On LDV yesterday, Stephen Tall wrote on the causes of the “riots”, concluding:
This was purposeless lawlessness. And there’s little point in blaming today’s current crop of politicians, of whichever hue, for that state. This is a deep-seated problem in our society, a failure of families and community and the economy and politics.
While I would normally agree, I hesitate to do so. There is a great danger in coming to generalised conclusions so early on.
My head is still reeling a bit from the past few days. As John Humphrys said this week, August is normally a very quiet month. This year we have the worst “riots” in a generation and a corker of a financial crisis.
I am having trouble calling these “riots” “riots”. It seems much more apposite to call the disorder “looting” and “arson”. There has not been a single placard in evidence. Of course, not. It is hard to remember a single event like this. I remember these riots:
Brixton, 1981: Protests against social and economic problems
Broadwater farm, 1985: Hostility to police
Toxteth, 1981: Tensions between local police and black community
St Pauls, 1980: Police/black hostility, housing/youth problems
Then you had the Poll Tax riots and earlier this year the Tuition Fee riots.
Without wishing to sound too much like Monty Python’s Four Yorkshiremen, they were proper riots. They had a cause, a bogeyman or bogeywoman, or bogeypeople. Something you could sympathise with to some extent – at least in Guardian reading households (although I hasten to add that nothing will ever justify the horrific killing of PC Keith Blakelock or other violence).
But on the face of it, what we have seen in this past week has been completely different.
It would appear to have been, very simply, multiple crimes.
When we planned a trip to Watford Athletics stadium yesterday we wondered whether there would be riots. “No” I said, “because it’s nowhere near Curry’s or JD Sports.”
Well, that sums it up doesn’t it?
I still don’t understand completely how such widespread looting and vandalism spread all over the country (with notable exceptions – Glasgow, for example – which may be down to the Strathclyde Police force acclaimed policy on gang culture).
That is why I feel there should a full investigation into the episode before we jump to conclusions.
Before we start to collectively flail ourselves, blaming the parents, the youth of today or the “left wing”, we need to have a cool, calm, forensic analysis of how, hour by hour, the events unfolded and the motivation of the specific individuals involved.
There are a host of learnings from this new sub-type of disorder. I am particularly concerned to ensure that social networks and mobile phones can never again be used on such a scale to organise criminal theft and violence. And we need to understand the extent to which the police “public order” approach, of the first couple of days, exacerbated the situation.
This is not a puzzle that can be solved by quick generalisations. This was multiple crime. The methods of its execution and co-ordination need to be properly unpicked and understood in great detail.
We should not tend to approach this as riots born out of social hardship, although that may be part of the conclusion. We should approach this as crime, pure and simple, the genesis of which needs to be scientifically understood.
This is new territory. We need to chart it wisely.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A swamp of lies and disinformation
The mysterious mole men of New York caught on video
Doing better? The goal must be Sufficeincy
Michael Meadowcroft (1942-2026) - A Liberal to His Core
Jamie Dobson
Mick Taylor
Tristan Ward
Peter Martin
Rob Heale
36 Comments
Leave the social networks alone.
If you respond to this by arguing to restrict The People’s ability to communicate ideas, then you are taking a reckless swan-dive off the moral high ground.
“That is why I feel there should a full investigation into the episode before we jump to conclusions.” Conclusions like “We should approach this as crime, pure and simple …”?
“This is not a puzzle that can be solved by quick generalisations. This was multiple crime.” That looks pretty damn quick to me!
“This is new territory. We need to chart it wisely.” But before we deploy wisdom, we should “ensure that social networks and mobile phones can never again be used on such a scale to organise criminal theft and violence.”
I think one thing can be said for certain. We have, or are becoming, a consumer based society where little holds a higher place than wealth and the consumer products it brings.
In previous times higher values held sway, but now wealth determines rank, directly or indirectly, rather than inner worth – if this continues, there is a very bleak future ahead.
I do not like your comment about social networks. Most illiberal.
@Sid fair comment. I was seeking to balance some of the opposite conclusions already drawn but I am perfectly happy to stand corrected by an inquiry.
