Riots in North London (and other UK cities)

[Coccygia]

I listened to a BBC radio program (on NPR) about this last night. 2 of the looters were interviewed on the street. They admitted that they could easily afford to buy the things they were stealing "but it's free innit?" Asked if they blamed the government they said "Yeah, they can't stop us, can they?" This isn't about anything political or economic, it's just thuggery. Naturally the usual suspects are trying to insist otherwise, and that's in part what got the UK into this mess.

[Alyakia]

Even if you think it's just thuggery that somehow spontaneously appearing out of nowhere, the part where the rioters realise that they're in "control" is still "complicated social psychology". Riots and the group mentality are very much "complicated social psychology" even if you want to ignore everything before it. It's a group phenonemon, not a collection of individuals.

You of all people must know about the Scarman report, right?

Sure, post-Brixton. Well aware of the time and the place.

It's not a complex social psychology - it's mob rule. It' the easiest psychology there is - the pragmatism of the individual subsumed into the will of the mob. People who WANT to be involved in the mob are going where the mob will be. That's all there is to it.

Oh, great!

Oh, relatively simple social psychology then.

And where do mobs come from?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Sure, post-Brixton. Well aware of the time and the place.

It's not a complex social psychology - it's mob rule. It' the easiest psychology there is - the pragmatism of the individual subsumed into the will of the mob. People who WANT to be involved in the mob are going where the mob will be. That's all there is to it.

Oh, great!

Oh, relatively simple social psychology then.

And where do mobs come from?

Depends. Many of them just spawn in dark places.

[Alyakia]

I listened to a BBC radio program (on NPR) about this last night. 2 of the looters were interviewed on the street. They admitted that they could easily afford to buy the things they were stealing "but it's free innit?" Asked if they blamed the government they said "Yeah, they can't stop us, can they?" This isn't about anything political or economic, it's just thuggery. Naturally the usual suspects are trying to insist otherwise, and that's in part what got the UK into this mess.

I'm actually late to start posting this!

Prof John Pitts, a criminologist who advises several London local authorities on young people and gangs, says some of those taking the lead in the looting will be known to the authorities, while others are swept along.

Rioters have set fire to cars and buses He says looting makes "powerless people suddenly feel powerful" and that is "very intoxicating".

"The world has been turned upside down. The youngsters are used to adults in authority telling them they cannot do this or this will happen. Then they do it and nothing happens."

He says a large number of youngsters are involved in these riots because it is the school holidays and the nights are longer.

Numbers are all important in a riot and the tipping point comes when the rioters feel in control, he adds.

"You cannot riot on your own. A one-man riot is a tantrum. At some point the bigger crowds confronting the police realise that they are in control."

"Prof Pitts says riots are complex events and cannot be explained away as "just thuggery"."

[Grave_n_idle]

Sure, post-Brixton. Well aware of the time and the place.

It's not a complex social psychology - it's mob rule. It' the easiest psychology there is - the pragmatism of the individual subsumed into the will of the mob. People who WANT to be involved in the mob are going where the mob will be. That's all there is to it.

Oh, great!

Oh, relatively simple social psychology then.

And where do mobs come from?

Apparently, mainly from the local social housing projects.

Or... did you mean how did they form? Again, apparently, through social media.

Local people who want to burn shit, steal shit, have a rumble, and blow shit up... are meeting up to burn shit, steal shit, have a rumble and blow shit up.

It's not some deep psychological conundrum. It's people doing what they want to do, because they think they can get away with it. It's about as simple as psychology gets.

[New Norman England]

Sure, post-Brixton. Well aware of the time and the place.

It's not a complex social psychology - it's mob rule. It' the easiest psychology there is - the pragmatism of the individual subsumed into the will of the mob. People who WANT to be involved in the mob are going where the mob will be. That's all there is to it.

Oh, great!

Oh, relatively simple social psychology then.

And where do mobs come from?

On Saturday night everybody in the country saw live footage of the Duggan "protesters" burning police cars, a double decker bus, and a shop. Not only that but they saw the police doing absolutely nothing about it, just letting the stuff burn.

