Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
When is a Riot not a Riot?
I often disagree with contributors to HoL - sometimes fundamentally. The discussion of the riots was a good example. A wide range of feelings were expressed: anger, fear, grief, shock. And just as wide a range of proposed actions: from calls for severe punishment; to the need to reaffirm community values.
But I don't think that anyone failed to see that something very ugly and very serious happened. Violence, arson, and the destruction of property. Buildings were razed. Shops were looted. Police and firefighters attacked. Some people were forced to flee from burning homes; while others lost businesses they'd built up over years. A young man lost his life.
So I wonder. Am I wrong to get increasingly irritated by the euphemisms creeping in?
Councillors have been summoned to an "Extraordinary" Council meeting on 3 October to discuss "the serious public disorder which took place in Tottenham". Not, you'll notice, the riot.
I've heard people refer to "the disorder" and "the events". The most frequent term is: "the disturbances". With one suggestion that: ". . . the changing face of Tottenham Hale will soon erase memories of this summer's disturbances."
Of course, I appreciate people's good intentions - they want to be upbeat and positive. But is erasing memories really a sensible way to understand and learn from events?
Then on the Council's webpage, I read about the arrival of Anne Lippitt as the temporary Regeneration Programme Director. Her job is to tackle the recovery. From what I hear, Anne is a skilled and highly experienced officer who will make a valuable contribution.
But although this news item did mention riots once, it was otherwise full of absurd and convoluted euphemisms. So stuffed with them, that instead of getting irritated I had to laugh. (Especially the bit about Anne "having lived just a stone’s throw from the High Road as a child.")
So what's happening in Tottenham? It is being "improved" . . . "with fresh vision, aims and outcomes for the area".
Yes, the Council's website is now being written in Obfuscandian!
Tags for Forum Posts: Obfuscandian, Tottenham, disorder, disturbances, euphemism, riots
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by John McMullan on
-
I realise from some of the vandalism I did as a youngster that I would have been a rioter, especially given the impotence I would have felt as a kettled young legitimate "protester". I would have wanted to riot so it must have been a riot. Please keep in mind that as has become increasingly apparent, the looting was mostly done by semi-criminal, van owning, adults.
-
Permalink Reply by pamish on
-
I've been saying since Day One that we need to use the right words and not mix them up (though there is some overlap)
ie protest; riot; looting; vandalism; arson. Looting is not rioting; from all accounts the only real rioting was on Saturday night in Tottenham, and a bit in Hackney on Sunday(?).
I have noted several councillors talking about The Disturbances lately and had guessed this is under instruction. Does it apply to all parties?
-
Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on
-
Pam, you made me wonder. Were there 'real' riots only in Tottenham and "a bit" in Hackney?
I recalled other places I saw on the TV News. And quickly googled Croydon and Manchester. Looting yes. But apparently some rioting as well. Of course, I'm not saying that a few minutes on the webpages of two local newspapers is conclusive of anything. But doesn't this at least raise a doubt in your mind?
Incidentally, there's no "instruction" to councillors to talk about "the Disturbances", and I've challenged some of my Labour colleagues for using this phrase.
(Labour councillor Tottenham Hale ward)
-
-
By riot I mean fighting - in this case using missiles - with police or whoever else is trying to maintain order. The rest is 'organised' looting with vandalism thrown in, sometimes with the extra horror of arson. Rioting to me is about damage to bodies rather than property as the forces of order and chaos /resistance clash. So those taking pleasure from throwing bricks at police were rioting not looting, and it was not about providing distraction for their mums n dads to go looting, it was just expressing rage/resentment/ennui/whatever justification they could come up with. Tottenham yes. Hackney seemed to be this, running street battles /cat+mouse police and 'youths'. May well have happened elsewhere for its own sake but most of what was shown was looting ie using the crowd to enable burglary.
The arson is something else - beyond my comprehension. I can just about see it being used to destroy evidence. Otherwise, it can only be for fun? Did any arsonists get caught? Did they come back in the morning and feel shame?
-
Permalink Reply by Old-Age-Emporium(OAE) on
-
Between 1715 and 1973 no such confusion was possible in the UK. Indeed in the 1940s/50s we knew we had best disperse when my father even threatened to read the Riot Act.
