of riots, even though obviously it's no excuse. Sad business all round. The anarchists get to point to the police presence and shout "police state", while the right wingers get to argue for more so-called "security measures" with the rest of us caught in the middle.

Good insight. Admittedly, as an American, I'm probably very ignorant of the "issues" that underlie the violence. Unfortunately, most of the "media" here in the U.S. use similar points you mentioned concerning socioeconomic status, so I don't think most Americans in general understand what's happening right now in the U.K. I will say that I think most Americans would agree that the decision to try to control social networking is an alarming "knee-jerk" reaction.

@ElPresidenteTel a conspiracy theory? the thing about a police state is it wont be bought about without the support of the public & needs a catalyst just like these riots.. just like 9/11 was used to bring in the patriot act. see the world is watching & the government have to be seen to be serving the public!!! if u read history books this isn't conspiracy it has happened before!!! it even has a name, its called the Hegelian dialect... go ahead, look it up.

@Judy101101 Bit of a hyperbole: My approval of tougher police action against theives in my community is tacit approval for a Holocaust? Get real. Plus I see you support Anonymous' action to protect the looters and rioters in some "class war", which this certainly most not. I don't live in Canada such as yourself, I live in London, where it all happened and most of the people I know wanted the police to stop the violence sooner.

@MultiFrank777 I know Hegel: Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis. I believe this is more along the lines of Nietzsche and his theories on the will to power. It is all a power struggle as people aim to grab as much as they can. If you can grab more than the state, you rule. If they get more, the state rules. But this is not to give the state any malignance. Just stating a way the world may work

pay attention!!! riots don't happen in times of economic prosperity!!!! the cause of this IS economic!!!! the bankers have robbed this country blind!!! they stole any real wealth this country had!!! the police didn't WANT the riots stopped!!! its called the hegelian dialect the police are waiting for the public to beg for a police state before they lift a damn finger!!!

@ElPresidenteTel very astute of you!!! yes i agree. however we can see that to simplify that this countries problems are a bunch of 14 year old hooligans appear to be smashing shit is to oversimplify & disregard the obvious root causes!!! not that im in any way condoning this nothing could be further from the truth but we must cut the cancer out from our society.

@MultiFrank777 I think that is a bit too much of a conspiracy theory for me. If the police wanted a police state it would have happened by now. Plus, what is your response to the fact that some of these looters were employed and relatively well off, demonstrating this was not just a backlash of the poor but a group of opportuists out to gain whatever they could?

@Judy101101 I look a fool? Talking holocausts and thinking everyone else is screwed up... I think you are the one with the complex my dear sweet mad woman. You simply skew it so everyone is fighting the people if they disagree with your world view. Now sod off and talk to someone willing to listen to your demented rantings

@megamarsvin Too true. I feel the police were between a rock and a hard place. Your point on the anarchists and right wingers is also bang on. Thanks for your contribution!

@RoadKillForYou 99.9% over. Still get the odd moron who thinks it is fun to throw bricks at police, but we are mostly ok now :)

@MultiFrank777 There are many deep problems in society. I too hope that we rectify them so we never have to live this again.

so your idea of love, peace and liberty is walking yourself into your own ovens - it's like watching insanity

+Stephan Williams Revisionist idiot.

+resculptit Not quite. //www.imdb.com/name/nm0654089/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

+resculptit At 12:00 he is again on stage singing - wearing a military uniform.   Owen served in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps during World War II, where he was injured in an explosion in action.

+Brookfield  OK.. so I am not funny and not too bright. All I can do is try and get along. so if I offended you please accept my apology. It won't happen again. Take care  T.B.

+Tim BaxterOh dear...

+Brookfield The imbecile's must have kicked you out ... try the Sour Puss Playhouse out between the pool and the hot tub.

+Tim Baxter Wrong room, fella. The imbecile convention is the last door on the right.

+Tim Baxter What in all of the fucks.

 again... Sprekinzee Doyee-ich. 

And Compo (in "Last of the Summer Wine") said he was guarding female Army typists at a castle during the War!

si es muy bueno :3

ORGULLOSA POR NUSTRO PERÚ

siiiiii, el Perú tambien es muy GRANDE !!!