It's not a stretch to think that opportunist thugs who saw that footage went in to monkey see, monkey do mode.

[Grave_n_idle]

I listened to a BBC radio program (on NPR) about this last night. 2 of the looters were interviewed on the street. They admitted that they could easily afford to buy the things they were stealing "but it's free innit?" Asked if they blamed the government they said "Yeah, they can't stop us, can they?" This isn't about anything political or economic, it's just thuggery. Naturally the usual suspects are trying to insist otherwise, and that's in part what got the UK into this mess.

I'm actually late to start posting this!

Prof John Pitts, a criminologist who advises several London local authorities on young people and gangs, says some of those taking the lead in the looting will be known to the authorities, while others are swept along.

Rioters have set fire to cars and buses He says looting makes "powerless people suddenly feel powerful" and that is "very intoxicating".

"The world has been turned upside down. The youngsters are used to adults in authority telling them they cannot do this or this will happen. Then they do it and nothing happens."

He says a large number of youngsters are involved in these riots because it is the school holidays and the nights are longer.

Numbers are all important in a riot and the tipping point comes when the rioters feel in control, he adds.

"You cannot riot on your own. A one-man riot is a tantrum. At some point the bigger crowds confronting the police realise that they are in control."

"Prof Pitts says riots are complex events and cannot be explained away as "just thuggery"."

Prof Pitts thinks he's very important, and wants to be heard.

[AiliailiA]

But it is quite wrong of police to use any more violence than necessary to prevent imminent harm to others, to defend themselves, or to effect an arrest. Punishment should follow only after due process, meaning a trial. Police who apply any more violence than that are at best incompetent, and in my opinion corrupt: they abuse their position of power.

Different circumstances. Rounding up a couple of kids for shoplifting, in the regular course of things? Cuff 'em and book 'em.

Rounding up a handful of rioters as part of an extended campaign of conflict with rioters... sure, knock 'em around a bit.

It's not a handful. It's ONE. Six cops had one "rioter" fully under their control ... just like if they were arresting a shoplifter.

And you say "knock them around a bit". That's punishment, and I consider police dealing out punishment to be utterly unacceptable in a lawful society. It is no more legitimate than one citizen beating up another. It's a crime.

Now I'm sure that with your great talent for not being wrong

Again... thanks?

... that you can weasel out of that ... but whatever. You've given me an opportunity to express my own opinion, and I'm not much interested in your opinion since you take such great pains to conceal it.

I've hardly hidden my opinion. I said I'd be okay with live fire on the rioters. I'm not exactly being coy.

But then, I think you said it all right there - you're not actually interested in my opinion. Preach on, brother. Preach on.

It's a long thread, and I didn't read it all though I have followed it from day to day.

Could you perhaps link to where you said live fire on the rioters would be OK by you?

[Miami city]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-14434318

This is completely un-British, and it has all come from thisnguy being killed by the police, they've burnt down a bus, two police car, and there is a large fire in a shop. I'm watching this live on the news, so I can update here.

It's quite scary, the fact is that this is going on only 2 miles from where I live, and if I go to the roof, I can probably see the light. I really hope the police can control it and it doesn't get out of hand


ModEdit: Thread title changed in an attempt to avoid multiple threads on current riots.

puppies will change the way people think in North London and th Uk

[Coccygia]

I listened to a BBC radio program (on NPR) about this last night. 2 of the looters were interviewed on the street. They admitted that they could easily afford to buy the things they were stealing "but it's free innit?" Asked if they blamed the government they said "Yeah, they can't stop us, can they?" This isn't about anything political or economic, it's just thuggery. Naturally the usual suspects are trying to insist otherwise, and that's in part what got the UK into this mess.

I'm actually late to start posting this!

Prof John Pitts, a criminologist who advises several London local authorities on young people and gangs, says some of those taking the lead in the looting will be known to the authorities, while others are swept along.

Rioters have set fire to cars and buses He says looting makes "powerless people suddenly feel powerful" and that is "very intoxicating".

"The world has been turned upside down. The youngsters are used to adults in authority telling them they cannot do this or this will happen. Then they do it and nothing happens."

He says a large number of youngsters are involved in these riots because it is the school holidays and the nights are longer.

