Rioting spreading through London & to other English cities.

Obviously. Evolution theory says that everything that happens cannot be other than logical. The use of the word "logical' is illogical for an evolutionist. "Good' only equates with 'logical' to a religious person. There is neither good nor bad in evolution theory. It is a mindless and meaningless --what? It can't even be called a process.

Saying it is 'good' to teach evolution theory betrays a confusion. Just as is saying it is logical to teach it.

Malnutrition generally is the result of the quantity of copulation being too large a burden for the resources available. Surely an evolutionist knows Malthus. The malnutrition in parts of Africa is preventable but if that leads to more copulation then the problem returns later on a larger scale.

The information in Finn's and Walter's quotes is insufficient to draw any conclusions from. Some of the patients dying may be the result of anorexia or deliberate starving to death so that coroners would not bring a verdict of suicide.

The death rate is the lowest it has ever been and with about 600,000 deaths per year in the UK the 239 is statistically off the bottom of the scale and insignificant. Hence the sarcastic conclusion about the doubling of spending is wrongheaded. The doubling has been a success.

Finn's anti-welfare agenda has been promoted by a sophistry which might take in the unwary. I thought it as well to correct it with a few facts.

There are a lot more suicide and road accident deaths which mostly involve young people.

Maybe Finn will define malnutrition.

Yes, that's my view, too, though of course I don't live there.
That article seemed strangely out of kilter with the England I know & the English people I got to know there.

The problem with JLM's article is that it has no 'hard on crime' scenario to compare with. It is therefore silly and it is surprising to find the WSJ engaging in such stuff. It must think its readers are stupid. Which perhaps they are.

J.K. Galbraith had plenty to say about the WSJ in his brilliant analysis of The Great Crash. It's an 'in-house' fat-cat lick-bottom production and it would be amazing if it wasn't.

Well it is just an "opinion" piece (if you're referring to the article Finn posted?) .... the views of the author.
Not necessarily the view which the WSJ holds, anymore than say, the Guardian would necessarily hold identical views to some of the articles posted in its "comment" section.

It isn't a view. It's a cynical exploitation of a sophistry or it is stupid.

WSJ is part of the Murdoch stable, nuff said.

OK then.
You understand, I hope, after what I've written above, that I don't endorse the what the author has written. I think she's way off the mark.
It's more that I'm trying to point out that there's a big difference between an "opinion" piece & the "official" news articles of any newspaper.

The news is theoretically based on reporting facts.
An opinion or comment piece is a writer's opinion of some event in the news.
Though of course, in some newspapers these days you can't see much difference between the two, can you?

It's not an opinion. It's a trick. Approved by the editor who ought to know better. You can't compare a situation 'soft on crime", which many would dispute anyway, with a 'hard on crime' situation that didn't exist.

Please continue now, from where you left off ....

OK, you might well be right there, spendius.
It's certainly a biased article, as I've already said.
I'd have to see what other points of view the WSJ supplied (if any), along with this one, before making a judgment on that, though.
If all the rest are very similar in their bias, I'd go along with your opinion.

Two opinions from August 11:


Britain's Road to Riots
'The Police Did Nothing'

The establishment has a vested interest in 'proving' that these riots are purely down to the actions of feral youths, and 'progressive' policies that have not tackled them. Anyone with half a brain can see it's not as simplistic as that. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who read 'news' articles purely to re-enforce their own prejudices. This is a propaganda machine worthy of Goebbels.

Just taking a look at the Opinion & Commentary page for myself, Walter.

Hmmmmmm ...

http://online.wsj.com/public/page/news-opinion-commentary.html

New Yorker.com has a recent relatively short news desk article (that means it's not in the magazine itself - the magazine is a weekly, while the news desk and blogs pretty much go on all the time) on Bratton, but more about the guy behind Bratton's proposed ideas, David M. Kennedy, and how things have been working out in Glasgow re Kennedy's ideas. Covers some of the many differences and similarites in gangs all over, and with police administrations in UK vs US.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/08/gang-violence-in-britain.html

I think it all boils down to who gets the Met job. If Kennedy gets the job then Bratton will probably get a fair crack of the whip, (although Kennedy will try to claim credit if all goes well.) If anyone else gets the job it will be an uphill struggle.

I think Kennedy's american though.. so won't get it; or am I wrong on that, that he's american? Not that I think an american should get the job. I'm just interested in the ideas re community policing (etc) and which way the wind will blow in the UK as well as, of course, here in a heavy gang country with more complications additive re mexican cartels presence and influence.

I'm sorry, I've got the names mixed up, I meant the Strathclyde police chief, Stephen House.

Ah, on the face of it, that seems like a good idea.

You then need to factor in the mayoral elections in May. Boris Johnson, the incumbent is a Tory, but he's also a rival to Cameron. He's not had a good riot, and is trying to distance himself from some of Cameron's more hard line policies, like reducing the police budget. Boris also played a significant role in the resignation of Ian Blair, who was chief constable when Boris became mayor. Boris may put the kibosh on anyone he thinks is Cameron's man. The Home Secretary may block anyone she thinks is close to Boris, and we may well end up with a compromise candidate.