I suspect that quite a few, although I hope not all, of the readers of this blog will just about remember “Not the Nine O’clock News”. In one of its classic sketches a professor of sociology and a social worker (“look, I know these kids”) are invited to discuss the solution to the problem of football hooliganism, which, at the time, was a great deal more prevalent than today.

For those who are not familiar with the sketch, it is available via YouTube, and for those who do, it’s worth revisiting as a walk down memory lane.

Now, there must have been countless words written about the causes of the riots this week. However, in my opinion by far and away the clearest, the most incisive, the most informed and the most valuable came in a short piece on Wednesday of this week on Radio 5 Live on Shelagh Fogarty’s lunchtime show. I was listening to it as drove to an appointment. I will post the link below, but let me outline the format. First there was an interview with some of the rioters/looters, in which they explained their world view and reasons for their actions.

As one might expect, what this was moronic, uneducated thoughtless and selfish statement to the effect that they felt like it “and….government innit…stuff, innit..nick some stuff ‘cos I can… You know what I mean, and…innit?”

Yeah, I know what you mean…innit?

It was both depressing and hugely irritating.

Then the presenter Ms Fogarty introduced two protagonists to debate the causes and remedies of this problem. One was Lesley Pullman, a victim of crime and supporter of other victims from Manchester, born in a pitifully poor family of twelve. The other was former social/youth worker and now Orwell Prize winner Winston Smith. So you can see the premise which may or may not have underpinned the “set up”. The reactionary working class versus the understanding, enlightened, liberal intellectual?

In fact, that is certainly not what we got. I have of course punctured the dramatic balloon by giving away an obvious plot spoiler above.

No. What we got was a highly intelligent, informed, clear and brutal dissection of the follies of the leftist and “liberal” intelligentsia’s doctrines since the 1960′s by people who actually know what they are talking about. By people who have been on the front line and seen “the system” in action. Who have seen what it means, and felt the consequences.

The doctrine, for example, that everyone is a victim, and that this includes the criminal. The doctrine that there is no right and wrong. The doctrine above all that there are no consequences for “wrongdoing”; a clear view of very many of the rioters.

This has created a topsy turvy world. A world in which teachers are unable to discipline children aged 12 high on drugs in their classroom, where probation officers must call criminals “clients” and are disciplined if they object to abuse; a world where youth offenders are provided with Nintendo’s in detention, and taxied to and from the gym by their social workers. A world where the criminal justice system is geared up to cater for the criminal, and the victim has no voice, to the extent that it is known colloquially as the “criminal injustice system.”

I do not propose to rehearse the full details of this interview. I do not think I could do it justice without a transcript. For anyone who wants to be informed, enlightened and outraged I commend it. It is here for a limited time on the BBC iPlayer, and commences immediately after the 1.00 pm news (you can drag the cursor to the right place).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0132q3l/Shelagh_Fogarty_10_08_2011/

The conclusion was, I think, clear and not that surprising. The riots represented an attack by an intellectual and moral underclass on the working class. By those who have never felt any consequences and see no reason to see why they ever will, against those who have tried to work and make something of themselves. Because the rioters felt like it. Because there are no consequences.

These riots are the inevitable flowering of the guilt ridden, liberal leftist, patronising folly that has reigned supreme over the Political Classes for the past 40 years. And that includes iDave. Not so keen on hugging a hoodies now, are you…?

Gildas the Monk

Last Man Jack
August 15, 2011 at 16:54

Whilst I can understand Saul’s feelings regarding people being against the
minimum wage I am glad I am not alone in seeing that it is infact a poverty
trap at the level that it is set.

If the value of MW is above the value that the employee would produce for
the business then the job, and therefore the employee, become redundant. For a
person to take a job at £4.50 an hour gives them a history of work, work
ethic, personal development, pride and the ability to move on from that job
and build a career. This is surely better than sitting on benefits because the
£4.50/hr job does not exist at MW levels.

The key to this is that the botton level of taxation needs to be raised.
Getting people into work without taxing them out of pocket is the answer to
many of our problems creating opportunities for people and getting back to
having a productive society.