Numbers are all important in a riot and the tipping point comes when the rioters feel in control, he adds.

"You cannot riot on your own. A one-man riot is a tantrum. At some point the bigger crowds confronting the police realise that they are in control."

"Prof Pitts says riots are complex events and cannot be explained away as "just thuggery"."

Oh, Professor Pitts says that! Oh, well I guess I'm just all wet then, if Professor Pitts says so! The great Professor Pitts hath spoken!

Who the Hell is this Professor Pitts anyhow? And the things he describes sound a lot like "just thuggery" to me. He's right about one thing: this is happening because the people doing it know nothing is going to happen to them.

[F1-Insanity]

What should have been done is put the rioters on notice on the first night: cease the riots within 24 hours or the police starts using live bullets. And the army too... (does Britain still have one?).

Just repeat the warning for 24 hours through every tv channel, radio station, newspaper etc... the rioters can't claim they weren't warned.

[Alyakia]

I'm actually late to start posting this!

Prof John Pitts, a criminologist who advises several London local authorities on young people and gangs, says some of those taking the lead in the looting will be known to the authorities, while others are swept along.

Rioters have set fire to cars and buses He says looting makes "powerless people suddenly feel powerful" and that is "very intoxicating".

"The world has been turned upside down. The youngsters are used to adults in authority telling them they cannot do this or this will happen. Then they do it and nothing happens."

He says a large number of youngsters are involved in these riots because it is the school holidays and the nights are longer.

Numbers are all important in a riot and the tipping point comes when the rioters feel in control, he adds.

"You cannot riot on your own. A one-man riot is a tantrum. At some point the bigger crowds confronting the police realise that they are in control."

"Prof Pitts says riots are complex events and cannot be explained away as "just thuggery"."

Prof Pitts thinks he's very important, and wants to be heard.

So you're going to completely ignore this criminologist who advises London authorities on youth and gangs because you've decided they're arrogant? Sweet.

[Alyakia]

I'm actually late to start posting this!

Prof John Pitts, a criminologist who advises several London local authorities on young people and gangs, says some of those taking the lead in the looting will be known to the authorities, while others are swept along.

Rioters have set fire to cars and buses He says looting makes "powerless people suddenly feel powerful" and that is "very intoxicating".

"The world has been turned upside down. The youngsters are used to adults in authority telling them they cannot do this or this will happen. Then they do it and nothing happens."

He says a large number of youngsters are involved in these riots because it is the school holidays and the nights are longer.

Numbers are all important in a riot and the tipping point comes when the rioters feel in control, he adds.

"You cannot riot on your own. A one-man riot is a tantrum. At some point the bigger crowds confronting the police realise that they are in control."

"Prof Pitts says riots are complex events and cannot be explained away as "just thuggery"."

Oh, Professor Pitts says that! Oh, well I guess I'm just all wet then, if Professor Pitts says so! The great Professor Pitts hath spoken!

Who the Hell is this Professor Pitts anyhow? And the things he describes sound a lot like "just thuggery" to me. He's right about one thing: this is happening because the people doing it know nothing is going to happen to them.

"Prof John Pitts, a criminologist who advises several London local authorities on young people "

Good reading.

[Alyakia]

Oh, great!

Oh, relatively simple social psychology then.

And where do mobs come from?

Apparently, mainly from the local social housing projects.

Or... did you mean how did they form? Again, apparently, through social media.

Local people who want to burn shit, steal shit, have a rumble, and blow shit up... are meeting up to burn shit, steal shit, have a rumble and blow shit up.

It's not some deep psychological conundrum. It's people doing what they want to do, because they think they can get away with it. It's about as simple as psychology gets.

So, what motivates other mobs, like lynch mobs/vigilante mobs?

[Coccygia]

Oh, Professor Pitts says that! Oh, well I guess I'm just all wet then, if Professor Pitts says so! The great Professor Pitts hath spoken!

Who the Hell is this Professor Pitts anyhow? And the things he describes sound a lot like "just thuggery" to me. He's right about one thing: this is happening because the people doing it know nothing is going to happen to them.