@Louise and @Rob Stradling: I am not suggesting touching the social networks or “restricting The People’s ability to communicate ideas”. I am utterly staggered that you drew this conclusion from what I wrote. I was obviously stupidly careless in my choice of words. What I wrote was:
“I am particularly concerned to ensure that social networks and mobile phones can never again be used on such a scale to organise criminal theft and violence.”
That does mean switching off Twitter or Facebook or mobile phone networks or impeding legal use of those networks in any shape or form.
What I am talking about is the legal, sophisticated use of the internet and mobile phone networks to detect and prevent crime (in the same way that landline phone networks are used to detect and prevent crime).
For example, during the riots, the police identified the geo-location of suspected miscreants using data packet pinging of BBM accounts. Vodafone instigated the Ac**** protocol in some towns which made contact between groups on the streets almost impossible in riot areas.
Those are the sort of highly pin-pointed, selective and legal methods I am advocating. I am totally opposed to “turning off Twitter” or impeding free speech at all.That would be ridiculous and unnecessary.
Observation. There were two sets of riots. The second set is the one we’re concentrating, and these were prompted by a clear demonstration that the Police were overstretched. They started in Tottenham Hale retail park, spread to Wood Green, then onto Enfield and the rest of London.
Concentrating on these widespread criminal acts distracts from the clearly, disticntly different riot. The one that showed the police were overstretched.
The one that started as a vigil outside a police station in protest at a shooting, that became a fractious crowd waiting for a statement from a senior officer that never came, and then became a riot. Why did it become a riot?
Because 15 police officers beat a 16 year old girl to the ground and beat the crap out of her.
That’s what sparked the first riot. The rest of them were opportunistic looting. But we’re finding it very easy to ignore the first one now as it happened so close to, and at the same time, as the looting.
I’ve seen very little comment about this after it was first reported. Are we going to let the police officers off scott free after the mess they caused?
@MatGB Extremely good point. I would have thought there will be (or certainly ought to be) an IPCC enquiry into the whole series of events in Tottenham that night.
Thanks for the clarification, as I think it should be clarified. You’ve actually said “does” in your follow up comment when I think you mean “doesn’t”., by the context of your follow up comment.
“That does mean switching off Twitter or Facebook or mobile phone networks or impeding legal use of those networks in any shape or form.”
However, it doesn’t matter, people will find another way of communicating, but it is badly managed by the PM, sounds like Egypt, and we as liberals should be talking more about the rights of the innocent and making sure authoritarian measures aren’t taken purely for the “sake of doing something”.
I am not sure about those who already commented on your mobile / Twitter etc remarks, but despite your words on how to make this more “selective” and “targeted”, Paul, I do not believe that ultimately you will be able to construct a system that does what you suggest without compromising the freedom of the networks concerned.
I think there should be an inquiry, and we should not go into it with too many preconceptions. Thanks Mat for your reminder of that young girl being beaten in the wake of the Mark Duggan protest. Far too many people seem to take the attitude that if someone has been associated with gangs that immediately they, or anyone associated with them forfeits any right to dignity, human rights or anything. That is certainly an illiberal attitude.
@Sid Cumberland
““This is not a puzzle that can be solved by quick generalisations. This was multiple crime.” That looks pretty damn quick to me!”
Mind you, with 1600 arrests so far (with another 1,000 minimum expected, according to a senior police officer on the BBC), 500 cases heard in court and several hundred people remanded in custody, it seems a fairly safe guess to assume that some crime has occurred in here.
There does not seem to be an appetite to discuss, what I see to be, the root cause of these riots [and much else that ails us] – that consumerism championed by its high priestess M Thatcher and high priest R Murdoch has been successfully implanted into the UK psyche [and nothing is of greater import] as it has in the US. This cult is now eagerly supported and reinforced by the global corporations.
A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.
Thomas Paine
@Louise Shaw Thank you for pointing out my typo. Yes, I did mean “doesn’t”. I am being very careless with my worms today!
Totally agree. Apart from anything else, as you suggest, turning off Twitter would achieve nothing as well being a gross breach of free speech. Crime prevention and detection can normally be much more successful by using the “give them enough rope and they’ll hang themselves” method (although I am not advocating hanging!) – in other words, if suspected miscreants are allowed to carry on communicating and are monitored (legally) then this normally leads to much more fruitful crime detection and prevention, as opposed to just turning off the mode of communication – which, as you quite rightly say, will just make them find some other mode of communication. There are, after all, endless messaging systems available.