Jack

fake August 15, 2011 at 10:24

***To you both, I hope you never find yourselves in a position where you
have to take a minimum wage job, it can be a real eye opener. And I don’t mean
just to get by alone, but to support a family. The minimum wage is there for a
reason.***

Of course the minimum wage is there for a reason, how else could we keep
over 1.5 million people unemployed, and voting for labour?

The minimum wage is there for a reason, but it’s an ideological one, not a
fact based one.

Do what Germany does, get rid of the minimum wage, and instead have working
wage benefits.

It helps to keep low paying manufacturing jobs from going to china (which
keeps the infrastructure as well), and people are paid to work rather than sit
on benefits, keeping a work ethic.

Clarissa August
14, 2011 at 23:52

Saul, I have worked for well below the minimum wage. Indeed I spent the
first half of 2002 working for the princely sum of £20/week simply to get
experience in my chosen field. Why? Because my circumstances at the time made
it feasible for me.

Yes the arrangement was rather against the law but both sides were happy
with it and it enabled me to get another job that paid better.

The sad fact of life is that some jobs are simply not worth the ~ £6/hour
that employers are supposed to pay anyone over the age of 21. Upping the
minimum wage will simply lead to increasing amounts of automation, thus
reducing even further the amount of jobs available for those without any
skills.

Saul August 14, 2011 at 23:35

I’m afraid I cannot agree with you, the minimum wage is there to protect
people. The Thatcher government fought tooth and nail to prevent it. All the
horror stories about how it would cause the collapse of businesses were
unfounded. If it were to be abolished it would be a massive step back. In fact
it should be increased.

Trooper
Thompson August 15, 2011 at 01:29

Saul,

please educate yourself.

“the minimum wage is there to protect people”

It is not important what it is supposed to do, but what it actually does.
That is an economic question, not a moral question. And the answer is that
it causes unemployment for those at the bottom. It is a price fix, and those
whose labour is not worth the fixed price, will not be employed. The only
price that matters is the market price, and whatever it is you want to sell,
if you fix the price above the market price you will not clear the market,
you will have a surplus that cannot be sold.

Imagine if a law says that no car can be sold for less than £1000. What
will that mean for a car that’s worth less than £1000? It won’t sell,
because there’s no point paying £1000 for a car that’s worth £250. So it
will go to the scrapyard.

That is what your ‘road-to-hell-paved-with-good-intentions’ minimum wage
has done to a lot of people at the bottom, especially young people.

SadButMadLad
August 14, 2011 at 23:24

Saul, the point is not that you are forced to take a job at below current
minimum wage and to support a family. If you are in this position you would
not take such low paid jobs.

These low paid jobs are for those who don’t need to support a family. They
are there to employ people who are supported enough by benefits (e.g.
disabled) or family (e.g. teenagers) but who can get a job and become
productive albeit in a very minor way.

Saul August 14, 2011 at 21:19

Get the kids back up Chimneys!

Cascadian August 14, 2011 at 20:02

The fact that the BBC can scrounge up two adults from the social services
and injustice factories (continuing production of social problems required to
justify expanding budgets) is, I suppose, good news.

Society has moved from debtors prisons, forced emigration and workhouses,
to your present system for answers to the problem of terminally indolent
people, non seem to have worked flawlessly. Perhaps-horror of horrors -it is
time to expect a measure of work output from the able-bodied unemployed. There
is after all a crying need for low cost cleaning services in hospitals and
care homes, every town centre, highway and byway could benefit from sweeping,
graffiti removal, and grass trimming. These are low skill jobs, that are
easily monitorable for output to determine the wage level and could absorb a
million or so workers easily. Benefits should be rescinded for all but the
proven disabled.

Busy hands and tired bodies have no time for tomfoolery. Those not willing
to participate can be incarcerated in work camps until an attitude adjustment
occurs. Sherriff Arpaio in Arizona is a good example to follow.

The working class have been victimized too long by the indolent.

SadButMadLad
August 14, 2011 at 21:57

Community service orders are supposed to be similar. But they don’t work
because the feckless managers, supervisors, and organisers can’t be arsed to
do their job – so the criminals take the piss and don’t turn up, lounge
about, or basically waste their time doing nothing knowing there is no come
back.

What to say that exactly the same thing will happen for the unemployed
being paid some low pay. The managers, organisers and supervisors will be
the same disorganised bunch of waste of space as the CSO ones.