"Prof John Pitts, a criminologist who advises several London local authorities on young people "

Good reading.

Sounds like he could be giving London local authorities better advice.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

So, what motivates other mobs, like lynch mobs/vigilante mobs?

They want to lynch / be vigilantes.

Seems to be the current logic. "They want to just cuz"

[Alyakia]

"Prof John Pitts, a criminologist who advises several London local authorities on young people "

Good reading.

Sounds like he could be giving London local authorities better advice.

Right, get this criminologist/person who studies crime out. We need Coccygia in the advisory position. I'm not sure what his job is or how it's relevant, but I'm sure he'll do a great job.

[Trixiestan]

Nothing 'mindless' about rioters

Although riots are complex social phenomenona, the recent unrest in England has inescapably political roots.

Civil disturbances never have a single, simple meaning. When the Bastille was being stormed the thieves of Paris doubtless took advantage of the mayhem to rob houses and waylay unlucky revolutionaries. Sometimes the thieves were revolutionaries. Sometimes the revolutionaries were thieves. And it is reckless to start making confident claims about events that are spread across the country and that have many different elements. In Britain over the past few days there have been clashes between the police and young people. Crowds have set buildings, cars and buses on fire. Shops have been looted and passersby have been attacked. Only a fool would announce what it all means.

We can dispense with some mistakes, though. It is wrong to say that the riots are apolitical. The trouble began on Saturday night when protesters gathered at Tottenham police station to demand that the police explain the circumstances in which a local man, Mark Duggan, had been shot dead by the police. The death of a Londoner, another black Londoner, at the hands of the police has a gruesome significance. The police are employed to keep the peace and the police shot someone dead. This is a deeply political matter. Besides, it is conventional to say how much policing in London has changed since the Brixton riots of the early eighties - but not many people mouthing the conventional wisdom have much firsthand experience of being young and poor in Britain's inner cities.

More broadly, any breakdown of civil order is inescapably political. Quite large numbers of mostly young people have decided that, on balance, they want to take to the streets and attack the forces of law and order, damage property or steal goods. Their motives may differ - they are bound to differ. But their actions can only be understood adequately in political terms. While the recklessness of adrenaline has something to do with what is happening, the willingness to act is something to be explained. We should perhaps ask them what they were thinking before reaching for phrases like "mindless violence". We might actually learn something.

The fierce conflict remains ahead

The profusion of images that modern technology generates makes it even more difficult to impose a single meaning on a complex event. Those who live in terror of a feral underclass and those who are worried about the impact of fiscal austerity on vulnerable communities can find material online that confirms their world-view. There will be a fierce conflict in the weeks ahead as politicians, commentators and others seek to frame the events of the last few days in ways that serve their wider agenda. The police, for example, will call for increased budgets to deal with the increased risks of civil disorder. In this sense, too, riots are inescapably political events.

There are signs too that technology is allowing individuals to intervene in the process by which meaning is assigned to social events. When disorder broke out in France in 2005 in somewhat similar circumstances the political right was the major beneficiary. Sarkozy's rise from interior minister to president owed a great deal to his role in expressing the anxious aggression of a mass constituency that often lived far away from the burning cars and public buildings.

In London today people were on the streets tidying up the damage. The hashtag #riotcleanup on Twitter is being used by councils and residents to coordinate the work. The decision to act in this way, to make the streets a little more safe, to reclaim them for peaceful sociability, steps away from the temptation to condemn the violence or explain it in terms that inevitably simplify or distort it. Those who come together like this will be less likely to conclude that the country is on the verge of chaos, less likely to call for harsh measures and the further erosion of liberty in the name of security. It is the one shrewd thing one can do in present circumstances and it is to be celebrated.

So there is no single meaning in what is happening in London and elsewhere. But there are connections that we can make, and that we should make. We have a major problem with youth unemployment. There have already been cuts in services for young people. State education in poor areas is sometimes shockingly bad. Young people cannot afford adequate private housing and there is a shortage of council-built stock. Economic inequality has reached quite startling levels. All this is the consequence of decisions made by governments and there is little hope of rapid improvement. The same politicians now denouncing the mindless violence of the mob all supported a system of political economy that was as unstable as it was pernicious. They should have known that their policies would lead to disaster. They didn't know. Who then is more mindless?