The initial spur seemed to be poor police and local community relations. After that other factors kicked in. A lot of these areas have been left in the political wilderness, so it’s sort of logical that the action would be a-political and self-interested. because the participants were a-political and self interested. Some of it was simply down to the fact that some boys like to do reckless stupid things and saw an opportunity to do them, plus get a load of free stuff in the process. Relative poverty certainly did play a part, as did ” race ” (in speech marks because I don’t like the term, but can’t think pf a less loaded word), social class and even the weather possibly had a role.
The police response was slow and that made it look easier to get away with. I don’t think this was anything to do with the individual police officers, who looked like soldiers in an army waiting for orders that weren’t being given..
Paul – yes, there was undoubtedly crime involved. I have a problem with your instant judgement that nothing else was involved (“It would appear to have been, very simply, multiple crimes.”).
I also have a problem with your suggestion that no placards = no riots. For me, placards = demo rather than riot.
I think everyone should read this article, from someone I normally disagree with:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/peteroborne/100100708/the-moral-decay-of-our-society-is-as-bad-at-the-top-as-the-bottom/
Politicians are a big part of this problem. People like Jeremy Hunt steal £20K from the public purse and his “punishment” is a slap on the wrist and repayment. He even gets to keep his job. A stupid looter who nicked a £3.50 bottle of water is now in prison for 6 months. Wandsworth council is moving to evict an entire family for the crimes of one child BEFORE anyone has been found guilty. If it was Labour doing this, you’d be screaming to high heaven but since it’s your Tory Friends doing it, many LibDems are either supporting it or just keeping quiet.
Those of us on the bottom see politicians stealing and getting off lightly. We see finance capital which crashed the economy and those people got even higher bonuses. We see the press engaged in massive criminality. We see a corrupt police force who is in bed with said media. We see a Prime Minster who considers Coulson and Brooks to be two of his “closest friends” who deserve “second chances” (his words).
Our country is rotten from the very bottom to the very top. And making the market more free, letting the rich avoid more tax, and curtailing even more civil liberties will only make the problem worse. To hell with all politicians of all parties. The Houses of Commons should be cleaned out and replaced with decent citizens who actually care about their communities rather than enriching themselves.
Tim13: “I do not believe that ultimately you will be able to construct a system that does what you suggest without compromising the freedom of the networks concerned.”
Whether that matters though depends on the circumstances.
For instance – being very specific here – if the police had had the power to shut down the Blackberry messaging network in the vicinity of Manchester on Tuesday night, then it appears quite likely that the rioters would not have been as well oranised and the police may have prevented at least some of the damage. The actual loss of “freedom” involved would have been incredibly trivial, especially as there would have been numerous other channels of communication available which would have been just as useful for legitimate use (but not nearly as useful for the criminals). Police routinely take away all sorts of freedoms – e.g. the freedom to enter certain areas when an incident or investigation is taking place – and nobody complains too much about that. Stopping people sending inane messages on their Blackberries for a few hours seems a much more trivial loss of freedom than that, so what would be the big deal?
(We need a sense of proportion here. Cameron refers to tentatively looking into some sorts of conrols in special circumstances and people start going on as if he’s threatening China-style censorship.)
This was a riot – a number of riots. It didn’t have to have a coherent message or placards. Happy, contented people do not burn down buildings or attempt to maim or kill people, even in the absence of police. There are many reasons why the riots happened and multiple reasons why different individuals participated. But you are right, a deeper analysis is needed and that should involve talking to those who participated.
I note that there has been a backlash against Sky News for interviewing four teenagers who were involved in looting, although it appears they were not involved in violence against police or others nor arson – I think we need to separate out the different crimes committed to establish different reasons. Unless we listen, we’re not going to make sense of what happened and prevent it from happening again. One young man, who predicted the riots a week before they happened and was not involved, has said they will happen again due to a lack of opportunity and a lack of anything to do: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/12/riot-predict-trouble-not-over
Let’s start taking such people seriously. And as Liberal Democrats, instead of looking at people as potential voters, instead see them as fellow, equal citizens – not matter their class, colour, religion or age – who we need to support to make something of their lives. For me, that is liberalism. Take off the rosettes, go to the estates and ask people who don’t vote or don’t speak up what they want. Some councillors do this, but a lot more needs to be done.