Súper por Perú porq Stevie es un GRANDE!!!

+denys alba tu también :v

tu no lo eres? 

Peru es mierda.

+Rubén Gómez Núñez investiga y te daras con la sorpresa de tu vida, de que el cajón es Peruano y el flamenco lo adopto por lo imcomparable de su sonoridad, Viva el Perú, imaginate que hasta se exportan cajones para todo el mundo ...

es un orgullo grande para todos nosotros lo peruanos

que alegria al ver este comentario

+Rubén Gómez Núñez el cajón flamenco "de toda la vida" es peruano, estimado Rubén.Y "toda la vida" son apenas cuatro décadas desde que Paco De Lucía lo incorporó al flamenco.//decajonflamenco.com/155.html

+Ceci Lia excuse me, eso es un cajon flamenco de to la vida

+Ceci Lia Nuestra cultura en grandes conciertos!

+denys alba calla ctmr, envidioso d mrd

+Jose Carlos Mariategui el peru es mierda lel

viva el Perú carajo!

Def "like"

+vanir23 Haven't got there yet. Was it "like"?

+6oodfella I agree it was skewed in numbers, but I actually think the host was really fair.

+6oodfella actually this works in his favor. He argues principles while they just blather. he was respectful, they were shrill, petulant, condescending, maternalistic pseudo authorities who wouldn't let him complete a sentence. they looked and acted all the negative female stereotypes while he kept his cool....bravo Brenden.

+6oodfella I'm afraid its the rules man. As unfair and prejudiced it is, it is the world we must live in.

+6oodfella Feminists are the status quo in the media, its like when the British Brainwashing Corporation had Mike Buchanan before a hand picked female feminist audience while debating a Labor party feminist. This gang vs one template is used all over the world.

+420JimmyX lmao

+okayplayer82 i'm not sure where you got the idea that I think the state shouldn't have any say in marriage. My position is that if rights are granted to one group of people, you need to have a good reason not to grant it to another group. So far, i haven't come across a good reason not to grant the right of marriage to couples who happen to be of the same sex.So far, all i see, and continue to see, is conflation with other issues: children's rights aren't affected by marriage rights, incest is dealt with by other laws, or different sections of most marriage Acts (of government), and people are going to have or not have sex on their own terms - many not factoring in marriage at all.In fact some of these conflations contradict each other: you are both worried about the rights of children, but are also worried that same sex couples can't have children. If you are concerned about adoption, then again, that is a separate question to marriage.I'll be generous and assume you mean 'in the majority' when you say 'normal' in your last sentence. heterosexuality has existed, as far as we know, as long as humans have existed. I'm yet to see a historian claim that Roam fell because there were lots of dudes shagging each other. I'd also be fascinated if you could provide anything that showed there were no heterosexuals in the English, French, Spanish, Ottoman, American 'empires' / civilisations. Again conflation: what has heterosexuality and SSM have to do with the existence of civilisation?

+BurazSC2because you claimed the state should not have any interference in marriage. It always has for the benefit of children and the nuclear family which has been a bed rock of all civilizations for all time. SSM is about instituting a marriage that violates all religious edicts and takes away the inherent right of children to have a mother and a father.Siblings can get married because they get (for the most part) deformed children. So they are not allowed to marry or form families. Same applies for SSM couples who buy definition (not abberration like age or being inferm) can not have children.The biological right to inheritance trumps gay people who all of a sudden want to turn religious institutions on their head. Decades ago gays claimed that marriage was a prison and not something to desire, what's changed?homosexuality is not normal, like transgenderism is not normal. That does not mean that society should persecute or punish them, but should society grant the heterosexuality is the normative human expression of sex for any culture / society that want's to exist at all.

+okayplayer82 sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence? can you restate that point?why do I need to explain why two siblings can't marry. what has incest got to do with SSM? Again, conflation.If you definition of marriage is a man and a women for the purposes of having children, why cant a brother and sister be married?If your answer is 'they can't be related' why does that need to be different for SSM?

+BurazSC2 the state does grant on the definition of mariage. Siblings are not allowed to marry f.ex.If the criteria is two people, then you must also explain why sibling who love eachother are not allowed to marry.