The global economic crisis is at least as political as the riots we've seen in the last few days. It has lasted far longer and done far more damage. We need not draw a straight line from the decision to bail out the banks to what's going on now in London. But we must not lose sight of what both events tell us about our current condition. Those who want to see law and order restored must turn their attention to a menace that no amount of riot police will disperse; a social and political order that rewards vandalism and the looting of public property, so long as the perpetrators are sufficiently rich and powerful.

And here's the important bit because I know what some of you can be like~

So there is no single meaning in what is happening in London and elsewhere. But there are connections that we can make, and that we should make. We have a major problem with youth unemployment. There have already been cuts in services for young people. State education in poor areas is sometimes shockingly bad. Young people cannot afford adequate private housing and there is a shortage of council-built stock. Economic inequality has reached quite startling levels. All this is the consequence of decisions made by governments and there is little hope of rapid improvement. The same politicians now denouncing the mindless violence of the mob all supported a system of political economy that was as unstable as it was pernicious. They should have known that their policies would lead to disaster. They didn't know. Who then is more mindless?

[Coccygia]

Nothing 'mindless' about rioters

Although riots are complex social phenomenona, the recent unrest in England has inescapably political roots.

Civil disturbances never have a single, simple meaning. When the Bastille was being stormed the thieves of Paris doubtless took advantage of the mayhem to rob houses and waylay unlucky revolutionaries. Sometimes the thieves were revolutionaries. Sometimes the revolutionaries were thieves. And it is reckless to start making confident claims about events that are spread across the country and that have many different elements. In Britain over the past few days there have been clashes between the police and young people. Crowds have set buildings, cars and buses on fire. Shops have been looted and passersby have been attacked. Only a fool would announce what it all means.

We can dispense with some mistakes, though. It is wrong to say that the riots are apolitical. The trouble began on Saturday night when protesters gathered at Tottenham police station to demand that the police explain the circumstances in which a local man, Mark Duggan, had been shot dead by the police. The death of a Londoner, another black Londoner, at the hands of the police has a gruesome significance. The police are employed to keep the peace and the police shot someone dead. This is a deeply political matter. Besides, it is conventional to say how much policing in London has changed since the Brixton riots of the early eighties - but not many people mouthing the conventional wisdom have much firsthand experience of being young and poor in Britain's inner cities.

More broadly, any breakdown of civil order is inescapably political. Quite large numbers of mostly young people have decided that, on balance, they want to take to the streets and attack the forces of law and order, damage property or steal goods. Their motives may differ - they are bound to differ. But their actions can only be understood adequately in political terms. While the recklessness of adrenaline has something to do with what is happening, the willingness to act is something to be explained. We should perhaps ask them what they were thinking before reaching for phrases like "mindless violence". We might actually learn something.

The fierce conflict remains ahead

The profusion of images that modern technology generates makes it even more difficult to impose a single meaning on a complex event. Those who live in terror of a feral underclass and those who are worried about the impact of fiscal austerity on vulnerable communities can find material online that confirms their world-view. There will be a fierce conflict in the weeks ahead as politicians, commentators and others seek to frame the events of the last few days in ways that serve their wider agenda. The police, for example, will call for increased budgets to deal with the increased risks of civil disorder. In this sense, too, riots are inescapably political events.

There are signs too that technology is allowing individuals to intervene in the process by which meaning is assigned to social events. When disorder broke out in France in 2005 in somewhat similar circumstances the political right was the major beneficiary. Sarkozy's rise from interior minister to president owed a great deal to his role in expressing the anxious aggression of a mass constituency that often lived far away from the burning cars and public buildings.

In London today people were on the streets tidying up the damage. The hashtag #riotcleanup on Twitter is being used by councils and residents to coordinate the work. The decision to act in this way, to make the streets a little more safe, to reclaim them for peaceful sociability, steps away from the temptation to condemn the violence or explain it in terms that inevitably simplify or distort it. Those who come together like this will be less likely to conclude that the country is on the verge of chaos, less likely to call for harsh measures and the further erosion of liberty in the name of security. It is the one shrewd thing one can do in present circumstances and it is to be celebrated.

