Image 01 Image 03

Question of the Day

Question of the Day

Why are they rioting in England, they have free health care?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



Riots in London? I didn’t know they had a tea party…

[…] Legal Insurrection poses the question of the day –  ’Why are they rioting in England, they have free healthcare’ […]

Because that’s the way it works. If you get everything free, you don’t produce anything. You don’t have to, you’ll eat and have a roof over your head anyway. So then you start to feel “special” somehow. And superior to those hacks that have to work all day to pay for your “stuff”. And in that spirit, these cyphers pick a time to become incensed so that they can go tear down what has been built up by those stupid worker bees. Ah, feeling even more superior, right? Now they will expect an apology for whatever incensed them, and demand a raise in their welfare checks. And around and around it goes.
Yes, the sweet me is starting to get hacked off.

I am waiting for Obama to announce we are supporting the rebels because they have more in common with his vision of America.

Free healthcare contributes to rioting: if you get hurt expressing you hatred of The System, you will be able to be treated by The System you hate at no cost to yourself. You can be as irresponsible as you like since someone else is paying for your idiocy and its results.

This isn’t despite nanny-state coddling … it’s because of it!!

Here’s the typical phony root-causes of “alienation” excuse-making by the left:

From Jenny Jones, Green member of the London assembly and the party’s candidate for mayor in 2012:

“But we do need to look at why the perpetrators of this violence are so alienated from society. This is about young people who deeply feel that they do not have a stake in society, some of whom were already engaged in criminal activity. Just as we have projects that engage with extremists to draw them back into mainstream society, we need to re-engage with alienated young people in a variety of ways, such as creating employment and training opportunities, advice, youth centres, and community services.”

“Alienated”? More like Brando’s response in “The Wild One.”

Girl: “What are you rebelling against?”

Brando: “Whaddya got?”

As if these thugs just need more nanny-state coddling and then they wouldn’t be out assaulting passersby and burning down buildings … instead they’d be dashing out the door at 7:00 a.m. every morning, briefcase in one hand, umbrella in the other, newspaper folded under one armpit, slice of toast held in mouth until they have a free hand … no time to stop and eat breakfast when that could mean arriving less than 10 minutes early on the job … greeting coworkers with a smile and diligently getting down to work to show the boss what an asset their work ethic is to the business.

I’m trying to think if any of the poor Asians who’ve immigrated here in the past few decades … the parents working and sacrificing like mad to build up some personal wealth … instilling values of success in their children and demanding their children succeed academically … I’m trying to recall if they ever rioted because they felt this vague sense of “alienation.”

The poor Jews who arrived decades before them surely felt “alienated” and most certainly must have rioted like this.

It just can’t be a question of subculture. Just the thought of this actually being a question of a self-destructive subculture gives me a vague feeling of “alienation.”

LukeHandCool (who is single-handedly trying to bring back the cigarette pack rolled up in t-shirt sleeve fashion statement. And who will call around today for quotes on getting an “I feel alienated” tatoo).

Subotai Bahadur | August 9, 2011 at 12:04 pm

Short form, because they can and know that they can.

Longer version; to steal a phrase, The King’s Justice must be seen to be done. And it has not been done in the living memory of the rioters. It is rational for them to assume that it never will be.

For over two decades in Britain; actual punishment of criminals has been looked upon as barbaric by the criminal justice system [both prosecutors and courts]. Defending yourself from attack in your own home to protect your family is an actual criminal offense.

I read 2-3 Brit papers online, daily. Pretty much daily in that small country there are cases reported where a many times convicted felon attacks someone, robs someone, kills someone and when arrested and tried gets a minimal sentence that will be further reduced once incarcerated. Weekly, there are cases where someone is charged for defending themselves, and they always get treated far more harshly than the criminal. It is a tenet of British law that if attacked, you are required to be a compliant victim.

I have a daughter who studied in London a few years ago. They were briefed repeatedly by the school before they left, and by the Brit staff of their London Centre, that if attacked they were to curl up in a fetal position on the ground, and under no circumstances do anything “American” like fight back. They were issued whistles and “screamer alarms” on the dubious assumption that the authorities would respond.

There recently was a cause celebre where a family was taken prisoner in their home and tied up. The criminal was quite plain that his intention was rape and murder before theft. The father got loose, and managed to embed a fireplace poker in the criminal’s head. The father was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and attempted murder; with a possibility of decades in jail. The long rap sheet criminal got a couple of years, and sympathy because he had been injured. It was considered a major violation of precedent that the father was found not guilty. [mind you, he still was on the hook for horrendous legal bills].

Being a predator in Britain, especially if you are one of the protected minorities, is a low risk choice. You will rarely get caught. If you are caught, the odds are that you will not be punished severely. No matter how many times you are caught.