Daniel Brett: “a lack of anything to do”
Daniel, have YOU ever suffered from a lack of anything to do?
When I was a teenager, if the days had been ten times longer I still wouldn’t have had time to do all the things I wanted to do. This was despite the fact that I never set foot inside a youth club once (never even knew where one was), and had far less money and vastly fewer possessions than today’s kids have.
There are a million “things to do”, and the vast majority of youths are doing them, every single day. The ones who cause trouble are not short of other options; they do what they do because they want to.
Paul – I like this piece very much, but are we really in totally new territory? Isn’t it just more highly televised territory?
As a young adult my late grandmother lived in East London during the Blitz. She was by nature the stereotypical cheerful eastender and looked on the bright side about human nature (born Liberal!) but she spoke to me in no uncertain terms about the amount of looting that went on during the war when people had the opportunity. Looting not just of staples (which in the dire circumstances of the time one could understand) but of luxuries and antiques and things that people just took a fancy to.
There’s a line in Arnold Wesker’s play “Chicken Soup with Barley” about an East London family when the matriarch speaks witheringly about someone who was so hapless he didn’t “even” make money during the war – the implication being that many people did.
Stuart: That’s all very well, but why did these riots happen? “they do what they do because they want to” explains nothing.
@sid cumberland you’re rght. I am tending to revise my view after watching young Voters Question Time. However, the extent and speed of the spread of the rioting (ok) needs careful understanding from a pure investigative point of view – that’s aside from background factors, which also need attention. Forgive me, this article was written pretty soon after the event and I am still learning, reading, listening about it and revising my view.
One of the most interesting questions is : “why weren’t there any riots in Glasgow?” historically it would one of the firstaffected. We need to understand mre whether Strathclyde Police force’s anti gang work coud ave helped if implemented elsewhere.
in an earlier reply I said something about a lot of the people from the areas involved being a-political. I think I was falling into the trap of being dismissive. It’s easy to forget that people don’t conform to stereotypes. For the last few years anyone who has picked up a newspaper or watched the news or looked at blogs would have seen plenty of things that degrade and belittle those on low incomes or in social housing, this includes people in that situation. When they are presented with gloating politicians and TV talking heads discussing plans to make them poorer and homeless or are bombarded with gutter language about scum and Chavs is it not conceivable that this leads to a climate of fear and anger?
It truth it has become incredibly unfashionable and politically damaging to say anything out of step with an agenda of depicting the economically disadvantaged as a vicious morally vacuous, sub-human group of criminals, scroungers and wasters who can only parrot vague political phrases spoon fed to them by do-gooders. Maybe it’s time we realised that the press has lost it’s power and we don’t have to toe that line anymore.
Remember the MSC Napoli, the cargo ship that was beached in South Devon washing containers of consumer goods onto the shore?
Of course I’m making no direct comparison with recent events. It would be tasteless to do so. When, however, I heard a radio report of a family loading their car with groceries from a smashed in supermarket I was reminded of the scenes on Branscombe beach. Not too many urban youth but a rampant opportunism and a desire to get snouts in troughs combined with a collective disregard for law and authority.
My point? I’m not saying a nihilistic “rioter” with no thought for others safety lies within us all. I am saying that given the right circumstances there is a surprisingly broad section of society that will happily disregard the law in pursuit of a something for nothing.
@Kevin Colwill:
. I am saying that given the right circumstances there is a surprisingly broad section of society that will happily disregard the law in pursuit of a something for nothing.
—
I do agree with a lot of what you are saying. Not only that, but those at the top have the money and influence to allow them to lead a life that is nearly a separate world. Here is an example: it is actually legal for hedge traders to place bets on the success or otherwise of other companies and, thus, the performance of said company is no longer the only determining factor of their success. It is legal for people to bet on, and make money from, the cost of essential human needs such as food. This, to me, as someone who is disabled & works for a charity making very little, is disgusting in the extreme. Finance capital has created this parallel world where millions of people’s jobs, homes, futures and life chances and indeed entire economies rest on adrenaline and cocaine-fueled traders. And when these people mess up and the entire economy collapses, they lose their jobs at worst and just sign on with a different bank. At best they keep their jobs and even get larger bonuses.