THE RIOT ACT
Preamble: If any persons to the number of 12 or more unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously assemble together to the disturbance of the public peace and being required by any Justice by proclamation in the King's name in the exact form of the Riot Act, I George I, Sess.2c.5s.2 to disperse themselves and peaceably depart, shall to the number of 12 or more unlawfully, riotously and tumultuously remain or continue together for an hour after such proclamation shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by death and without benefit of clergy.
The Form of Proclamation is as follows:-
"Our Sovereign Lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the Act made in the first year of King George the First for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies."
GOD SAVE THE KING.
So no mention of fighting, missiles, fighting with police, damage to bodies or even property, or physical clashes. Police who joined the peaceful strikes in Birkenhead in 1919 had the Riot Act read to them, the JP being backed by a military force just back from WWI. Alas, "the pains contained in the Act" to put these felons in their place had long fallen into abeyance.
-
-
'Humankind cannot bear very much reality' : Eliot
In Northern Ireland the 1968-'98 era is known as 'The Troubles' (as in our traditional 'Sorry for your trouble' in sympathising with a neighbour's bereavement.
In 1939-45 Ireland South had 'The Emergency' while everyone else was enjoying World War II.
In 1916, half way through 'The Great War', we had 'Caill na Sasana:Faill na Éireann' or 'England's Difficulty = Ireland's Opportunity'.
Wonder if Orwell could get a job in LBH's Obfuscandia ?
-
Permalink Reply by matt on
-
Loot to gain loot
Riot to be heard
Whichever. Wasn't there!
Regeneration officer good idea? Time will tell, I guess. Give it a few years. Depends on funding, ideas and local support.
-
-
My ignorance of Irish history is shameful, OAE. But I'd assumed that - as in most armed conflicts - different political groups would want alternative terminology. For example, are people "internees" or "prisoners of war"? If using the 'wrong' words means that peace negotiators walk out, then neutral language becomes invaluable.
But I simply can't understand the reasoning behind the use of terms like "disturbances" or "upsets" to describe riots, looting and arson. The latest example I spotted on Haringey's website says that the move of Planning from 639 High Road Tottenham to River Park House was: "due to incidents in Tottenham".
I emailed the Chief Executive asking that, for once, on a matter of this importance, officers should tell the truth without spin.
-
-
Indeed, Alan, as Martin McGuinness [Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin MP at (but not attending) Westminster, former IRA Commander in (London)Derry] is now a candidate for the Presidency of (the Republic of) Ireland, I expect over the next four weeks to hear the Dublin establishment (who would prefer him to stay put north of the Border) making desperate attempts to unspin or de-euphemise much of the neutral language they found useful in 'peace-processing' the 'Northern Troubles' over the past two decades.
-
-
Indeed, Sasanach (anglicised as sassenach) is the substantive and adjective from Sasana. Funny, unlike other Europeans, we always called England and the English after the Saxons rather than the Angles.
Scotland was always Albain and Scot/tish is Albanach, pl Albanaigh.
Of course Scotti for the Romans were the Irish though they inhabited Hibernia (which the Romans never reached) until the Scotti learnt to swim and reached Albain which then became Scotland rather than Pictland. Thus the mediaeval scholar John Scotus Eriugena, whom the Irish claim, and the philosopher Duns Scotus, whom the Scottish claim as one of theirs.
Wales we always called An Bhreatain Bheag (The Little Britain) to distinguish it from An Bhreatain Mhór (Great Britain) which, sorry to say John, always included Albain as part of our neighbouring island.
It also gave us our common family surname, Breathnach (which in Irish English is Welsh or Walsh/e).
And then, of course, there is An Bhriotáin (Brittany) and Briotánach, pl Briotánaigh (Breton/s) - whom some say are the real ancestors of the Walsh/e or Welsh (Breathnach) families who then, I suppose, should really be called Briotánach (or Breton, as in the case of André Breton - a good Breton Communist who lived in Ireland in the 1950s/60s.)
Manann or Oilean Mhanann is our Isle of Man - not to be confused with Móna which we borrowed from the Romans for Anglesey. And Corn na Breataine (Britain's Horn) explains itself.
Well, John, you did ask!
© 2024 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