+okayplayer82 That definition of marriage hold not weight or meaning under the law, and the state grants no rights based on that definition.in most instances marriage is between two people to the exclusion of all others - and that's about it. some jurisdictions don't specify gender, some do.many people choose to put additional commitments on top of that - yours happen to stem from a religious tradition,a nd include commitments about roles the individuals should play, and their commitments to children. mine don't, i have placed other commitments, though.your insistence that all couples need to conform with the commitments you made, or think should be made, is exactly why many proponents view those who oppose SSM as bigoted - it's your way, no no way.(edit, spelling)

+BurazSC2marriage has always been a religious institution for the union of the nuclear family and above all for the rights of children to a mother and a father. It's why most people get married in church or other religious institutions. A longer answer is warranted but it's getting late. i whish you well.

+okayplayer82 I'm actually not opposed to polygamy, but SSM doesn't imply polygamy. so again - conflation. why can't you just stick to talking about same sex marriage?Marriage is a formal recognition by the state of a relationship. it isn't exclusively a religious institution. if it were, we wouldn't allow atheists to marry. Further, there is no requirement for those who are married to start a family. (as an aside, most of the weddings i have been to have referenced religion exactly zero times. i know this is a product of the friends and family I have, but it does demonstrate isn't a necessary component to be married)I'm not sure why you think religion has anything to do with marriage. it's an issue of law... and you know there is that all separation of church and state thing in most modern democracies.Perhaps you are making an esoteric argument about what you define marriage as, and what you see as marriage. but we are talking about an issue of law and rights - and general rule of thumb is if you grant rights to some people, you should have a really good reason not to grant the same rights to the rest.

+BurazSC2marriage is a religious institution created for the union of non-related man and woman for the formation of the nuclear family. do you support polygamy or sibling marrige as well, because you can't support SSM and be opposed to polygamy

+okayplayer82 literally nothing you said has any baring on granting the right to marry to same sex couples. It's all conflation.bakeries - nothing to do with SSMreligion - nothing to do with SSM (not withstanding the most vocal oppositions seems to come from a religious base)children rights - nothing to do with SSM.Edit: forgot to ask again: how is the religious persecution an argument against SSM?

+BurazSC2 I dont think opponents of same sex marriage should have safe spaces. Why I object to is the persecution of traditional christians business etc who object to participating in gay marriage like the christian bakeries in the US.There are lots of reasons to oppose gay marriage, in particular due to it's religious implications and the rights of children to parents of opposite sex.

+okayplayer82 i agree. what i am struggling to understand is how the banning of opponents of same sex marriage from certain discussions is actually relivant to whether same sex couples should get married, or why proponents of same sex marriage need to express their views in a certain way, or why opponents of same sex marriage should have a space where they are free from ridicule.

+BurazSC2 banning groups opposed to gay marriage should not be excluded from public institutions. Which does happen

+okayplayer82 which is what i think O'Niel is seeking to do in the video i linked. he's arguing that supporters of gay marriage shouldn't express their views in a certain way. he goes further, too, seemingly looking to deny an entire class of people the same rights of others, because some people have been a bit mean.

+BurazSC2 it is an argument of negating freedom of speech. The authoritarian Left seeks to dominate culture through policing thoughts, ideas and language. The most prominent manifestations of this is at the university.

+okayplayer82 example of what? and how would the fact that opponent of gay marriage get banned from universities be an argument against gay marriage?

+BurazSC2 banning people from university campus who oppose gay marriage would be one example

+polylyth Then I have no idea what his point is, as you say. It really just sounds like he's saying "the problem with gay marriage is some people have been a bit mean to those who oppose it". I'm at a lose to understand what point this makes. The argument is about gay marriage, not whether people should be nice to each other.If he is arguing that opponents of gay marriage should be able to say what they want to say without being vilified, then I don't understand how that is significantly different to arguing for "safe spaces".Perhaps you can help, seeing as you seem to understand his point better than i do: what's the specific problem with people being mean in how they deal with those who oppose gay marriage? and more importantly, how is gay marriage supporters being mean actually an argument against gay marriage?

+BurazSC2 Nah, that's not what he is arguing at all. Congratulations in missing the point.