So there is no single meaning in what is happening in London and elsewhere. But there are connections that we can make, and that we should make. We have a major problem with youth unemployment. There have already been cuts in services for young people. State education in poor areas is sometimes shockingly bad. Young people cannot afford adequate private housing and there is a shortage of council-built stock. Economic inequality has reached quite startling levels. All this is the consequence of decisions made by governments and there is little hope of rapid improvement. The same politicians now denouncing the mindless violence of the mob all supported a system of political economy that was as unstable as it was pernicious. They should have known that their policies would lead to disaster. They didn't know. Who then is more mindless?

The global economic crisis is at least as political as the riots we've seen in the last few days. It has lasted far longer and done far more damage. We need not draw a straight line from the decision to bail out the banks to what's going on now in London. But we must not lose sight of what both events tell us about our current condition. Those who want to see law and order restored must turn their attention to a menace that no amount of riot police will disperse; a social and political order that rewards vandalism and the looting of public property, so long as the perpetrators are sufficiently rich and powerful.

And here's the important bit because I know what some of you can be like~

So there is no single meaning in what is happening in London and elsewhere. But there are connections that we can make, and that we should make. We have a major problem with youth unemployment. There have already been cuts in services for young people. State education in poor areas is sometimes shockingly bad. Young people cannot afford adequate private housing and there is a shortage of council-built stock. Economic inequality has reached quite startling levels. All this is the consequence of decisions made by governments and there is little hope of rapid improvement. The same politicians now denouncing the mindless violence of the mob all supported a system of political economy that was as unstable as it was pernicious. They should have known that their policies would lead to disaster. They didn't know. Who then is more mindless?

Blame everybody but the rioters themselves. Then wonder why they think there won't be any consequences to themselves. Yup.

[New Norman England]

Blame everybody but the rioters themselves. Then wonder why they think there won't be any consequences to themselves. Yup.

[AiliailiA]

Oh, Professor Pitts says that! Oh, well I guess I'm just all wet then, if Professor Pitts says so! The great Professor Pitts hath spoken!

Who the Hell is this Professor Pitts anyhow? And the things he describes sound a lot like "just thuggery" to me. He's right about one thing: this is happening because the people doing it know nothing is going to happen to them.

"Prof John Pitts, a criminologist who advises several London local authorities on young people "

Good reading.

But maybe not such good advice, that he gave "several London local authorities".

[Alyakia]

Nothing 'mindless' about rioters

Civil disturbances never have a single, simple meaning. When the Bastille was being stormed the thieves of Paris doubtless took advantage of the mayhem to rob houses and waylay unlucky revolutionaries. Sometimes the thieves were revolutionaries. Sometimes the revolutionaries were thieves. And it is reckless to start making confident claims about events that are spread across the country and that have many different elements. In Britain over the past few days there have been clashes between the police and young people. Crowds have set buildings, cars and buses on fire. Shops have been looted and passersby have been attacked. Only a fool would announce what it all means.

We can dispense with some mistakes, though. It is wrong to say that the riots are apolitical. The trouble began on Saturday night when protesters gathered at Tottenham police station to demand that the police explain the circumstances in which a local man, Mark Duggan, had been shot dead by the police. The death of a Londoner, another black Londoner, at the hands of the police has a gruesome significance. The police are employed to keep the peace and the police shot someone dead. This is a deeply political matter. Besides, it is conventional to say how much policing in London has changed since the Brixton riots of the early eighties - but not many people mouthing the conventional wisdom have much firsthand experience of being young and poor in Britain's inner cities.

More broadly, any breakdown of civil order is inescapably political. Quite large numbers of mostly young people have decided that, on balance, they want to take to the streets and attack the forces of law and order, damage property or steal goods. Their motives may differ - they are bound to differ. But their actions can only be understood adequately in political terms. While the recklessness of adrenaline has something to do with what is happening, the willingness to act is something to be explained. We should perhaps ask them what they were thinking before reaching for phrases like "mindless violence". We might actually learn something.