I am sorry but how can anyone morally justify actions like this? Because of these suspected sociopaths, we are nor cutting back from the poorest, instead of increasing the burden on the richest. Do you have any idea how angry a large part of the population feels towards politicians of all stripes?
Kevin: The right circumstances also enabled MPs to abuse their expenses and for policemen to take bribes from News International and the Mirror. What’s galling is the fact that the same people pretend that they are somehow different from the looters. They aren’t. Yes, the desire to take at an opportunity when accountability is absent exists in many of us, as is the ability to be savage if we’re pushed far enough. People should not think that violent tribalism is somehow restricted to Africans and Arabs and no-one should gloat that their society is somehow superior because mass unrest hasn’t happened yet. Humans are humans, but let’s look at the root causes of violence and robbery instead of fooling ourselves that this is the work of “mindless scum”.
Daniel: “Stuart: That’s all very well, but why did these riots happen? “they do what they do because they want to” explains nothing.”
I am not suggesting that this explains the motivations of every single person involved in the riots. It is clear that there were a broad range of people involved, from just about every part of society, and some may have had different reasons. (For example it appears that much of the disturbance was orchestrated by known gangsters.)
But we have no reason to doubt that many of the rioters were doing it simply for the fun of it. We know this because many of the rioters themselves, and sympathisers within their communities, have told us so quite frankly in interviews during the hours and days after the riots. We have numerous eye witness accounts from people who have told us that the rioters were openly revelling in what they were doing. A London hair salon owner interviewed on Newsnight told how the looters mocked her because she was fearful of them; we were told that this was a regular characteristic of the looting.
When it comes to seeking social justice and improving the lot of young people in our disadvantaged communities, I stand shoulder to shoulder with you. That has always been my number one motivation throughout my political life. But for some people, you just have to accept that they do what they do because they are bad people. Sometimes the simple explanations are entirely satisfactory. More to the point, it is these kinds of people, much more than government, who are blighting the day to day lives of decent people who live within their communities. I know, I’ve lived it. If Liberals genuinely care about improving the life of people in these areas, then they ought to spend a little more time condemning the troublemakers and less time making excuses for them.
Daniel: “What’s galling is the fact that the same people pretend that they are somehow different from the looters. They aren’t.”
In a sense I totally agree with you on this point. I can’t see any moral difference whatsoever between, say, a rich MP fiddling his expenses, and an opportunist who casually walks through a smashed window and nabs some loot.
But we have to acknowledge that where the looter was involved in any kind of violence or intimidation – from smashing the window, to mocking the victims – then that puts them in a whole different category.
I don’t think we are in new territory at all.
I think a lot of us are guilty of using a single umbrella term ‘rioting’ to describe a variety of clear and different public order offences, which include organised criminality, opportunist burglary, pyromania, thuggery, crowd violence, disorderly political protest, anarchic conspiracy, subversion and a range of other forms each of which have different effects but combine and evolve in relation to events on the ground as they unfold. There was rioting, but the whole scene amounts to a confused and disordered picture.
As a consequence we confuse ourselves by simplifying matters in an attempt to provide comprehensible answers and find a way forward politically.
Nobody hopes to end chaos by diving into the turmoil and stirring it up again, the way to make sense is to step back and allow due process take over (ensuring the processes function smoothly). That means having faith in the law of the land and supporting the forces of the law (Police, courts and the justice system).
@squeedle
“Our country is rotten from the very bottom to the very top.”
I could not agree less. There are always pockets of rottenness at different levels of society, but that is absolutely no reason for pessimism or the abandonment of principle. Just because one or two apples are infected, would you really upset the whole applecart?
It also makes me question where you fit into your own analysis. If you were correct, then your ideas must be ‘rotten’ too – and therefore we shouldn’t take you seriously.
Stuart: If you want to go beyond condemnation to sorting the situation out so that it doesn’t happen again, then you have to understand the motivation. Why did some find it enjoyable? I’ve been in demonstrations that have led to conflict with the police and I think the enjoyment of destruction comes from a feeling of empowerment.
