Young Offenders Worker and Community Campaigner Discuss the Causes of the London Riots.

[fatpie42]

Shelagh Fogarty - BBC Radio Five - Wednesday 10th August

Shelagh Fogarty: Our reporter spoke to these looters in Manchester.

Comments

[ladypolitik]

Mod request: Would like to have far more of the transcript under the cut, please? Otherwise it defeats the purpose.

[tartary_lamb]

Is it just me, or in that first section did they invert the Rioter in Manchester and the Interviewer? I'm finding the layout of that bit deeply strange.

[fatpie42]

Sorry. Corrected now.

[acmeeoy]

Related, but the supposedly Feel Good Riot Clean Up might actually be an attempt to whitewash the cause of the riots: http://universityforstrategicoptimism.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/riotcleanup-or-riotwhitewash/

[katiechainsaw]

Thanks for that link, I've heard a few people discussing this recently.

[fatpie42]

It's not related at all, is it?

The post above is an interview with people who've worked first hand with young offenders in these areas such as would have been involved in the looting.

Whereas this link of yours looks like a bizarre conspiracy theory to say that the clean-up groups were somehow fake or alien to the community.

Am I missing something?

[acmeeoy]

Maybe this was the wrong article to provide the link. I would have posted it, but I think the article is a blogpost. It related to the riots.

The link should be read more carefully. It's basically how implicit and explicit classism powers much of the Clean Up effort and would negatively impact the disadvantaged (It also speaks from a socialist perspective, fyi).

[windy_lea]

I: Yeah, obviously, but it’s not about that.
RM: What is it about?
I: The government obviously, taking away. Honestly, more kids don’t get no college no more, cause they don’t get paid innit.
RM: So the fact that you are nicking shoes that you could probably afford to buy. That’s about the government, is it? I don’t understand.
I: No, honestly, it’s not about that right. It’s about like the government aren’t in control. Otherwise we wouldn’t be able to do it, would we?
RM: So because the government can’t stop you doing it. That’s why you’re doing it?
I: Well did the government do? They tried, they failed innit? How many people have they arrested, right? Ten! I’m not really bothered. I keep doing this every day, until I get caught.The interviewer and rioter's lines clearly got switched somehow... Anyway, I don't think the interviewer's interpretation of the rioter's actions as bald opportunism in need of a spanking really fits with what that particular rioter said. Does a true opportunist even give a shit about what the government has

[fatpie42]

The interview pretty much repeated what the kids said to him. In any case, you can see their replies for yourself.

Yes, they do make reference to post-16 college funding which was recently withdrawn and that's obviously a really crappy decision by our current government. (Interestingly I had another transcript about that too.) However, the interviewer doesn't allow that to be an excuse and it's clearer in the way they speak in the audio clip that the rioters aren't so convinced that that's a good excuse either. (I've actually tidied that bit up in my transcript. In the original audio what they say is a bit hurried and confused at that point.)

Transcript mentioned above is here:
http://fatpie42.livejournal.com/87654.html

The thing is that the withdrawal of the EMA is not an excuse to wreck and loot the town centre. Not even close.

Also I've sorted out the mix-up at the beginning now.

[windy_lea]

Reread the interview with the expert, and I don't see where it "pretty much repeats" what the rioter said. I also think the discussion between the expert and interviewer goes beyond not allowing excuses. They're acknowledging that society and government have failed the rioters, but they've decided the rioter's "we do it 'cause we can" is about a cry for discipline. There's also a good dose of "kids these days" tossed in while the expert essentially implies that the underclass couldn't possibly be frustrated enough to commit crime because the UK has one of the most generous welfare systems.

The thing is that the withdrawal of the EMA is not an excuse to wreck and loot the town centre. Not even close.I'm not sure if you meant this for me or just as a general disclaimer, since I already made it clear I neither condone nor excuse what's happened. Examining societal factors that may have played a role in creating a riot-friendly atmosphere is important, I think

[fatpie42]

Reread the interview with the expert, and I don't see where it "pretty much repeats" what the rioter said.

That's not what I said. Sorry if I was confusing.

I was saying that the interviewer who was interviewing the rioters (as opposed to Shelagh Fogarty who was interviewing the two experts) was pretty much repeating what the rioters told him (basically saying "is this what you mean?").

I thought you were saying that the interviewer was twisting their words and I was disagreeing. I didn't see that you had anything to say about what the experts had said. Perhaps I missed it.

There's also a good dose of "kids these days" tossed in while the expert essentially implies that the underclass couldn't possibly be frustrated enough to commit crime because the UK has one of the most generous welfare systems.That doesn't seem fair at all

[lleulu]

"LP: I have a friend who’s a social worker and they call abused children “clients”. It’s totally unbelievable." - is LP equating abused children to the people that W-S was referring to?

"SF: But has he widened the net. I’m just stunned that someone with that qualification can’t get a job." - someone obviously believes the bollocks that the computer industry is in dire need of workers ¬_¬

[fatpie42]

"LP: I have a friend who’s a social worker and they call abused children “clients”. It’s totally unbelievable." - is LP equating abused children to the people that W-S was referring to?

She's saying that it's absurd for an adult to refer to a child they are supposed to be there to help and to guide as a "client".

It's just like if a babysitter referred to your child as their "client" that would seem weird too. It's an odd sort of relationship to have to them.

Of course, while Winston Smith might not necessarily be dealing with children who have been abused, her social worker friend does.

It seems the hyphen in Winston Smith was a mistake. I should probably correct that.

[lleulu]

Phew, it did read rather unfortunately for me at first :/
"Client" is a bizarre term. What other terms might they use?

[fatpie42]

Well to be honest, the only term that is coming to mind right now is "charge".

Considering the babysitter scenario, they don't really have a particular term for the children in their care at all, do they?

Teachers will refer to children as pupils or students, but that wouldn't work either.

To be honest I don't know. I'm not really confident arguing that using a different word than "client" was a particularly vital argument, since it didn't strike me as one of the most important points. I recognise that it seems strange though, all the same.