The fierce conflict remains ahead

The profusion of images that modern technology generates makes it even more difficult to impose a single meaning on a complex event. Those who live in terror of a feral underclass and those who are worried about the impact of fiscal austerity on vulnerable communities can find material online that confirms their world-view. There will be a fierce conflict in the weeks ahead as politicians, commentators and others seek to frame the events of the last few days in ways that serve their wider agenda. The police, for example, will call for increased budgets to deal with the increased risks of civil disorder. In this sense, too, riots are inescapably political events.

There are signs too that technology is allowing individuals to intervene in the process by which meaning is assigned to social events. When disorder broke out in France in 2005 in somewhat similar circumstances the political right was the major beneficiary. Sarkozy's rise from interior minister to president owed a great deal to his role in expressing the anxious aggression of a mass constituency that often lived far away from the burning cars and public buildings.

In London today people were on the streets tidying up the damage. The hashtag #riotcleanup on Twitter is being used by councils and residents to coordinate the work. The decision to act in this way, to make the streets a little more safe, to reclaim them for peaceful sociability, steps away from the temptation to condemn the violence or explain it in terms that inevitably simplify or distort it. Those who come together like this will be less likely to conclude that the country is on the verge of chaos, less likely to call for harsh measures and the further erosion of liberty in the name of security. It is the one shrewd thing one can do in present circumstances and it is to be celebrated.

So there is no single meaning in what is happening in London and elsewhere. But there are connections that we can make, and that we should make. We have a major problem with youth unemployment. There have already been cuts in services for young people. State education in poor areas is sometimes shockingly bad. Young people cannot afford adequate private housing and there is a shortage of council-built stock. Economic inequality has reached quite startling levels. All this is the consequence of decisions made by governments and there is little hope of rapid improvement. The same politicians now denouncing the mindless violence of the mob all supported a system of political economy that was as unstable as it was pernicious. They should have known that their policies would lead to disaster. They didn't know. Who then is more mindless?

The global economic crisis is at least as political as the riots we've seen in the last few days. It has lasted far longer and done far more damage. We need not draw a straight line from the decision to bail out the banks to what's going on now in London. But we must not lose sight of what both events tell us about our current condition. Those who want to see law and order restored must turn their attention to a menace that no amount of riot police will disperse; a social and political order that rewards vandalism and the looting of public property, so long as the perpetrators are sufficiently rich and powerful.

And here's the important bit because I know what some of you can be like~

Blame everybody but the rioters themselves. Then wonder why they think there won't be any consequences to themselves. Yup.

No one is trying to absolve the rioters of blame. Now are you actually going to address the fact that the BBC and Al-Jazeera are saying that the riots have deeper causes in any meanginful way or are you going to keep putting your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALALALALA?

edit: lefty

[Grave_n_idle]

And you say "knock them around a bit". That's punishment, and I consider police dealing out punishment to be utterly unacceptable in a lawful society. It is no more legitimate than one citizen beating up another.

Well, it's slightly more legitimate. They've got badges.

Could you perhaps link to where you said live fire on the rioters would be OK by you?

Your meme called. It said it wants it's LMGTFY back.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&cp=22&gs_i ... 66&bih=674

[Grave_n_idle]

Prof Pitts thinks he's very important, and wants to be heard.

So you're going to completely ignore this criminologist who advises London authorities on youth and gangs because you've decided they're arrogant? Sweet.

No. I'm going to accord some dude saying what he thinks is happening pretty much the same respect that I accord every other dude saying what he thinks is happening.

[Coccygia]

Blame everybody but the rioters themselves. Then wonder why they think there won't be any consequences to themselves. Yup.

No one is trying to absolve the rioters of blame. Now are you actually going to address the fact that the BBC and Al-Jazeera are saying that the riots have deeper causes in any meanginful way or are you going to keep putting your fingers in your ears and going LALALALALALALALA?

edit: lefty

No, because the more I listen to this lefty BS the more I feel like vgivving the rioters a whiff of grapeshot.

And BTW Al-Jazeera says? Wonder what they'd say if this was going on in any Arab country. But that wouldn't happen because the govts there would just break out the machine guns.