If you have a higher chance of being hit by one of those double decker buses than being punished for committing a crime; it is not surprising that criminal behavior is common. When you have your basic needs handled by a cradle to grave welfare system, preying on others becomes a sport and pastime.

The upper classes do not exactly set an example, as they used too. Shortly before the last election they caught most of the members of Parliament committing massive expenses fraud routinely. There were some resignations. New regulations were created. And in less than a year they were modified to the benefit of the MP’s. Upper level civil servants and businessmen are caught regularly illegally drawing welfare benefits. Kind of like in this country, the law only applies to the middle class.

And that is not mentioning the regular stories of immigrants [legal or otherwise] living at state expense better than the middle class.

As far as what the under-30 generation [where most of the rioters seem to fit], regardless of race [from what I have seen, while the riots started amongst their black gang culture, now it is an all hands affair] has had pounded into their heads since infancy; is that the criminal law is just an annoying suggestion, not something with any teeth.

As far as your tongue in cheek comment about the health care; when you are raised with your basic needs given to you without effort as an entitlement, then that part of Maslow’s Hierarchy becomes a “given”, like air to breathe. It is expected to be free. And since many have no experience of ever actually earning what they get [and since if you do work, taxes frequently leave you at best the same standard of living as those on welfare]; they expect that anything above the lower levels of the Hierarchy should be given to them the same way.

Coming soon to a country near you, if Obama and the Democrats have their way.

Subotai Bahadur

I haven’t seen much reporting about the cause of this rioting, but the following story from a so-called mid-level scandal sheet gives one explanation. I have no idea whether the facts stated are true or not, but here it is:

It’s George Bush’s fault

Although this question seems to have been asked with a degree of humor, I believe there is actually a very clear answer.

Awhile back (1968), Dr. Stephen Karpman developed the Drama Triangle as a way of understanding the dynamics of personal relationships. He explains how (and I’m greatly simplifying things here) whenever you “rescue” someone, they eventually come around to persecute you because you can only “help” people from a position of one-up or superiority. And you can only recieve “help” if you are one-down. Thus, there is a dynamic in play where relieving people from being responsible for their own lives eventually brings about animosity because it brings to mind people’s their relative positions of strength and power and people don’t like it when they are exposed to be lesser entities by those who purport to be superior entities. They thus react to charity in a very negative way.

I believe the dynamics of the Drama Triangle can be extrapolated from personal interactions and be equally applied to many forms of societal “rescue operations”.
People innately want to embrace the challenges of life and work through their own problems. By taking away the challenges of life, we reduce people to being helpless recipients of charity -and no able bodied person with pride really wants charity. People want opportunity.

Subotai Bahadur | August 9, 2011 at 1:33 pm

Ipso Facto | August 9, 2011 at 1:14 pm

I had not heard of the Drama Triangle. It makes a great deal of sense.

Updating what is happening in Britain. The British Home Secretary, Theresa May, has just functionally surrendered. In answer to calls for the use of water cannon and other more severe non-lethal means of breaking the riots, and the possibility of calling in the Army [They do not have anything like our Posse Commitatus laws. The police report to the national government through the Home Secretary. All it takes is the signing of a memorandum between the Home Secretary and the Defense Minister. See SAS -v- terrorists in Iranian Embassy] the Home Secretary said:

Theresa May this morning rejected growing pressure to deploy water cannon against London’s rioters, insisting that “the way we police is by consent.”

The Home Secretary appeared to rule out sending water cannon or the Army onto the streets of the capital, despite a third night of violence.

Speaking on Sky News, she said that police intelligence and the support of local communities would help quell the disturbances.

“The way we police in Britain is not through use of water cannon,” she said. “The way we police in Britain is through consent of communities.”

As those charged with offences appear in court today, “people will start to see the consequences of their actions”, Mrs May added.

I can just see the rioters quivering in their boots at that. Especially when those appearing in court are released without punishment. It gives every appearance that HM Ministers have been indulging in recreational pharmaceuticals that have severely impinged in their reality testing.

Long ago when the world was new and I was still wearing a badge for a living; one of a number of tenets [we called them “Attitudes”] I tried to get into the heads of new officers was, “When dealing with sociopaths, pre-emptive surrender is not a viable tactic.”.

Subotai Bahadur

    Weirddave in reply to LukeHandCool. | August 10, 2011 at 2:44 am

    In the “about” section of the blog, he says “spiked is endorsed by free-thinkers such as John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx”. I’m having trouble thinking of two more diametrically opposed philosophers.

LukeHandCool | August 9, 2011 at 2:19 pm

typo! welfare “state”

London citizens are striking back with new technology, too. They have a website where pics of the looters are being posted. There will never be a more wretched hive of scum and villainy:

Just caught this in a more recent post


or The “Other Insurrection” – “The Coming Insurrection”

But don’t forget the possibilities with Soros-Obama-etc

I can’t stop wondering the source of the attacks on Murdoch for what were common practice there and here…Watergate