Comments by "harvey young" (@harveyyoung3423) on "Leeds Riots: UK is Becoming a Sectarian u0026 Tribal Ethno-Religious Nation" video.

  1. I saw the previous interview in this piece from TalkTV i didn't make it this far into the discussion though
    1
  2. Part A1: Dr Kiszely talks about getting away from interpreting events and situations with pre-existing narratives and what often goes with that pre-framing, a fixed political response on what ought to be done. The political response is always from the side of various governmental and indirectly governmental institutions. With these schema then what is to be done follows what can be done, and these are always aligned with various institutions as the mediating agency of response and action. This though generates a reversal of the normal order of: first understanding a situation; and then looking for a response. The "what can be done" and "who does it" leads the "what is the situation" and "its interpretation". i think this is the explanation of why the mainstream narratives tend to come from the side of "official" professional institutions and against so called "communities" i.e. people who are not the who, of those institutions. There probably can be and is sectarian divides within and between these "communities" that can certainly be reactions to foreign events involving communities and countries far away. Perhaps because there are people and communities here that might feel, or even be told by "international race social justice" that they really belong to first before all other belongings. ie it is not just sympathetic relations but structured covariant relations structured here by and though the forms and content of international social justice through law. While the left while not in power seemed to side with such communities in opposition or criticism of the police, they did this drawing on, and with other institutions ie law and mental health. This lead the right the right critique to side with the police against the left and some communities. this resulted in a kind of de facto alliance of the right with some legal and medical institutions, even while criticising left medical projects like those broadly classed as Gender Critical by and with the left. Now in many ways the police will be representing the force sometimes required for the medical social services to enact their projects in or on the communities. Now if the medical and socials services were really just in the business of working for the absolute good, and out of absolute Right and duty this use of force would not be problematic. But it is my opinion and experience that these institutions operate in and though left social justice programs. So we have a couple of dilemmas here. if such events we have seen in Leeds have their origin in race sectarianism driven by events over seas facilitated by legal relations of covariance, then it might well be correct to align ones position with that of the police to control the events and let social services do their job. However if social services are engaging in projects that are affiliated to wider left wing political aims that are often in conflict with communities and families, and the police just work from and for the social medical services and their projects, this knee jerk reaction to side with "law and order" then would be a misinterpretation and misplaced support for such institutional action. In short then, if the right have been critical of areas of medical and social services in terms of them prosecuting a left social justice political agenda though medical and social justice institutions, then there ought not to be an automatic knee jerk reaction to take the side of those institutions and their police enforcers against communities and families. Rather they ought to look listen and at least await judgement. The images of the riot easily wring out an interpretation of inter community conflict and even a picture of this as proxy for a conflict between the rule of law here and foreign politics, and so cause a blind alignment with "the rule of law" here. but of course the "rule of law" here might mean the power and enforcement of the "rule of state and its action through national medical and social services". if the later is a method of prosecuting a left social justice political agenda then un critically aligning with the police against communities and families would be ill judged and a reveal a certain sectarian prejudice in favour of state institutions against communities setting the State as the absolute custodian of the Good and the Right against the community which is then placed in as the negation or opposite of this good and just. Kant and Wittgenstein both, discussed as central exercising the capacity and capability of judgement, and while that refers to the world as an image not just aggregated data, we must not let mere associative relations of that image with others miss lead our judgment of the situation as it is in itself.