Sky News’ interview with four looters was interesting. Some of the shops they targeted had turned them down for work and they felt frustrated that, despite their best efforts, they couldn’t get a job or even a polite reply saying their application had been turned down. So they trashed the place and stole. They got one over on people they feel humiliated them. They also made £2,000 (a great deal of money for them, but the fraction of the cost of a living room suite claimed on MPs’ expenses – legal looting by powerful people) and kept some items for themselves, like nappies for the 16-year-old looter’s baby.
The rioters and looters have been condemned as “mindless” and Paul and others deny there is anything political in the unrest. I don’t think there was anything mindless and I think there was a great deal of politics. The looters interviewed by Sky were asked what the government could do to change the situation and prevent further unrest. The answers were to restore the EMA in full, abolish tuition fees and give further support to single mothers. I don’t think that these were the sole causes of the riots by any means; there are generational problems in the inner cities that even Labour’s “engagement and cohesion” policies have not resolved. But government policies have heightened the sense of frustration and Lib Dems are a part of that government.
Daniel: I actually agree with a great deal of what you say. I just think it’s far too simplistic to claim that deprivation is a major motivating factor here.
As I mentioned the other day, one of the first looters convicted in Manchester was an 18 year old lad who went home from his job in town, changed out of his work clothes, then headed back to town to join in the mayhem. How do you explain that? He may have only working in a call centre, but that’s not bad at all for an 18 year old with few qualifications. (I’m a graduate and I didn’t manage to get what I would call a proper job until I was nearly 30!) This lad had a plenty big enough stake in society, but it made no difference to him.
Ultimately, our young people have indeed been let down very badly by society, but this runs so much deeper than just economic deprivation. Too many young people have been raised without a sense of right and wrong, and this is a far greater burden for them to bear in the long run than the lack of a job. We can eradicate financial deprivation in an instant by writing a cheque; dealing witrh “moral deprivation” is much more hard. And I’m afraid to say that making excuses for these people isn’t going to help them, either. The message we need to be sending to the young people involved in the riots is that their behaviour was utterly wrong and unjustifiable and will not be tolerated; but that if they start to do the right things, then we as a society will do whatever is necessary to give them the opportunities they deserve.
Because at the end of the day, the right for young people to work, make a meaningful contribution to society, and be brought up properly ought to be of much greater concern to us than the right to use Blackberries 24/7 365 days of the year.
Stuart: I am not making excuses, I’m trying to find reasons. I can’t account for every individual’s motivations. No-one can. Given the diversity of motivations, there will have to be a range of solutions put forward. I think you would agree with me that these riots will not be solved by a short discussion on a blog.
David Cameron is to recruit Bill Bratton, the former New York police chief, to advise him on dealing with the riots. Bratton said: “You can’t arrest your way out of the problem. Arrest is certainly appropriate for the most violent, the incorrigible, but so much of it can be addressed in other ways and it’s not just a police issue, it is in fact a societal issue.” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14514429 I think there is an acknowledgement, even from some senior police officers, that locking people up alone will not work. But any government programme or range of programmes will cost money.
For the immediate future , I am rather taken by David Ruffley’s idea of a Police Reserve: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8695585/Three-steps-that-will-transform-our-police.html.
It seems pretty inarguable that emergency reserves would have been useful.
As for all these complaints about social deprivation etc, I can’t help but think that these areas have been famously high unemployment areas for a generation or more. If people there really want to find work so much, they should be able to move to areas with lower unemployment and lower rents. Are the inhabitants of central London chained in place? Is it really that hard to move to the suburbs?
Ad: Great idea, ad. So where are these areas with low unemployment and low rents? And given that many are living in council housing, presumably the residents of these Utopian areas of low unemployment and low housing costs will be enthusiastically allowing their countryside to be paved over with new town developments. Living near Harlow, I know that is a load of nonsense.
A lot of people are talking about the need for youngsters to work hard and get on. But couldn’t it just be that another part of the puzzle is that the absence of a legitimate economy in some of these areas has simply fed an illegal economy. You can’t buy designer trainers on dole money.
You forgot the Bradford riots of 2001. Many of the rioters were picked up from photo and video records afterwards and given tough prison sentences. There were no riots in Bradford this time.