No, what is need is the abolition of the minimum wage. Then employers can
pay the amount that these kind of people deserve.

Saul August 14, 2011 at 22:14

Abolish the minimum wage? Are you serious? The minimum wage is there to
protect people from exploitation and the one thing that the labour
government can be proud of. Frankly I find it astounding that anyone can
say it is not a good thing.

Clarissa August 14, 2011 at 22:52

All the minimum wage does is price those with no skills out of the
job market. The increasing number of self-sevice checkouts in
supermarkets is a prime example of this.

If we are to have one however then the hourly rate needs to be lower
and the tax threshold should be no lower than what someone on the
minimum wage would earn for doing a 40 hour week.

SadButMadLad August
14, 2011 at 22:58

People are only exploited if they allow it.

All the minimum wage does is raise the base costs of production. All
jobs have a value in terms of benefit to the business and it making a
profit. Some are very low like making coffee/tea, others are very high
like having a key piece of knowledge or skill.

A business can decide to employ someone to make tea/coffee at
£5.80/hr but if the value to the business is only £2/hr it will just
decide not to employ anyone. So the minimum wage has led to someone not
getting a job. Now not everyone would want a £2/hr job, but there could
be a few; part timers, those who can’t handle a full job, the disabled,
etc.

I’m reminded of this story by Anna – https://www.annaraccoon.com/politics/maddog-and-mammon/

Saul
August 14, 2011 at 23:13

To you both, I hope you never find yourselves in a position where
you have to take a minimum wage job, it can be a real eye opener. And
I don’t mean just to get by alone, but to support a family. The
minimum wage is there for a reason.

Matt
Wardman August 14, 2011 at 18:34

The syntax for the link:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0132q3l/Shelagh_Fogarty_10_08_2011/?t=68m00s

Bertie Bassett
August 14, 2011 at 18:02

Winston Smith starts at 1:08

binao August 14, 2011 at 17:22

Gildas, your last two paragraphs are the perfect summary.

Single Acts of
Tyranny August 14, 2011 at 17:17

Er, football hooliganism is not so much visbile on the terraces anymore,
but it most certainly has not gone away, just relocated.

Elena ‘andcart
August 14, 2011 at 16:20

Well, I’m Working Class, innit. And I never dun noffink like that, innit.
At least, I never got caught, but that’s what it’s all about,
innit.
Acherly, I thought Working Class meant going to work, much as I
would have preferred not to have to. Unfortunately I had all of these little
bastards that needed feeding and educating, and I couldn’t cope with them so I
had to send them off to Boarding School to be beaten into shape with things
like The Cane.
I had to clean a fair few lavatories to fund that, I must
tell you.
Sadly, all of the little bastards now think that they are better
than me, which they are, of course. You wouldn’t catch them cleaning
lavatories. Or saying Innit. That little gem remains my perogative.

Matt
Wardman August 14, 2011 at 16:18

Gildas

Would you like me to record the interview and add it as a sound file, as it
vanishes in a few days from the BBC website?

(Which time intervals do I want?).

I think there’s a way of linking to the middle of a programme on the Beeb
website – seeking knowledge on Twitter.

You can certainly do it on Youtube like this Gnu:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNbVwyVVHsg&t=02m37s

Saul August 14, 2011 at 16:01

I was reading elsewhere and came across this comment on another blog.

“If the creation of a lumpen underclass who have no stake in our society
isn’t political then the word has no meaning. Since the early eighties those
people who have little value as a market have been seen as simply surplus to
requirements, of no value as people. You can see it in the scandalous
treatment of the elderly, the young, the poor, the uneducated.

Because they are not an attractive market (no one ever made any money by
advertising or providing services to the poor), and because they have few
marketable skills, they are not deemed to be worthy of even basic respect in a
market-based culture. This doesn’t excuse the destructive(and essentially
self-desructive) behaviour of the past week,but it sure as hell helps to
explain its inevitability.”

Just about the most constructive comment I have read in the last week.

Demetrius August
14, 2011 at 13:20

The working class can kiss my ass. I’ve got me benefits at last.

JuliaM August
14, 2011 at 13:50

LOL!