    1
  3. Part A2: The many economic problems from the last Labour government and the many problems that beset the conservative government not of its making, have resulted in much poverty and desperation for many poorer communities. It looks to me like the Labour government intend to deal with this not primarily by direct economic assistance to those communities but by projects of heath care and particularly mental health and social services. These massive external national multi instituional projects on communities, will involve huge amounts of money to those institutions their massive expansion, and of course the creation of new jobs and lots of newly employed people many though not all, being highly paid to deliver them. What I am saying is the relational image most appropriate to the riots in Leeds, might not be a foreign sectarian conflict, or a community of people enjoying a local Cricket match. We might need a new image of relation here: vertical not horizontal. That is an image of a community in poverty reacting to an over bearing ideological medical social services police nexus. For simplicity an image of quiet tasteful well spoken but sinister people in offices and medical and mental health centres. Who following the economic, covid and energy problems devastation of those communities, then exploit this poverty and necessity to justify but not legitimate their projects? This then I hope to break the easy friend enemy sectarianism of institutions and their agents as good and just and communities as harm and risk and harm without such institutional intervention backed up by force. The recent record, though not just recent events, of social services and medical institutions ought to be enough evidence of their lack in action of really being there for the children against bad parenting and bad communities. The bad and neglectful treatment is one thing but the failure of the institutions to accept this and deal with it internally and between these institutions is a massive dereliction of duty and might even be due to politicised, biased and prejudiced, malfeasance. The children are not first owned by the State and its newly employed army of workers in social services and mental health.
    1
  4. Part B: Bellow is a post on this I made yesterday to Talk TV YouTube channel. You're both wrong about social services. The so called high bar is so vague that the Social Services can and do operate a reverse policy between the apprehension of a family and their legal obligations duties and powers. That is they do not begin with looking at the case in its elf and then move to evidence and legal powers of action, rather they reverse this and begin with thinking about their legal powers first then turn to the kinds of evidence they need to trigger them, and only then look at the case wholly from the point of view of being able to interpret what they see as properties than can provide content that can then be interpreted in abstraction from the case and so determine an affordance for the justification of the use of force. The police work in similar ways as do the heath care professions particularly in mental health. These three institutions along with the law are supposed to operate as checks and balances on each other, not as mutual support for each others projects. The police always side with the officials, period. Even when the level of station and duty is mealy that of a shop keeper. The police begin with the assumption the "agent" officials in some uniform with some title are always in the right, and the "patent" always in the wrong a priori. so called community leaders and representatives while talking as if mediating between the officials and ordinary people, in practice align themselves with the officials unless wider political interests would deem otherwise. The proximate problem then is they begin with their institutional structures and seek to find elements in a situation that can be sued to trigger their powers. Like in evidence collection they do not see the whole picture in context, but seek bits that can be used. It's a kind of evidence version of pro active policing, that is policing as project aim orientated, which as such move towards policing under emergency measures, military style policing, and so on. Eg not policing by consent. One very factual symptom of this is the neglect to find exculpatory evidence, either since it will not aid their aim and will only ever be a obstacle to their aims. Of course in the case of Child removal they prioritise the Rights of the Child as the absolute justification. This links to both their friends in the medical services, and their friends in policing. In general a family with children removed will have to find such exculpatory evidence and take this through a complex system of review and enquiry that will take years even if they had the money for the expertise needed. Human Rights are already drawn into the official nexus and so they only tend to be concerned with race and gender issues in which a political ideology deems men as the villains and primary risk. indeed rather than human rights as an opposition to them, the whole nexus includes human rights with them as part of its affordance structure. Caviet: i know nothing of the case but have had much experience and many dealings with these sorts of official types initially from within the same institutional side, that is with them. They are biased conceited arrogant people, who have the attitude that the children are really their children by virtue (or vice) of the child's individual human right and medical science methods and legal powers. They view parents as mere custodians, and as such by virtue only of lesser parental rights or family rights. Social workers psychologist lawyers i have worked with are all the same, in my experience of teaching them and having them as colleagues and friends in academic institutions. The irony was they forced me in the end to seek mental heath care under threat of having me legally committed. That is they forced me into the hands of the same kinds of people they worked for. Some might have even been friends of theirs. This followed years of me arguing against the wide spread expansions of things like metal heath services in communities, from mid 2000's into early 2010's. I guess they finally realised not only was i not going to help them in their politicised project, but I did not share their politics. most of them had no kids of their own, and are driven by some kind of resentment disguised as care.
    1
  5. Good News is its the last Laura K show for the summer, and Chariots of Fire is on TV. I've not seen it since it was first on in those far of days when i was simply a labour supporter too.
    1